Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Should discussion of the controversy over her stated Native American ancestry be in its own subsection?

• Depends Is it a crime to steal opportunities from real native americans? Is it a crime worse than grand theft auto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.151.125 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The issue needs a subsection. This is a huge part of Warren's public image. The criticism of her claim to be a racial minority/Native is persistently newsworthy. Almost everyone on the Right (not just Trump) criticizes her for it, but criticism is not limited to them. Trevor Noah, Think Progress and a liberal commentator at USA Today have also offered critical commentary lately. The discussion of the issue goes well beyond the 2012 campaign and belongs in a sub-section under "career" or "early life, education, and family." Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reworded the RFC question to make much more sense; not only is it more clearly worded, but it doesn't lead to the counterintuitive "no means yes" situation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This not only lacks an {{rfc}} template but it is not in RfC format. Per WP:RFC, it is not an RfC, and I have removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, for all the reasons propounded above on this page. It's notable. YoPienso (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• No Controversy sections are inherently bad style. Controversies should be presented where they occur, in this case in Warren's senatorial campaign and Trump's comments. We might however have a section about Warren and native Americans that explains both her claims to Indian ethnicity and her positions on native affairs. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It may be your personal opinion that "controversy sections are inherently bad style," but we have over 20,000 articles with controversy or criticism sections, and the template page for tagging NPOV sections says:

"This template is meant for articles with Criticism, Controversy or similarly-titled sections that segregate a series of negative details into one section.

Note that criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality." YoPienso (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

How many of them have good article status? "Not prohibited by policy" does not mean it's good style. The essay, Criticism explains the problems with using these sections. It's not how respected writers write. It doesn't seem to be necessary in the article about Charles Manson, although he attracted more criticism than Warren. We have to decide whether we want to write a neutral article or use it as a platform for scoring political points. TFD (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not gonna search through 20,000 articles to see which have GA status. Andrew Jackson (not a GA) has "Planting career and controversy," and Richard Nixon, a FA, "Reelection, Watergate scandal, and resignation."

The essay "Criticism" is just opinion.

Charles Manson? Seriously? Apples to oranges. He is known solely for being evil. Warren is a U.S. senator who, being human, once did something controversial that opponents latched onto. That controversy continues to be an important part of her public image, and so merits naming and inclusion in this article.

Now, if you object to the sub-section title, "Controversy" or "Criticism," simply call it "Self-identity as Native American." YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, YES, this article needs a sub-section over the controversy surrounding Warren's listing of herself as a member of an ethnic minority. We owe that to our casual readers who come here to find out what the fuss is about. YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is that criticism sections come across as agitprop that one would not expect to find in a well-written article. It gives the entire article the appearance of bias, so that readers would question its accuracy. And it shows the idiocy of American politics where the argument is about personal misdemeanors rather than issues. TFD (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• No Just another right-wing effort to score partisan points through WikiControversy(tm).MarkBernstein (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It's not a right-wing issue among Native American people; it concerns issues of self-representation and sovereignty: the rights of tribal peoples to define who does and doesn't have the right to claim Native identity, and who has the right to speak for Native peoples and issues. Here is another opinion piece from several Native journalists on the issue, this time on CNN: Warren should apologize to Native Americans. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• No - No showing of any need for a subsection. The questioning of her heritage by a political opponent (Scott Brown) and the racially charged "Pocahontas" disparagement (Trump) are already noted in the article, in proper context. Creation of a subsection is unnecessary and, in fact, poor style. (Also, the claim that this is somehow a "huge part of Warren's public image and notability" is laughable. Warren is notable as a U.S. Senator, as an advocate of banking regulation, and as the leading figure behind the creation of the CFPB. Not for Twitter-feed disparagement or failed campaign attacks.) Neutrality^talk 04:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're conflating Warren's achievements with her public image. YoPienso (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any empirical evidence showing that Warren's "public image" is dominated by this? Neutrality^talk 02:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say her public image is dominated by or even a huge part of her public image, and much less of her notability. I said that the "controversy continues to be an important part of her public image." Now I would change "important" to "notable," and point out it was notable four years (one election cycle) before Pres. Trump nicknamed her "Pocahontas."

By "empirical evidence," I assume you mean if can I show by reliable sources that the controversy is notable enough to include in this article. Yes.

Here's one older RS: "Warren’s politics rooted in academe," in the Boston Globe, Aug. 19, 2012. It says: "Her unorthodox career trajectory has been scrutinized since she became a candidate for Senate, particularly after the revelation that for years she had listed herself as a Native American in a professional directory often used by law school recruiters." That scrutiny helped shape her public image.

FactCheck.org thoroughly examined and documented "Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Pocahontas’ Controversy."

PolitiFact researched and reported the controversy.

Warren herself reiterates her Native American heritage on p. 9 of A Fighting Chance, and discusses the controversy on pp. 239-42.

I could fill the page with RSs on this controversy, as I suppose you know. All we have to do is decide if the widespread coverage should be tucked away in the campaign section where it's not readily found, or put in its own section where the general public--who know nothing of talk pages--can quickly find accurate information. YoPienso (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I have to think that a lot of readers come to this article looking for information regarding this issue (as I just did 5 minutes ago). Having the information hidden throughout the article rather than in its own section that is easily identifiable in the table of contents makes this article less usable for the reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• No. Already in article and she hasn't claimed it in years. Cher and Loretta Lynn have claimed to be Cherokee numerous times, yet their pages don't have a separate section for their claims.Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and should not join the smear campaign. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

No. The discussion is already in the article; it's well cited. She hasn't reiterated the claim. For this to be news, new developments would have to occur (like her claiming Delaware/Cherokee heritage again or for new research to emerge), not her political detractors bringing it up at every possible moment. I'm Native American and can clearly see this is a non-issue because she has stopped making her claims. Yuchitown (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

Did you see just above where I noted she reiterated the claim in her 2014 book? This was after the 2012 election brouhaha. And she mentioned it again on p. 224 of her 2017 book, This Fight is Our Fight. It's a more nuanced statement, referring to "what our family had told my brothers and me about our Native American ancestry." She cites it to pp. 230-42 of A Fighting Chance. No, Warren isn't caving to bullies. YoPienso (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yuchitown, with all due respect and affection, I unbolded your second "no" because you !voted twice. Warren does reiterate her fake heritage claims, regularly, especially in her Massachusetts fundraising attempts. In the recent debacle after Trump insulted the Codetalkers, she brought it up yet again. Because she knows it works in MA. She has also had Rachel Maddow repeatedly claim on her behalf that Trump attacks Warren because Trump is "racist" against Warren, due to Warren's (fake) "heritage." (Trump's racism is a whole other issue. But Warren is white.) It is Warren who makes this an ongoing issue by exploiting blood myths while rejecting all dialogue with actual Native people. She continues to claim blood myths when they suit her, while not even using her platform to advocate for Indigenous issues like the pipeline fights, and she has never apologized to the Native people she's harmed and continues to harm by promoting colonial blood myths over indigenous sovereignty. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• No. Strong 'NO' because of policy on WP:WEIGHT and how to organize material between parent and child articles, as detailed in Wikipedia:Summary style. Material in that section is already overweight. It should be trimmed as the material is already treated in the daughter article United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. Per policy, only a short summary should be left here. --LK (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• No - It's not a significant current issue or part of her life, beyond a small fringe right-wing echo chamber that we're not obligated to give more space just because they're noisy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Only current issues are allowed? I think policy and guidelines lean in exactly the opposite direction: notable historical issues are included; current issues not so much, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. It's a large enough part of her life that she's included it in at least two books. YoPienso (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's allowed in the encyclopedia - nobody is suggesting that all mention be removed. But the weight you believe should be put on the issue exceeds what I believe is due weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• No Actually this section needs to be trimmed to a couple of sentences with further information included in the 2012 election article. As it is the Native American episode is almost as long or longer than any section discussing her career or accomplishments. I'd suggest an RfC to discuss removing most of the information to the election article if it's not there already. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Unfortunately the issue is a theme running through many aspects of here biography: Is it part of her identity? Did she benefit? Is it supported by genetics or just a family story? It is mentioned in relation to both her Senate campaign and political future. Trump may create the most buzz, but Native Americans are also unhappy with her claim, which she has not openly addressed. I am sure there are other opinions in addition to the Rebecca Nagle article already cited. Personally, I would also like to be able to dismiss this as right-wing bias, but cannot. I am not unfamiliar with the difficulties of addressing Native issues, having worked on many articles on the Native American mascot controversy, bringing two to GA status. I avoid BLP's as being even more problematical than political controversies, but came across Nagle's article in researching her participation in the Washington Redhawks and wondered if it had been addressed here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More Native opinions:

• Simon Moya-Smith
• April Youpee-Roll
• Margo "Kickingbird" DeLaune & Cole R. DeLaune

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The holidays will likely mean there will be few additional votes until next year. Who decides that consensus has been reached? Who is drafting the new content?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Her claims based on blood myth are a direct threat on indigenous sovereignty. Her standing firm on debunked claims sets precedent for every other individual with disproven blood myths to carry on playing indian. Nevertheless she may have persisted but for goodness sake she had Greg Grey Cloud arrested for singing an honor song in the gallery (but the guy from Hamilton could belt out show tunes and not face arrest when he was lobbying for the Arts). This goes to she her lack of any connection or level of respect for the culture she claims. Besides, it's not who you claim, it's who claims you. If it were not for her ridiculous claims steeped in exoticism she would not have supplied her rivals with racist fodder. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree that the issue needs a subsection, in particular since her on-again, off-again claiming to be Native American jibes closely with her quest for professional advancement. The most thorough discussion online I've found is at FactCheck.org, with the title, "Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Pocahontas’ Controversy." Far from being a political slam, the FactCheck article does offer exonerating testimony, so it is at least impartial, and is replete with cited sources. Wikipedia should do no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfhosford (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes her heritage seems to be a big part of her public image, attracts lots of attention and publicity, it's big enough to have it's own section. The fact that in this case subject at hand just happened to be controversial does not mean anything nor should it be an argument against such section.--Nomad (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per Neutrality. It's discussed where it is relevant. It would be WP:UNDUE to cover it more simply because her political enemies promote the story relentlessly for partisan benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes the only reason I came to her article in the first place was to learn more about this controversy. It is extremely relevant and is routinely mentioned in mainstream news outlets. There are people are against it having a section because they support her and there are people who are for it because they are against her. But what about the people that are pursuing greater knowledge and understanding of a particular subject? Surely such a section could exist in an unbiased way that merely present the available facts without a partisan angle? I don't know much about Warren's controversy other than it is the only reason I even know who she is, and it is ridiculous that there is not a section about such a prominent aspect of the subject an article and its omission undermines the integrity of every other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely - This issue has been raised, addressed, re-raised, re-addressed, and has had significant coverage in a variety of publications. Both anti- and pro-Warren politicos have chimed in about it. This certainly deserves its own subsection more than something like Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories deserves its own article. -- Veggies (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• No per policy. The material is already easily found and covered in the appropriate subsection (2012 election antics) of this article. (And it is already replicated in its own section yet again here.) Subsequent attempts to gin up controversy by regurgitating the old issue, as in the case of the bigoted name-calling in 2016, should likewise be covered in their appropriate subsections (2016 election antics, etc.), if at all. Transparent attempts to artificially inflate the matter even further with separate headers and sections is a violation of one of our core pillar policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? The exclusion of the section is itself a transparent attempt to obscure and downplay a highly relevant issue. I can only speculate as to motivation behind preventing a section dedicated to an objective and impartial analysis of the controversy, but it is likely that those biased towards Warren may fear the political consequences in the event the truth of the matter doesn't reaffirm their presuppositions - a violation of pillar two. However, I would suggest that those who think keeping this information fragmented and inaccessible will ultimately lead to the Streisand_effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd that you would cite "pillar two" to support your desire to convey "the truth of the matter", when pillar two explicitly instructs you to present "accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". […] Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Maybe pay closer attention to the policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Odd that you would rely on a semantic dispute to support your position... oh wait, that isn't odd at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• NO - It goes against Wikipedia's policy! Always a liberal bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.13.254 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes This has been international news for at least two years now and still attracts a massive amount of interest. I dare say people will forever associate the Native American controversy with Senator Warren. There is a way to add a new section which is evenly balanced. Those voting 'no' need to search their conscience and ask themselves whether their bias is intruding. MicheleFloyd (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes-It's not a one-time wrangle but a major controversy that's popped up repeatedly for years now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes This is too controversial to be swept under the rug. Elizabeth Warren has made this a big issue herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzbdZuVyAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Per WP:DUE. This has received enough coverage for a subsection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – The story has attracted attention and coverage several times along her life, not the least because she brought it up repeatedly. A full section is due. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances Please read the arguments presented by the involved editors to find how logical they may be. Please also see above, "Revisiting Native American section" Please add to these lists as they develop. YoPienso (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC) I'm attempting to add a brief summary of each argument. Please AGF and edit your argument if you feel I've misrepresented it. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Opposing adding a separate subsection to highlight the Native American controversy Muboshgu--1. It's just a campaign issue. 2. "Wikipedia is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed." TFD--"Controversy sections are inherently bad style." Mark Bernstein--"Just another right-wing effort to score partisan points through WikiControversy(tm)." Neutrality-- already included in article; subsection is unnecessary and poor style Yuchitown — No. Read the archives: this has been hashed over and over. Lawrencekhoo--against policy: WP:WEIGHT. NorthBySouthBaranof--not a significant current issue Power~enwiki--"per Neutrality" I don't care for this summation of opinions and I've removed my name. Perhaps I've missed them, but isn't this an unusual addition to a RfC? Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) @Gandydancer: That's certainly your prerogative. Is this an RfC? Early on it was declared not to be and no one objected: *Comment - This not only lacks an {{rfc}} template but it is not in RfC format. Per WP:RFC, it is not an RfC, and I have removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC). I started this because I got lost in all the threads and comments and dialog and just wanted a simple summary. I thought other people might appreciate that, too. YoPienso (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Xenophrenic-- Every election season we can expect detractors to renew attempts to unduly highlight old "controversy" content in articles with additional headers, sub-headers and separate sections -- and no doubt neon lights and balloons, if Wikipedia supported them. It is already logically located and well-covered in multiple areas, so the efforts to inflate it are transparent. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Supporting adding a separate subsection to highlight the Native American controversy Steeletrap--It's "newsworthy--as measured by RS." It's "a genuine controversy." SunCrow--It's "a huge part of Warren's public image and notability." E.M.Gregory--1. "Massive . . . news coverage" 2. We need to provide the info for readers. 3. It's not just a campaign issue, but "has now resurfaced many times." IP 149.171.146.202--an Australian seeks/requests more info--Notes that it's OK to omit POTUS's insults while reporting on the issue. Marteau--"It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent." YoPienso--I said for all those reasons, and reiterated that it's notable. Added Dec. 4: The controversy long predates Trump's insults. CorbieVreccan--refuting Mark Bernstein's assertion that the issue is "right wing". Issue is not partisan. It concerns issues of Native American rights to self-representation and the broader issue of Indigenous Sovereignty, as explained in Rebecca Nagle's "I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not." and the background pieces linked therein. Rreagan007--like the IP, he came here to find info, and argues that "information hidden throughout the article . . . makes this article less usable for the reader." WriterArtistDC--it cannot be dismissed as right-wing bias. Indigenous girl--Warren continues to make the claim of Native ancestry when it benefits her, but does not support Native causes.

• Whatever we do, it doesn't deserve damn near 1,000 words to describe the issue. GMG^talk 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• I support a sub-section within 'Early life, education, and family' titled 'Native American heritage'. The text that is currently in the article should be trimmed a bit. Warren is not trying to enroll in the Cherokee nation, so commentary by Cherokee officials about whether she can enroll is unnecessary. The article does not need to cover the exact fraction of Cherokee that she may be. It's sufficient to note that it 6-10 generations distant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Native American heritage

We need to add a section entitled "Native American heritage" or "Self-identity as Native American" or something to that effect. We debated about it earlier without reaching a consensus; people have added to the discussion as recently as Jan. 29. (See above.) With her recent speech about her heritage, widely reported by reliable sources, this cannot be dismissed as a campaign issue. The controversy about it was a campaign issue, but, as I've said before, she reiterated the claim in her 2014 book and mentioned it again on p. 224 of her 2017 book, This Fight is Our Fight. Now she's brought it up again. It has nothing to do with any election but is part of her long-standing self-identity. See, for one RS, "Elizabeth Warren, Addressing Claims of Native Ancestry, Vows to Press for Tribes" in today's NYT. YoPienso (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the fact Warren mentioned her alleged Indian ancestry yesterday does not mean it suddenly deserves its own section. If the media choose to turn this into a major story then we will have the material to write a neutral section, that is we will have all the various views. We cannot give any aspects more significance than reliable sources do, per balancing aspects. If you think the world should know more about this, this is not the place to start. TFD (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it deserved its own section several years ago. This should put the nail in the coffin to the protests that it isn't an integral part of Warren's self-identity. YoPienso (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That is your view and you may be right. It strikes me as odd that she would now claim again that she had Cherokee ancestry when experts said it is all but impossible and the media accepted her explanation that she was merely repeating what her family told her. But that is not the perception in mainstream sources. That btw is why fringe media exist, to trumpet information that gets passing mention if any in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Like Warren, I was raised in a part of the US where there was a Cherokee presence, and numerous friends and in-laws of mine believed they were part Cherokee. In every case, they were convinced in their minds, though their "knowledge" was purely family lore and they were not tribal members. Warren, therefore, is utterly credible to me in asserting what may well be a mistaken belief, but one she was taught in her childhood.

The perception of reliable media is that Warren insists she was raised believing she was part Cherokee. I linked only to the NYT, but nearly all the MSM covered her speech at the National Congress of American Indians event in Washington, D.C. today. (It's still Wed. in my time zone.) Here's the full text in the WaPo. Nothing fringe about NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN. Newsweek, AJC etc. YoPienso (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

An entire section? For what purpose? What factual information would be added to this article supported by these sources? How many additional sentences would be proportional to the sources? I do not see how this would justify an entire section. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right; I meant a subsection, as discussed above. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, we don't even need a subsection. The subsection "Political affiliation" in the section "Early life, education, and family" should be moved to the end of the "Career" section. Details about Warren's professed self-identity and the family lore concerning Cherokee heritage can be given in a new paragraph after the current second one, between working at her aunt's restaurant and starring on the debate team. YoPienso (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the political affiliation part. Maybe the Cherokee lore should be added onto the end of the very first paragraph of "Early life, education, and family" or inserted in a new second (not third) paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the media covered her speech, since she is one of the most covered politicians in America. In the past week, media have also covered her on grilling Wells Fargo, planning a Holyoke fundraiser, blasting the White House over abuse, blasting the Senate on maternity leave rules, requesting an extension of FEMA in PR, defending childcare funding, defending DACA, choosing Garcia as a surrogate, and many, many other stories.[1] We need to apply balancing aspects (please read the linked policy section). TFD (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note the difference between current events and personal characteristics. Wells Fargo is mentioned specifically twice in the article and banking throughout the article because her major area of expertise and activism is banking. She persistently claims Native American heritage, or at least confirms her family told her stories of Native American background, despite being mocked about her claims. The recent speech and coverage only further attest to her longstanding assertion that Native American heritage is part and parcel of who she is. YoPienso (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For the most part I've been in agreement with TFD. However, reading this article [2] I'm starting to tend to think that a paragraph in the Public life section might be appropriate. I'd object to putting anything in the "Early life, education, and family" section because while it was part of family lore it had no impact on her life until it was brought up when she ran for the Senate (where it is very well covered). Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

While it made no impact on public opinion of her, Warren's belief that her mother was part Cherokee impacted her life from her earliest memory. She did the recipe thing and listed herself as a minority long before the senate run.

The article you linked to, which is similar to the several I linked to, says:

Warren did not apologize for her undocumented claims that her mother’s family had Cherokee blood — instead, reaffirming: “My mother’s family was part Native American. And my daddy’s parents were bitterly opposed to their relationship. So, in 1932, when Mother was 19 and Daddy had just turned 20, they eloped.”

“The story they lived will always be a part of me,” she said, as tears came to her eyes. '“And no one — not even the president of the United States — will ever take that part of me away.”' [Emphasis added.]

I don't think Wikipedia, out of misguided caution, should take that part of her away. YoPienso (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In the previous discussion on having a separate section, I was against it because I thought she had stopped claiming it, but unfortunately recent events show she still makes these claims despite extensive genealogical research being published showing that her family's claims are false and many responses from the Native American community (this is an articulate example) in the last six years, so I change my vote to Yes, add the separate section. Yuchitown (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

You must be working from completely different sources than the rest of us. Warren has explained her family lore regarding her Native American heritage, and there has been no starting or stopping of any 'claims'. And the 'extensive genealogical research' explicitly admitted they weren't able to find evidence to conclude either way about her ancestry -- they certainly never said "the claims are false". That is already explained in our Wikipedia articles. So what is your rationale for proposing to add a "separate section"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Renewed discussion about Native American heritage

It seems the discussion about a new section on Warren's purported Native American heritage fizzled out. Time to start again!
This was not a passing moment in Warren's life, but a heritage she has espoused for her entire life. She is now trying to strengthen her relationship with Native Americans because of Pres. Trump's continued use of the nickname "Pocahontas." This is very much a part of Warren's ongoing concerns and activities.
Please read this CNN report, published today, that begins, "Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has quietly waged a months-long, behind-the-scenes effort to put 'Pocahontas' in the past."
The fact that an anonymous person had Pocahontas,com redirect to Warren's website is important. She countered it by having it then redirected to a plea to "support the NIWRC’s work of protecting Native women from violence." (Try it: type pocahontas.com into your address bar and see what happens.) YoPienso (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about creating undue separate sections about purported "controversy" will always fizzle out, because that kind of POV editing is not encyclopedic and is strongly discouraged. Despite this, when it comes to politics, the discussions will likely never go away completely. This is a continuation of the same discussion.

I've read the CNN piece you linked. What, specifically, is the article addition or improvement are you proposing now? The CNN piece re-caps the (already noted in our Warren article) facts about Warren's distant past native American heritage claim, and that genealogical societies couldn't prove or disprove that heritage, but even so, political opponents have tried to make political-hay out of her family history claims (Brown in 2012 claiming she materially benefited from minority status, and Trump addressing her with the racial slur "Pocahontas", referring to her family's Native American heritage). All of that is already covered in our article. The only thing "new", to my understanding, is that she has used Trump's slurs (and the "Native American heritage" issue in general) as a pretext to increase her focus and involvement on political issues important to Native Americans (per your new CNN source). Whether her increased focus on Native American political issues is motivated by genuine concern or political expediency is still a matter of speculation (my opinion is that it is likely both), but I can't tell from your recent comment if this is what you wished to expound upon. Are you proposing to add a brief sentence to the "2018 election" section stating that she has increased her attention to Native American-related political issues? (As an aside, I don't share your opinion that "The fact that an anonymous person had Pocahontas,com redirect to Warren's website is important." What importance would that be? It looks like very common political shenanigans on the Interwebs to me. It certainly doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic factoid I would expect to see in a Britannica-style biography about Warren.)

I'm looking forward to your more specific article improvement proposals. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand why Warren's detractors find this issue important. Policy however requires we give it only the weight found in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a detractor. The weight, specially from Warren herself, is considerable. I hope to improve this aspect of the article soon. YoPienso (talk)

There's a paragraph about it, plus a sentence about Trump's slur against her because of it. What more do we need to add? Certainly not some random setting up a website. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussion but I do hope that no editor makes any changes without prior discussion. We have worked so hard to put something together that we all could accept and it took a lot of give and take on all sides to get there. Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is human nature that if we like someone we see their strengths and downplay their faults and vice versa if we do not like them. But we have to assign weight based on what mainstream sources do. For good or ill, they chose to largely ignore this issue. TFD (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether this is a strength or weakness of Warren's, and if I did, it shouldn't influence my editing. I'm just following the sources:

1. Warren herself

• A Fighting Chance has a whole section called "Native American." It's only a few pages long, but the claim to Native American heritage threads throughout the book on pp. 9, 143, 239-42, 262-63, not counting notes.
• This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class, though mainly about economics, includes some autobiographical references. She briefly mentioned her family lore about Native American ancestry and Trump's nicknames for her, "Goofy" and "Pocahontas."
• She addressed the issue in Feb., 2018, at the National Congress of the American Indian, and subsequently spoke about it on national TV, where she declared, "It’s a part of me and nobody’s going to take that part of me away."

2. And then the media themselves. I'm going to paste and hide a bunch of links from liberal, centrist, and conservative sources. YoPienso (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You've listed sources, from both Warren and media (some from as far back as 2012), that show there was coverage of the controversy ginned up about Warren's family lore. That is why our article on Warren already includes information about her family lore, and the attempts to stir controversy over it by Brown, and later, Trump. What, specifically, is the article addition or improvement are you proposing now? I'm looking forward to your more specific article improvement proposals. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the Native American issue deserves its own section, "Native American heritage controversy," because it traverses several other sections describing Warren's life. The issue is relevant to "Early life, education and family" because her belief that she has some Native heritage traces back to her recollections of family lore and because nevertheless she did NOT seek the advantage of Affirmative Action classifications when applying to college and law school. It's relevant to "Career" because the only reason we're even talking about this is because of her decision while on the faculty of the University of Texas from 1986 and 1995 to list herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty, and because Penn, apparently only once, and Harvard, for a time, touted her as Native American. It's certainly relevant to "U.S. Senate," with respect to her 2012 Senate campaign and it's all but certain to be an issue in her 2018 re-election campaign, once her GOP is opponent is identified and ditto if she decides to run for president in 2020. There IS a controversy about Warren's ethnic heritage. Should there be or is the controversy "fair"? I don't think so on either point, but that's just me. BUT the fact is, and this is an encyclopedia about facts, remember, that controversy exists and currently looms large thanks in no small part to the efforts of the president of the United States. Hillary Clinton probably gave less thought to her decision to use a private email server than Warren gave to her decision to list herself as a minority in the law school faculty directory. But-for Clinton's decision it's all but certain she would be president today (and there would not be a full section captioned "Email controversy" in Clinton's Wikipedia article). Life is unfair. I wish we did not live in a world where political opponents can seize on some really trivial issue, twist surrounding facts beyond recognition and, through bombast and lies, make a mountain from a molehill. But we do and Wikipedia, in Warren's case, should take that issue straight forwardly on. I'll wait a week or so before creating that section myself. This is probably a good time to mention the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. I have none and we all would appreciate it if those that do refrain from editing the article in chief, but not, of course, with disclosure, from commenting on this Talk page. Lahaun (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus to create an entire section about this issue, because there isn't really a "controversy." The issue is already adequately discussed in prose, and you should probably seek to gain consensus for any significant, contested changes to this biography. I'm not aware of any editors here having any conflicts of interest; if you have evidence that a particular editor does, you should bring that up at WP:COINB, otherwise it's irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In light of the latest news about Warren's DNA results, there most certainly is a controversy—and it's not as if some fringe element is driving it, either. Warren initially claimed to be 1⁄32 Native American, or five generations removed from Native ancestors. But her test showed that she is no more than 1⁄64 Native American, which is no less than six generations removed from Native ancestry. The newspaper sources cited in that paragraph corroborate these numbers. So merely calling the section, or sub-section, "Native American heritage" would be disingenuous, because it implies that she has significant amount of Native American DNA, which she does not. Being 1⁄64 Native American is not a defining characteristic of any person, much less Warren. After all, most Americans, even white ones, have about as much Native American DNA as she does, according to the New York Times. This has also been pointed out by other media outlets writing about Warren's DNA test, including a recent article in The Federalist.

As such, I agree with Lahaun that the section, or sub-section, in question shall be titled "Native American heritage controversy." Greggens (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's already covered in the article. Style prefers that controversy be mentioned where it occurs, because controversy sections are inherently non-neutral. Trump has attracted a lot of controversy by calling Warren "Pocahontas." Why not put a section about the controversy in his article? TFD (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't about Trump. It's about Warren, and this controversy seems to be a defining characteristic of hers. Besides, lots of people have publicly called her "Pocahontas," even before Trump ever did. If we mention Trump calling her that, we'd have to mention everyone else who's called her that, as well. Too much information for this article. Greggens (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have people resisted stating the plain fact that she claims Indian heritage? Without discussing that fact, this Wikipedia bio is very misleading. Clearly some editors have engaged in an effort to keep this fact off her page. I strongly object. Ebw343 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I just wrote, "It's already covered in the article." Is there anyway I could have phrased it more clearly? TFD (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet more developments - she's released the results of a genetic test, which appears to support her claim of Native American ancestry: see this Boston Globe story. I've added a mention of that to the 2012 election section, as that's where the rest of this ancestry stuff seems to be going, even though it seems out of place there. Her team has also produced a 5-min video about her family history accompanying this event, but I didn't mention it as I'm not sure if it will gain enough views/coverage to be considered notable. See here: Updated section of her personal website & YouTube video. Given the importance she's placing on this, and her (growing?) national profile, I do wonder if this ancestry story should be moved out of the sections for the 2012 + 2016 elections. Perhaps into a paragraph in personal life, but without its own heading, so as to de-emphasise the story? Massivefranklin (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why de-emphasize it? It's very important to Warren herself, who has been emphasizing it for some time now. It's important to Donald Trump and, most importantly, to the news media, which is why it's notable. I suggest--not for the first time--that it have its own subheading under a revamped version of "Early life, education, and family" or under "Career" or even under "U.S. Senate". YoPienso (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be tucked away under the 2012 campaign because Warren's heritage was important to her long before then, and the controversy has far outlived that campaign. YoPienso (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I suggested something less emphatic than a dedicated section w/ heading is because the discussion above was starkly divided on whether that was desirable. I thought my suggestion might be a consensual middle ground. Massivefranklin (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for you response and for your willingness to compromise--although I myself am not very willing to compromise this particular point. YoPienso (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned in my edit summary that the Carlos Bustamante who conducted the analysis is *not* the biochemist Carlos Bustamante with the Wikipedia article -- but within 2 hrs somebody naively chucked the double square brackets around that name! Putting this comment here as yet another reminder to editors that these two Carloses are not the same. Massivefranklin (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Which fraction of her is Native American?

The text already notes that her Native American heritage is 6-10 generations distant. I don't see why fractions should be added, as it's hard to comprehend what fractions beyond a great-grandfather mean. The numbers just turn into gibberish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

for the fractionally challenged, you are absolutely correct. but 99% (99/100) of the world adults understand fraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.151.125 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

From my edit summary: 'I have read the Bustamante report itself and it says "likely in the range of 6-10 generations" -- does /not/ exclude more recent, and providing figs like "1/64th" implies a precision in the results which doesn't exist. (I work in genetics.)' Key word is "likely". FWIW, from my interpretation of their results, I think they are being overly conservative, and it could easily be a closer ancestor than the 6-10 generations back they state. I think I'm allowed to link to the report, as it was uploaded to her website. Here. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit war about the precise amount of Warren's Native ancestry is brewing. See edit history. I think this page should be given a more stringent level of protection for a few days. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we have partisanship from the other side, in the form of an edit saying that >5% of Warren's ancestry is Native American. I am going to figure out how to request greater protection on this article. Massivefranklin (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: WP:RFPP. The next higher level would be WP:ECP. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I checked those pages out -- thank you for telling me about them. But it seems that ECP was first instituted for pages on the Israel–Palestine conflict, and I don't think "arguing about whether fractions are applicable when describing Warren's Native ancestry" is quite at that level. Besides, I don't imagine that this heated editing will last more than a few days. Massivefranklin (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I'm not aware of any limits on the use of ECP, officially or in practice, and it can be applied for only a few days like any protection. You said you wanted to request a protection increase, and ECP is the smallest increase you can make. You might want to consider that ECP would lock you out until you have 500 edits, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The report states that Warren could be just 1/1024th Native American. What’s more, the study was based not on Native American DNA, but on Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.235.231.146 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Did the source actually say Warren was "somewhere between 1/32nd and 1/1024th Native American?"[3] If not, then it is synthesis to add it, since people do not receive equal amounts of DNA from all their ancestors. Also the findings seem to confirm Warren's claim that one of her distant ancestors was Cherokee, which the phrasing seem to imply that she had claimed a greater degree of Indian ancestry. TFD (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed Warren has hardly any Native American ancestry and that the Boston Globe was forced to make a correction about her low end.[4] This talk archives page notes how she seemingly sugarcoated or exaggerated her ancestry, even registering as one between the 1980s and 1990s.[5]2601:447:4101:41F9:59A7:F6EE:32C0:4CBC (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Drop the WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and stick to what's reported in the sources. If a source reports a specific fraction, it can included per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. No one should be assessing the value of a fraction because their supposed expertise, nor should the language in the actual article imply any sort of judgment about the results that isn't linked to a WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Executive Summary states:

  Executive Summary. We find strong evidence that a DNA sample of primarily European descent also contains Native American ancestry from an ancestor in the sample’s pedigree 6-10 generations ago. We find little or no evidence of African ancestry in this sample.

The conclusion states:

Conclusion. While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago.

Looking for information not in the executive summary or conclusion means crossing WP:SYNTH. Selective quoting, narrow paraphrasing, is very likely to to give WP:UNDUE emphasis, especially given that the author has carefully summarised what is important and can be reliably stated in the executive summary and conclusion.

Looking at these statements: "strong evidence" and "likely", "6-10 generations", is clearly a statement of probability. There is no indication that these words are tightly defined.

Have said that, I deduce from the report that EW has zero whole chromosomes of North American origin. There is only some "recombination", measured in "centiMorgans" on a single chromosome, chromosome 10. It is *possible*, albeit unlikely, for a person to have zero chromosomes derived from a single grandparent. The Bustamante Report therefore does not place hard limit on minimum number of generations higher than 2. The numbers offered come from consideration of probabilities. 6-10 is quite a wide range.

I think it is reasonable for the article to write: "The Bustamante Report provides evidence in support of a small amount of native North American genetics in EW's genetic sample". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What you just did is analyze a primary source and draw your own conclusion. That is textbook WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which is not permitted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, not permitted in the article, for sure. I would call my post "honest" about the OR in my third paragraph "Having said that, I deduce ...". I think a little talk page OR is OK if limited to ensuring that editors understand the source. I think it is important to understand the meaning of "likely" and "6-10". NB I am happy to be disagreed with. I have never before heard of a "centiMorgan". Do you have an issue with my last paragraph "I think it is reasonable for the article to write..."?

That's fine, but your personal analysis is not relevant even for a talk page because this is not a WP:FORUM. Conclusions about what an article should include have to be based solely on Wikipedia policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would perhaps recommend against making detailed inferences about heredity if you have never heard of "recombination". Massivefranklin (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is, the numbers are not precise, and should not be focused on. The calculation, 1/64 – 1/1,024, is just further inappropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Globe writes that Warren said her great-great-great grandmother was part Native American. That's 5 generations ago. The Indian ancestor would have been at least 6 generations ago if the ancestor was half Indian and longer if they were less than that. The findings of 6-10 generations are entirely consistent with her claim. TFD (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that seems obvious. Has any reliable secondary source commented? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It sort of fits, but I don't think there is any evidence that it is that particular great-great-great grandmother that her ancestry comes from. It could just as easily come from another ancestor.--Pharos (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another note to people who want to assign fractions to Warren's Native ancestry. It should not be hard to understand that "the results are consistent with you having an unadmixed Native ancestor likely between 6–10 generations ago" is not a claim about every one of your ancestors. It is not saying that "of all of your ancestors, definitely only 1/64 to 1/1,024 were Native American". It is completely conceivable that Warren has Amerindian genealogical ancestors from whom she inherited no genetic material, who therefore could not be identified by the test. It is also crucial to note the range of generations given and the word "likely". The real number of generations back for Warren's ancestor could, as indicated by their use of likely and not definitely, be outside that range. Prof Bustamante's report upon which all this media coverage is based doesn't include precise fractions – not only for these reasons, but also due to inherit imprecision in the procedure. For instance, their method conceivably may have missed real Amerindian segments or misidentified European segments as Amerindian, for instance due to imperfect selection of (especially the Amerindian) reference populations. I am a researcher in anthropological genetics and four days ago I performed a very similar analysis to the one in Bustamante's report; part of that analysis involved identifying Amerindian ancestry in Hispanic individuals. I worded my edit to indicate that the 1/64 – 1/1,024 figure refers to one hypothetical ancestor 6–10 generations ago, even though I am totally aware that many, or most, people will construe that to mean "Elizabeth Warren is definitely 1/64 to 1/1,024 Native". Massivefranklin (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

should there be mentioned that the results don't actually show any native american dna as he didn't look at native american dna he looked at dna from people in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is something I have seen said by people who don't understand genetic anthropology. Amerindian populations across the Americas are not that genetically differentiated from each other. For many purposes, it is completely legitimate to treat different Amerindian populations as equivalent, especially if you are distinguishing between kinds of ancestry at the very broadest levels, like "West Eurasian" vs "(Sub-Saharan) African" vs "Amerindian". You can even use the genetic material of Chinese peoples as a stand-in for Amerindians, and you'll still get reasonable results in many analyses. Furthermore, if you use Southern Amerindian populations as your imperfect stand-in for Northern Amerindian populations, as Bustamante did for his analysis of Warren, it becomes more likely that you miss genuine Northern Amerindian DNA fragments. Given that Warren's Amerindian ancestry is almost certainly a priori Northern Amerindian, this means that even if Bustamante's analysis were inaccurate, it would very likely be in the direction of underestimating Warren's Native ancestry. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been much erroneous reporting on fractions. This is how it works: Generation 0 is yourself, with 1/1 (100%) ancestry. First generation removed is 1/2 (50%) ancestry. Sixth generation removed is 1/64 (1.5625%) ancestry. Tenth generation removed is 1/1,024 (0.0977%) ancestry. The average of the "6 to 10 generations" is eighth generation removed, 1/256 (0.3906%) ancestry, which gives her 99.6094% non-Native American ancestry. Thus, her claim about her "great-great-great grandmother" is false, as that would only be five generations removed. I made the appropriate change in the text of the article.Clepsydrae (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if we should go into this level of detail at all, given that it is all probabilistic, but a fifth generation ancestor who is described by her family as "at least part Cherokee" does indeed fit.--Pharos (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable addition: in this article by Carl Zimmer, a guy who I trust to write fairly accurately on genetic issues, an interview with Prof Bustamante is mentioned. Bustamante is quoted as saying: “We can see nearly definitive evidence of at least one Native American ancestor, but there could have been more.” This fits with what I as a researcher in genetic anthropology know about the methods Bustamante used. I have made too many edits to the section about how much Native ancestry Warren could have, so I will leave it up to others to decide if this is worth including. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

64 - 1024

The inverse fraction of ancestors.

None of the references talked of or were sources for these numbers. They are WP:SYNTH. Not saying the numbers are wrong, but they ignore the lack of precision, give a false impression of precision, and take the coverage into discussion that is not source-based. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: I wanted to respond to your reversion of my edit, in which added a statement saying that the report contains no precise values for the proportion of Warren's Native ancestry. Firstly, I don't agree that this statement is, as you said in your edit summary, my opinion. As I noted in my edit summary, my source is the report itself. It's not that long, and anybody can read it. I suggest that you do so to check that what I wrote is indeed correct. I don't think I editorialised my statement; for instance, I didn't say "... even though this is incorrect" or anything to that effect. That would, without a source, be an opinion of mine. Secondly, it seems strange that you would claim the primary material for this whole event to be an "unreliable source". Thirdly, it seems to me that the sentence you put in as a replacement doesn't strictly make sense. "6–10 generations ago would represent between 1/64 and 1/1,024 of Warren's ancestry" -- I think you should refer to an ancestor from 6 generations ago, not the entire generation itself. Let me try to explain where I'm coming from. My personal belief -- which I'm including here just to give you some idea of my motivations -- is that she likely knew that her claims to Native heritage were feeble, and she knowingly exaggerated them; at best to seem more 'interesting', and at worst to gain material benefit from minority status. So, I'm not doing this because I want to make people more sympathetic to Warren. Having said that, a lot of people, including reporters, seem to believe that Bustamante conducted a "test" which outputted some concrete result saying "Warren is definitely between 1/64 and 1/1,024 Native American". This isn't true, and I think it's important to note in some way that the '1/64 – 1/1,024' figures weren't in the report. It was 'discovered' by non-specialists trying to interpret the results, and as a researcher in genetic anthropology, it's frustrating because I do honestly believe that those figures are really wrong for a whole parade of technical and conceptual reasons. Note that I didn't include anything in my statement implying that the figures was wrong, precisely because I lacked a reliable source to back that up. (I do have sources from geneticists disagreeing with the figure, but those sources are Tweets!) Can we reach a compromise? Would you be alright with a clause at the end of the sentence like "... although these figures were not included in the original report"? Massivefranklin (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin: I don't necessarily disagree with almost all of what you said above. But it does not change what we can and cannot do as editor of Wikipedia. Your comments are your opinion. It might not be a strong opinion. It might be a completely correct opinion but since your comments are not in a reliable source which is also a secondary source then your opinion cannot be included. Them thar the rules. I don't make it. I'm just trying to follow them. Some of the edits happening are attempts to cover up for her. I did not say yours were and I did not point the finger at anyone in particular. It does not matter. Also, I did not originally add the 1/64 and 1/1024 figures into the article. However, they should remain in the article because many, many, many reliable sources which are also secondary sources have stated those number, no matter how off the mark they are. They are the topic right now. Unless you can find a reliable source which is also a secondary source that disputes these numbers then they should remain in the article. Also, I understand your point about relying on secondary sources instead of primary sources. But since you are fairly new to Wikipeida I completely understand. The rules are the rules and Wikipedia frown upon using and relying upon primary sources. Jimmy Wales wants us to depend upon and quote extensive reliable sources that for the most part are secondary sources. He does not want a bunch unknown editors picking and choosing bits and pieces of primary sources. Its a Wikipedia rule. If I did not have to run out for doctor's appt I would look it up for you. Maybe I will later. Also, don't attack me personally. Focus on the article and changes for the article, not me because you don't know me and you know nothing about me. Also, don't assume you are smarter than all of the other editors because well that is so newbie. Best,CharlesShirley (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin:The rule that is most counter-intuitive of all Wikipedia rules is the focus on secondary sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." See Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin: One other point in reponse to your comments above. I did not say that primary sources are "unreliable sources" as you claim. What I did say is that Wikipedia PREFERS secondary sources when they are available. In this situation there are tons of secondary sources available therefore we should not as Wikipedia editors cherry pick pieces of information from the primary source when we have access to plenty of secondary sources. I realize that the methods that Wikipedia has developed is completely contrary to what you might have been taught in school and in college and graduate school, i.e., you should prefer primary sources over secondary sources, but it is the method that Jimmy Wales (and the current policy makers at Wikipedia) has made it clear to Wikipedia editors to follow. As to your compromise, the sentence that introduces the fractional numbers make it clear that they are the numbers presented by journalists.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

These numbers are backed up by reliable sources. Why were they removed? Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Because WaPo found them to be inaccurate. Per WaPo: "Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American." [6] Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Because they were misleading and based upon a misunderstanding of the test results. ...ancestors do not contribute genetic material equally over time. Here’s the image of 11 generations of ancestors by genetic material they contributed to a particular individual. Some ancestors contribute a lot — while others nothing at all. In other words, as you go back in time, the number of your ancestors keeps increasing but not nearly as fast as the number of genealogical ancestors. Look closely at the sixth generation, and you will see some strong contributors of genetic material — and many weak ones. ... The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait and see if anyone else backs the fact check. I still see new sources coming out claiming 1/64-1/1024. Until others see it as incorrect they are an outlier. PackMecEng (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mainstream news sources in the last day or so citing the number. Partisan opinion claims are another matter, but those aren't relevant to this discussion because they don't tend to care about what the facts show (on either side). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is still new so not many but Newsweek, KUTV, and The Sunday Times. Again this is about 3 days old so none supporting the new stuff I have seen and a few still using 1/1024. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since this is a BLP it is better to be on the safe side rather than include information that may cause harm. I felt that the WaPo article fully explained the reason for the misunderstandings that have appeared online. I'd appreciate it if you'd include the sites that you mention that continue to use the fractions that WaPo called inaccurate. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can include that someone disputed it, but the mountain of RS supporting it is undeniable. I just added sources above for my claim. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Response from the Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State

I feel this source should be included.[7]. Also, the Secretary of State's name is Chuck Hoskin Jr.2601:447:4101:41F9:59A7:F6EE:32C0:4CBC (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Warren did this DNA testing because she was called a liar, not because she intended to prove herself as qualifying for membership in the tribe. I believe that it should now be put to rest rather than to further stir the pot. Gandydancer (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's not about membership. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just removed such a statement from the article. It led to a missing ref thing, and I'm going to let that ride and let the bot take care of it, so that the source for the statement is still in the list of references. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There are secondary sources addressing this issue, and it should be included. Reasoning by Gandydancer and Drmies is speculative and irrelevant. The quote can be added using this or another secondary source but a direct link to the statement is inappropriate use of a primary source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary or secondary has nothing to do with anything. That she doesn't qualify for something is simply not relevant if she never asked for that something. You can call that OR, but that's nonsense. If an irrelevant remark is to be included because her name is mentioned, imagine how many other irrelevant things we should start including. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. Warren is not claiming tribal status. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. K.e.coffman the NYT article says the group in question is reacting to the analysis, and the secondary coverage shows it is WP:DUE. Policy clearly allows it to be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Not everything in the news article needs to go into the biography; that fails WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, though I think reasonable editors could disagree. However, your initial objection was not based on Wikipedia policy. And WP:DUE is explicitly tied to the proportion and prevalence of sources, so your subjective assessment of what's important and what's not is less relevant than the amount of coverage received from WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" = "undue", or at least pretty close. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, though that is apparently based on your evaluation of the statement/viewpoint itself and not the degree of coverage in WP:RS. That's not a proper application of WP:DUE, which reads: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's your personal opinion that this is relevant. And that viewpoint of yours, that this is relevant, is not one that needs to be represented. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not my viewpoint, it's the one expressed in the article. WP:DUE is specifically tied to the proportion of sources covering a viewpoint, not about your or my or anyone else's personal opinion about the viewpoint itself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: Re this edit, the material has already been removed here: [8]. Please consider self-reverting while the discussion is on-going. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Display name 99:, your edit summary is a non sequitur. The implication of the statement is that she sought tribal status, which of course she didn't, though your deceptive edit summary tries to find another reason for inclusion. BTW, who wrote this? "Condemned the results"--that's not in the statement, and it makes no logical sense anyway. The more I look at the statement ("Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong"--well, she didn't seek a connection to any nation, did she?) the more I am convinced that including this is akin to asking someone if they stopped beating their wife. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

She did claim to be part Cherokee. See a quote in this CNN article: "As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would? But I knew my father's family didn't like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope." Whether she wanted to formally claim tribal status is, as others have said, is irrelevant, and to say that there is any real implication in the article that she ever tried to do so seems like a stretch to me. As for the language "condemned the results," well, I didn't write it. Someone else did, and I have no problem with it being altered. The wife beating analogy is rather bizarre and I'm not sure what it's supposed to convey. And finally, no, I won't be self-reverting. Display name 99 (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If that seems like a stretch to you, you're not a very good reader. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The response includes the words "even vaguely." How in the world is that supposed to imply an attempt to gain a formal affiliation? It looks like I'm not the one who can't read very well. Display name 99 (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well as the Cherokee's original response before the DNA testing. Their complaint about Warren's lack of support in American Indian issues should also be included. TFD (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Include a very concise summary of the response/reaction from indigenous sources but not in the context of a non-existent tribal membership claim. I agree with Drmies position on this. That said, there has subsequently been a growing backlash against Warren from the indigenous community and academia beyond the initial Cherokee statement, based on the view that the very notion of using DNA testing to demonstrate heritage undermines the basis of longstanding sovereignty claims (which is separate from the issue of membership which - as Drmies I think accurately noted - is somewhat irrelevant). As an accurate representation of the social criticism that has ensued around this announcement, therefore, I think a very succinct note of inclusion of a few points is warranted. A few items that seem relevant and have received traction:

• Kim TallBear, the Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience and Environment at the University of Alberta, issued a statement saying "For Elizabeth Warren to centre a Native American ancestry test as the next move in her fight with Republicans is to make yet another strike — even if unintended — against tribal sovereignty." CBC
• Pam Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer and associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Ryerson University said: "If your only claim to Indigeneity is a quack DNA test or an ancestor from 400 years ago - you are NOT Indigenous. Defining Indigenous by blood and race couldn't get more colonial if she tried." CBC
• Warren should never have made this claim to begin with. It doesn’t mean anything to possibly have 1/1024 Native American ancestry if she has no ties to Native American culture or politics otherwise. The test might prove she didn’t lie about family history, but it doesn’t tell us anything else useful, and plays into the dangerous ways that people already (wrongly) conflate genetic ancestry with culture. The Verge
• "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage." KJRH-TV

That said, we need to avoid a blow by blow of any back-and-forth as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is also not a race and, I get the sense from looking at the edit history, that some editors might be on a quest to get something into the article in the next 20 days which isn't really how this thing works. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but the additions to the article do not in any way point out that her claim is that she somewhere between 0.0976% to 1.56% which gives her an amount of Indian blood approximately equal to the average American. It does not mean that she is an Indian. It means that she is 98.5% to 99.9% white. Based upon those numbers she is no different than the average American. This article gives the false impression that she has "proved" she is Indian, which she did not do. She merely proved that she has just about the same amount of Indian blood than MOST Americans. That last paragraph is deceptive.CharlesShirley (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: What you have written -- "that she is no different than the average American" -- is factually incorrect. You should really consider whether the things you read are biased by political partisanship. In one estimate from a well-powered study, only 2.7% of self-identified European Americans carry any Native American ancestry. Source: [Paper from geneticists collaborating with 23andMe] "3.5% and 2.7% of European Americans... carry African and Native American ancestry, respectively.". This is the same paper that provides the claim "European Americans have 0.18% Native ancestry on average" which has been widely publicised in recent coverage. The report commissioned by Warren provides results suggesting that she has at least ~0.7% Native American DNA, which is many times greater than 0.18%, and that figure is almost certainly an underestimate for numerous technical reasons. If you put Warren through 23andMe's service, she would probably come up as having a significantly higher percentage than that. I am a researcher in genetic anthropology, so I think I know what I am talking about. It's a bad idea to comment on complicated results in genetics if you don't have any expertise in the subject. Massivefranklin (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Do you think we should mention the 2.7% figure in the article? It makes the context a bit clearer, though I think a better comparison would be to so-called "Old Stock Americans" rather than to all European Americans.--Pharos (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I would be tempted to, but that comparison has not been made anywhere else, so the only precedent for it is this talk page, and that doesn't seem right. It also feels like the only reason for including it is specifically to make readers more sympathetic to Warren's claim. If some credible publication published some article mentioning the 2.7% figure in direct relation to Warren's situation, I would feel alright with including it. Massivefranklin (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I also think the 2.7% figure is a bit imperfect, since maybe half of European Americans have ancestors who came relatively recently and not have even vague claims to Native ancestry.--Pharos (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

I think a well-chosen short quote from the Cherokee Nation is appropriate, with context that Warren is not seeking tribal membership. We don't need a half-dozen academic commentaters--Pharos (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Your response is a personal attack on me and you know nothing about me so by definition your comment violates the basic understanding of logic and reason. You are not to comment on other editors, but you can comment on the article. This you did not do. Please focus your comments going forward to the article on Also, your comment missed the point. The paper she paid did point out that she is somewhere between 98.5% and 99.99% white. That's a fact that the article does not point out. The article is written to give her paid for study the best light possible. And finally the paid for study does not, in any way whatsoever, support her past claims that she is a member of my tribe, the Cherokee Nation.CharlesShirley (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: Warren has claimed, on many occasions that she believes she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. That's why there is a whole organization consisting of members of the various federal recognized Cherokee Nations who have spoken out against her claims and her misinformation. These organizations and individuals have spoken out again. She used her 1 percent Native blood to work her way up the law school ladder and various universities referred to her as a "woman of color" which was wrong and she was aware of it. Fordam Law Review referred to as "the first woman of color to get tenure at Harvard Law School" in Volume 66 on page 898 of its journal. Her claims of being a Native American, specifically a Cherokee are well-documented. This article attempts to cover all of this history up and only refers to sources that glowing approvals of Warren's point of view. It extensively quotes a primary source, Warren's bought and paid for study (which makes it by definition questionable), and the article either eliminates or downplays reliably sourced secondary sources, which is the type of source that Wikipedia is supposed to rely upon (but in this situation it is not).CharlesShirley (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Include. It has now been cited by several mainstream news outlets (I've seen it at TIME, ABC News, and NPR, to name a few), and Secretary of State Hoskin has now appeared at a number of outlets giving interviews. As Warren claimed Cherokee descent, this is the definitive response. It is concise and to the point and a necessary rebuttal. Further, it addresses the deeper issues of sovereignty and the racialization of Indigenous identity; these are relevant no matter what she has or hasn't claimed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this shouldn’t be included. It casts Warren in a negative light, suggesting that she isn’t in touch with people who have been marginalized. She is a strong candidate and she has the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020. That is what’s important here, and it outweighs any squabbling over whether some third party’s opinion should be in the article (it shouldn’t). Aidaakron (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

... she has the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020. That is what’s important here... ... That is, quite literally, of no importance at all here. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would ask you why you feel it’s necessary to use Wikipedia to smear Warren’s reputation by including references to the statements you quoted above? Aidaakron (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aidaakron: I will not response to Aidaakron because he/she is taking into consideration issues that have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. He/she states that since in Aidaakron's opinion Warren has a chance against Trump in 2020 and that chance is important negates just about anything else Aidaakron says. Aidaakron needs to focus on the article and how to improve the article nothing more. Warren's political chances are completely, totally unimportant to discussions about what should be included or not included in the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Wow, ok - Dismissing the input of a woman. Well if women are allowed to be heard on Wikipedia, I’d like to reply to your comment. I was trying to offer a perspective on the broader issue, which is that an encyclopedia - just like the press - should not have any role in shaping public opinion on political figures or issues. So, along that vein, I pointed out that including the content in question would only serve to publicize criticism of Warren. This is in contrast to the more appropriate route of presenting Warren as a champion of the marginalized against a presidential bully. And it looks like plenty others agree that this should be excluded. Aidaakron (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Please substantiate your assertion that "Warren has claimed, on many occasions that she believes she is a member of the Cherokee Nation." I've never heard her make it. She has claimed Cherokee ancestry, which is far different from claiming to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. She made this abundantly clear on her recent video. YoPienso (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@YoPienso: In the famous Pow Wow Chow Cookbook, Warren signed her various recipes as "Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee)" which is the way that members of my tribe sign their name. There and other places she makes the assertion that she is a member of the tribe. It is not appropriate and it is makes a representation about her heritage that is not true. On another topic she has said that she thought she was Cherokee Indian because she says that she has "high cheekbones". This disgraceful statement has been removed from the article. This is no reason that this statement should not be in the article. It is significant. It was her first public defense of her claims of being Indian and being Cherokee. Also, the claim that you tell an Indian by high cheekbones is offensive and somewhat racist.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of a cookbook doesn't constitute evidence that "Warren claimed she is a member of the Cherokee Nation." I have removed your addition from the lede; it is both non-neutrally worded and arguably WP:UNDUE. Please discuss your proposed insertion per WP:BRD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: "Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee)" is not a claim of tribal enrollment. What was inappropriate about that and about calling herself a minority faculty member at Harvard was that she was representing herself as self-indentifying mainly as Cherokee, whereas in fact she self-identifies mainly as white. We should definitely include the high cheekbones claim in the body of the article, because it's part of Warren's story. Today it's considered offensive and somewhat racist, but it wasn't when she was growing up. Let's avoid presentism. YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see my year-and-a-half-old comments about cheekbones. YoPienso (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Include a concise summary. It is a useful perspective for understanding an important view on this issue, and it was widely reported. I'll also note that user @Aidaakron: who just removed the quote has demonstrated explicit and serious partisanship on this talk page, so I am restoring it for now. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aidaakron: I think that you have broken WP:3RR on this page. I have not reported this myself, but others may do. Massivefranklin (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I did not realize that was a rule but if I have broken it then I apologize. Aidaakron (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Aidaakron has not broken the 3RR rule because a continuous sequence of removals counts as only one revert. Therefore, she has made only three reverts. Aidaakron, I encourage you to read the WP:3RR carefully anyway, just in case. wumbolo ^^^ 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is written like an Elizabeth Warren fanbase, as she was responding to this complaint when she stated that she did not consider herself to be Native.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA: I essentially agree, but this issue is being discussed above. Please add to that section rather than making a new one. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC))

Heeding your advice Masssivefranklin. A user also edited the comment which you erased. It deals with a Boston Globe interview concerning her time as a professor at Harvard.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you believe I "erased". Did I accidentally erase a comment on this talk page? Massivefranklin (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to Warren's comment on how she stated she "should have been clearer."

• Omit. In my opinion legal hair-splitting sovereignty issues really aren't relevant enough to her to or her rationale behind taking a DNA test; they belong on the wiki article on Native American tribal sovereignty. And since she never claimed tribal membership the rest of the commentary doesn't apply either. We have to be careful to avoid WP:NOTNEWS. Every person, group, or organization who takes a shot at a public figure does not automatically get airspace on Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid exploiting her heritage for national political gain is very relevant. She currently serves the Vice-Chair of the Senate Democratic caucus and for all we know, this claim may or may not have helped. The WP:NOTNEWS also doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Notability (events).2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maintain She exploited that she was part Cherokee for political gain. It is also easy to assume that having the old Kennedy Senate seat which mix in with this claim for a potential Presidential run.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Has it been proved that her parents eloped because of this heritage? If so, it is just a claim.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It casts Warren in a negative light, suggesting that she isn’t in touch with people who have been marginalized. Looks like campaign wording to me Aidaakron.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing the input of a woman. Well if women are allowed to be heard on Wikipedia, I’d like to reply to your comment. I was trying to offer a perspective on the broader issue, which is that an encyclopedia - just like the press - should not have any role in shaping public opinion on political figures or issues. So, along that vein, I pointed out that including the content in question would only serve to publicize criticism of Warren. This is in contrast to the more appropriate route of presenting Warren as a champion of the marginalized against a presidential bully. And it looks like plenty others agree that this should be excluded.. I don't see what this has to with women being heard on Wikipedia. It has to do with the extent of Warren's claim.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Excuse me but did you ignore the part where she said she was a woman? I think she's right.207.138.219.241 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy ensures that any "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." This is indeed significant and verified with an original statement.[9]2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for Split

I kind of feel this whole thing is a bit WP:UNDUE. Could I make a suggestion we replace the entire Native American section with a concise summary (for example, below) and push everything else into a separate article where those so inclined can battle it out?

Since 2012 there has been an ongoing controversy over Warren's self-identification as a racial minority, specifically a Native American. In response to a challenge by Donald Trump she, in 2018, underwent DNA testing that, according to the Boston Globe, "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". Following the release of the report, Warren launched what NPR called a "campaign-style video" citing the test as validation of her earlier claims. However, the report sparked what the BBC characterized as a "backlash" with representatives of the Cherokee Nation, as well as some Native American Studies professors, criticizing Warren; Cherokee Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr. opined that "Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage".

Anyway, just an idea. Chetsford (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input. As you can see by going through my comments in the history of this talk page, because the Native heritage claim is part and parcel of Warren's personal narrative for her whole life--she's almost 70 now--I believe it must be part of this article, which is her biography--the description of her life. YoPienso (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The current content can be trimmed down to 2–3 paragraphs if we remove all quotes. An additional article may well be deserved if Warren makes this a big issue for her 2020 platform. Right now it would fail WP:NOTNEWS, especially since it's essentially based on a bunch of Trump's tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

"Racial slur"

"P--, which Warren considered to be a racial slur". Seriously, she can't be the only one who considers that a slur. And "referred to" is just a euphemism. The whole sentence should be recast. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• From Canada I can see that it is a racist slur. The text also suggests Trump only used the term once, but he has repeaed it over and over in speeches etc for sevral years. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think "slur" is a bit strong, though not incorrect. "Racial slur" slightly more so a bit strong. I think he is attempting to make fun of, disparaging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No comment on whether it's a racial slur. I think it's best to say that Warren said that and let people form their own opinions. But I did add "has sometimes" to make it clear that Trump used the term more than once, which I think is important. Display name 99 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I don't think Canadians use the term Pocohontas as a slur for Indian women and Trump did not believe she was Indian anyway. It's not in the dictionary as one. Mind you, it is best avoided. TFD (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The term has been called a racial slur numerous times by numerous people, including Native American people. Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Native Americans have called it a slur:

John Norwood, general secretary of the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes: "The reference is using a historic American Indian figure as a derogatory insult and that’s insulting to all American Indians", adding that Trump should "stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents."

Source: Is 'Pocahontas' a racial slur? Eric Trump defends his dad, but Native Americans say otherwise, USA Today. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide any example of the term being used by anyone other than Trump or by someone quoting him where it has been seen as a slur? Anyway there is no reason why we have to state as a fact that it is a slur, just that it has been perceived as one since this article is not about Trump. TFD (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• “Racial taunt” and “mockery” [10] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Howie Carr didn't say "Pocahontas" but he gave a fake Indian war whoop at a 2016 Trump rally. YoPienso (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The president of the National Congress of American Indians said: "We regret that the president's use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today's White House ceremony." White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that complaints that the nickname is a racial slur are "ridiculous", and that "What most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career."
• Speaking on PBS NewsHour, Mark Shields commented, "It's one thing when Donald Trump uses Pocahontas to attack or taunt one senator, Elizabeth Warren. This, quite frankly, is beyond that. I mean, this is racial. It's racist. It is." Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Using something "as a slur" doesn't mean it's been used that way for hundreds of years. It would be similar to repeatedly calling a male Muslim senator "Muhammad", which would not ordinarily be an insulting word to a Muslim. That's what the sources mean when they say it has been used as a slur.--Pharos (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact "Muhammad" is listed in the the Racial Slur Database as an ephithet for Arabs based on it being a common name among Muslims.[11] Pocohontas is not a common Native and American name and is not listed.[12] If anything, it's similar to the slurs made against white people who pretend to be something else. Of course you could be right, I am just saying that we should not state as a fact it is a racial slur, without a reliable source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My attempts to improve the sentence structure have been constantly reverted by Grayfell. What's the point of adding "including American Indians"? It's a needless, obvious fact that they, specifically, are offended. This just makes the sentence a run on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acid Ly (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a racial slur. The sky is blue and P- is a disgusting racial slur that has been repeated over and over again by Trump. These are facts. It should be mentioned frequently in the article to make people aware of the kind of bullying Warren is fighting against from Trump and the rest of the right. Aidaakron (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't just explain facts devoid of context, we try to indicate why they are significant. This term's status as a slur is significant because Warren considers it a slur, many Americans Indians have publicly explained that it's a slur, and it's been identified as a slur by many in the general public. Just saying "some people considered it a slur" would be so vague as to miss the point entirely. We should also avoid WP:WEASEL or editorializing to implying-without-saying that it might not be a slur after all. Sources do not support this interpretation, so neither should we. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That Warren considers it a racial slur does not mean that we can state as a fact it is a slur. We can only say that she holds that view. Similarly we cannot state as fact everything that Trump says. In any case, Trump denies that she has Indian heritage. TFD (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How is this not a slur? Why are we casting doubts on the sources using this term? The definition of slur laid out by Pejorative and wikt:slur is not, as far as I can tell, being challenged or refuted by any sources, so why would we second-guess those sources by using weak language? It's an insult, which as Aidaakron says, is WP:SKYBLUE obvious. Trump used it to mockingly to show his contempt for her, which is well-documented. So he's repeatedly used an incorrect name tied to a specific ethnicity to denigrate a woman based on her ancestry. This is a slur. We have a lot of sources supporting this and explaining why the term is insulting, and absolutely none saying that it isn't insulting... right? So what, exactly, is the issue with calling it a slur? Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

TFD, you have to be kidding. It's a slur. "Many people are saying it's a slur"--that's Trump language, but here it's true. "In any case..."--you're arguing that because Trump says he doesn't believe she has Native American heritage (do NOT say "Indian heritage"--that's not just "politically incorrect", it's wrong and dumb) he can't be using a slur? Come on--please let me take you seriously. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Warren used the term Indian heritage. And please note that we need a reliable source that says its a slur. BTW this article is not about Trump, but about Warren. TFD (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Many have called it a slur, or referred to it as a slur. I think that in doing that, they are being a little bit emotive, a little bit exaggerating, but not to the point of it being incorrect. I think "taunt", or "disparagement", is more on the mark. "Racial" is squarely correct. However, "slur" has been used more than enough to justify its mention in the article. Constructions such as "... labelled a slur" or "criticized for the racial slur" work well. The current text, "which Warren and others, including some Native Americans, consider a racial slur" is excellent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, there's reliable sources using it...Native Americans have condemned it as such...so if you want to talk neutrality and all that, and proper ascription, you can, and that's fine, but saying "a little bit emotive" is suggesting that Warren (a woman) and the Native Americans (not white people) are...well, you know. I mean I hope you know. Please don't infantilize them. I don't agree that the phrase you hail as excellent is indeed excellent, but it's better than before, which completely unjustly turned the Senator into a lonely whiner. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Drmies, are you criticizing my word choice, or something more serious. I would like to take more care to not be read as infantilizing anyone. If I may risk repeating the mistake, but trying to be better understood: when communicating, people can respectably appeal to emotion. "Slur" is an emotive word. I don't mean to argue that it is incorrect. Perhaps "slightly emotive" would have been better, but more likely I should better drop the subject and walk away from the hole. I read many sources that I googled. Yes, many use or repeat "slur". Is there a particular source you were thinking of? EW and many others have used it. Having read the many sources, I looked to the actual text, I found myself unable to further improve it. You think it is less than excellent? What are it's weak points? You labelled it an unqualified slur, but I am not sure that Wikipedia should, given that some deny it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • SmokeyJoe, thank you--yes, it's that word choice. "Emotive" suggests it comes from a place of judgment, a place of rationality, from which it is easy to look down on those who are deemed to be emotional rather than rational. And there's a difference between "being emotive" (which suggests being irrational) with "appealing to emotion". Don't worry about the hole: I believe you are an honest person of good faith, possibly better faith than me. As for the phrase, I also find it difficult. There is no doubt in my mind that the term IS a slur, and was intended as such--but of course no one can prove intent, and given the president's notorious vagueness it couldn't even be proven to be true if he said it was. Maybe "some Native Americans" (which sounds loose, random--oh here's one, and there's another) should be replaced, given that we have a few official statements. But all the various word choices notwithstanding, I do think that this is pretty much a "the sky is blue" matter, and editors twenty years from now will probably wonder why we were so wishy-washy here. But I also don't want to pick a fight with you, and I respect and appreciate your efforts to make this is fair as possible. At least it's better than it was. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "Pocohontas," is obviously a slur with racial overtones in this context. Merriam-Webster defines a slur as an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo. This is consistent with the interpretation by many WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is definitely racial, no question there. On the nuances of "slur", "insult" and "disparagement", I think "disparagement" is more correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get into semantics. In this instance, the view is unanimous among all of the sources that it is a slur. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump & Huckabee deny.[13] Not unanimous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: do you have any source for Trump himself denying it? If he believes that it is not a slur, why does he "apologize to the real Pocahontas"? NPOV is based on opinions by journalists, and Sarah's job is not journalism. wumbolo ^^^ 12:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We have no obligation of including or even considering the commentary/opinion of non-independent or unreliable sources. Huckabee-Sanders is a spokesperson whose words sometimes bear tenuous relationships with the truth, and she is neither independent nor reliable. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article includes video of Trump denying. I’m sure others have repeated his line, no I don’t care to go look. I also don’t care to try to get into his head.

It’s better to attribute the characterisation than to editorially assert it. I’m not sure what you are arguing for, what change do you seek? “which Warren and others, including some Native Americans ...”. Change to “which Warren and many others, including Native Americans“? That might be fair. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the person(s) using the term deny it is a slur is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a slur. Particularly when those people are completely non-credible and deliberately vicious and racist. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Even if it is not widely considered as a slur, whether or not the language is a slur should be determined by the perceived ethnicity of the target of the language. Trump perceives Warren as non-Native American, so it's impossible for him to use a slur against her. It's similar to how the N-word is not a slur if it is used by African Americans. One can argue that Trump is using childish insults, but you can't deny that Trump is showing a lot of respect for Native Americans (e.g. by as-perceived-by-him "[apologizing] to the real Pocahontas" [14]). One can also argue that I'm violating WP:NOTFORUM, but I'm simply trying to show that this is not a black-and-white scenario, and that all opinions should be attributed per NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Education Issues with the Article

First, lumping "Early life, education, and family" into one section is a mess. Particularly with regard to education. Americans go to Elementary, Junior High/Middle School/Senior High, College and then to post-graduate. All very structured, and linear. And that is what readers expect to see, and not some mish-mash of extraneous details of this, that and the other thing all mixed up into an incoherent mess. Much of this very basic information is missing, which in and of itself is very noteworthy considering she is a sitting US Senator. The Article's quality should reflect the noteworthiness of the topic, and in it's present form, it does not.

Further, the controversy of her alleged Native American ancestry has direct bearing on all of this, given the recent release of DNA test results. Did she use a claim of Native American ancestry to take advantage of special programs and opportunities that would not be afforded to a "white" person with a similar DNA profile (meaning the ratio of white to non-white)? Also it seems to me that this standard could be used by the average person to form their own opinion on whether or not Ms. Warren is, or is not, legitimately considered "part Native American". If she did not, or with the new information of the DNA test results, she could not qualify as a Native American for these types of programs, etc..., it seems to me this is a functional standard whereby to determine that she is, or is not, "part Native American". Wikipedia should be providing this type of information (a clear, structured report of her education), as well as whether or not she benefited from any kind of special program reserved for Native Americans. These are simple facts, made clear in every other biographical information on prominent US politicians that I've seen, and I can't help but wonder if the political cloud surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry has also clouded the accurate reporting of her basic educational information within this Article.

The Article would be Improved if this section were to at least separate "Education" from everything else into it's own standalone section, restructure the information into a linear format (elementary, junior high/middle school/senior high, college, post-graduate, etc...), and then add significant information such as whether or not Ms. Warren benefited from "minority set-aside" type programs, as that is exactly what information people are looking for when they come to read this Article.2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence she used a claim of Native American ancestry to take advantage of special programs and opportunities in education. If there was, that would escalate the issue, but there isn't.--Pharos (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about her education, but there's an article on Politico citing a Fordham Law Review piece describing Warren as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color " - find the Politico story here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

We already discuss this in the article, and there isn't any evidence she used it for educational or job advancement.--Pharos (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

While the Boston Globe article states that Warren's claim to Indian heritage was not used for education or job advancement, it must be acknowledged that the use of ethnic/racial preferences is often kept under wraps in hiring due to the controversial legal status of such preferences, and in any event Warren's claim surely did not hurt her advancement in academia. 2601:903:180:454:106:70B9:89B:7639 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Kolef2601:903:180:454:106:70B9:89B:7639 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your unsourced conjectures and suppositions can have no place in a Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with @NorthBySouthBaranof: there’s no evidence to support this right-wing talking point. Actually it should go without saying that there is no evidence to support any right wing talking point, which is why they have no place being circulated to the general public via Wikipedia. Aidaakron (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

I have removed a lengthy discourse on the Native American issue from the lede of the article and per WP:BRD I request that it not be reinserted until consensus is reached on whether or not it belongs, and if so, how to properly word and weight it. The section inserted by YoPienso gave as much space in the lede to the Native American issue as it gave to Warren's entire Senate career, which is clearly and obviously undue weight on this single issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was bold, you reverted, here I am to discuss. Please enlarge on your edit summary, "I simply disagree. Per WP:BRD this material needs to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached first," to discuss why you simply disagree. Please see my recent comment for why I think it should be included. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the sub-section is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that what I wrote is too long. Yet I insist some mention of the issue be made in the lead and that a subsection tell the details. Otherwise, we're tampering with Warren's life story and omitting pertinent info. YoPienso (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be in the lead, as it is a notable enough issue.--72.208.47.172 (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be placed in the lede. It has been the cornerstone of her whole law professor career. The article has become a whitewashed article where editors who are supportive of her career and her politics remove huge amounts of negative information about her. There are editors who blatantly point out that they believe protecting her political career is the most important issue when editing this article. The whole and complete removal of her claims of being both a Native American AND a Cherokee from the lede without making even one helpful comment is typical of the phenomena. She is not a member of my tribe. She has claimed to be Cherokee in the past and that information has been removed. She has claimed to be Native American and at the same time provides information that proves that she is somewhere between 98.5% to 99.9% WHITE. She has defended her Native American and Cherokee claims by saying she has "high cheekbones" which is disturbing at the least and racist at the most. There are thousands of enrolled members of various Cherokee Nations that have condemned and crticized her claims. But editors want to whitewash the article because she is a potential 2020 candidate. One of the editors actually said those words. ALL of these facts are wildly supported by reliable sources from across the political spectrum but there are still attempts to whitewhite the article of all of this information. The attempts to remove ALL mentions of these facts in the lede is an attempt to whitewash. The attempts to write one line buried in the body of the article and then direct readers to a separate article is at attempt at whitewash. Since the woman has been making these claims for DECADES indicates that there should be some concensus supported mention in the lede and there should be a summary in the article. The information is extensive and therefore it might also require its own article. If Donald Trump says things that are racial it gets placed in Wikipedia immediately. If Elizabeth Warren makes a racist comment defending herself even though she is 98.5% to 99.9% white her "high cheekbones" comment gets deleted from the article as if she never said it. Wikipedia is not censored or whitewashed.CharlesShirley (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede (at all). It's not a sufficiently noteworthy or defining element in her life and career. It has simply been used as a weapon by her opponents and adversaries, and that seems to be the only reason it has gained media attention and traction and click-bait. Anyone who wants to read about it can skip to the subsection on it. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: and @CharesShirley: There really shouldn’t even be a subsection on it. Including it in the article at all serves no purpose except to suggest that Warren isn’t genuine, as a means of manipulating public opinion against her - which is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Aidaakron (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, including it validates her personal narrative; excluding it reeks of Orwellian editing--throwing unwelcome facts down the memory hole. See my comments below. YoPienso (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SoftLavender says, "There's no consensus as of yet to include this in the lede; or how and in what wording. Wait till there is a consensus on Talk." I see a lot of agreement here. Please chime in, everyone.
Also, to contextualize NorthBySouthBaranof's comment on my "lengthy discourse," it was this: Warren has always believed family lore that she has American Indian and specifically Cherokee ancestry; in 2018 a DNA test showed a Native ancestor some six to ten generations ago. Her claim has been mocked by politicians and criticized by Cherokees. Questions about whether she used her claimed Indian heritage to obtain various academic positions have been refuted by those who hired her. I agreed it was too long, but don't consider it a lengthy discourse. So let's be careful in our discussions and comments. My newer addition that SoftLavender reverted was in the third paragraph of the lead right after "Scott Brown": During the election, controversy over her alleged Native American heritage arose. YoPienso (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion, "It's not a sufficiently noteworthy or defining element in her life and career." As I've said repeatedly, it has been part of her personal narrative for her entire life, and has cropped up again and again throughout her life. (Remember the cookbook and the checkmark at Harvard.) In 2012 editors here said it was a passing political attack, but she continued to remark and write on it, as did political opponents and the press. Six years later it's more alive and relevant to her life story than ever. YoPienso (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, you violated WP:ALLEGED. For another, you didn't wait until there was a consensus on whether to include anything in the lede, or what the wording should be. Since you've been reverted twice on this, per WP:BRD you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for both the inclusion and the precise wording, rather than making those decisions yourself. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm hoping to work with you to write the best possible article. (Though in a moment I'm going offline for hours.) I don't understand what you mean about violating WP:ALLEGED. I was carefully trying to be as accurate as possible--as that time, there was no geneological or scientific evidence that she has Native ancestry, but only her familuy lore, which was being hotly disputed. Once again, yes, let's discuss! YoPienso (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED: Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Her DNA test proved that she has some Native American ancestry. It doesn't matter when the DNA test was; your use of the word "alleged" implied that her assertion of Native American heritage was inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what you meant. Do you agree that in 2012 it was alleged, not demonstrated? I was going to say "claimed," but thought that was pejorative, whereas "alleged" seemed dispassionate and encyclopedic. I personally would gladly drop any qualifier, but only because I have always believed her 100%. But my understanding of policy is that we need a qualifier when referring to the claim before the DNA test confirmed it.

Here's my proposal--Add the following sentence to the third paragraph of the lead right after "Scott Brown": During the election, controversy over her Native American heritage arose. Let's discuss! I've broken a personal rule of mine to never sign on at work. Now truly disappearing for hours. YoPienso (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy arose" is weasel-wording. Her opponents made it into an issue. It should also be clear that they were wrong on two counts: Warren did have Indian ancestry and she never benefited from it in gaining acceptance to schools or employment. The only arguably valid criticism of her came from the Cherokee nation, which some editors want excluded from the article except where it is critical of Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• With how the article is currently written it should be in the lead. If you want to re-write the article to de-emphasis that part well okay. But as it currently stands there is no reasonable policy based argument that the largest and most well sourced section of the article is not mentioned in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course it should be mentioned, but it must be written according to policy and guidelines first. It's not up to me to re-write it. TFD (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it comes down to wording more than if it should be mentioned at all. I was mostly talking about if it should be mentioned period. Since a few of the arguments above talked about removing it completely. There are more skilled writers than myself that should be able to do a good job in that regard. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it should be in the lede. My attempt at it was just a first attempt. I do not pretend that my version should be used. But I want to emphasize once again, it is not just a topic thrown at her by her political opponents. She made the personal choice to tell law school administrators throughout the country that she believed that she was both a Native American and a Cherokee. She made positive, affirmative steps to tell law school administrators this information. These are things she did--not Trump, not Brown. The controversy that has followed her around since this information came to light grew out of actions she took. Also, she did not take affirmative, positive steps to work with the people of my tribe, the Cherokees. That is choice that she made, not Trump, not Brown, not the Cherokees. I think editors should stop making excuses for her. Neither Trump or Brown made her defend herself by saying she was convinced she is a Cherokee Indian because she claims to have "high cheekbones". She made the choice to make a racist statement to defend herself. She has claimed Native and Cherokee ancestry for DECADES. It is a part of her life and it is CLEARLY a part of her life now. Please stop trying to whitewash it from the lede, the body of the article, etc. It is significant and it belongs in the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not weasel-wording, TFD, but appropriate brief mention in the lead of a topic covered in the body. Per WP:WEASEL: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. [Emphasis added.] Earlier, I was more specific and detailed, and my addition was called a "lengthy discourse." YoPienso (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If mentioned it should say it was a controversy among U.S. conservatives, otherwise it implies that it was wider than it actually was. TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken about that. Please see my hidden list from June 16, "Links to news stories about Warren and her Native American claims." Many centrists and liberals added their voices. Currently, the Cherokee Nation and other Native organizations are vigorously contributing to the controversy; they are progressive, not conservative. YoPienso (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any liberals or centrists. Can you name some? I know that mainstream media did cover the attacks by Brown and Trump, but that does not mean they questioned what Warren said. TFD (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I don't get how you can't see the hundreds of thousands of natives in various tribes who are critical of her for attempting to take jobs from qualified natives who are 100%/50%/25% native, instead of her 1%. I guess we see what we want to see. Take a look at his recent article from the NY Times, who interviewed quite a few people, none of whom are conservatives. I know it is much simplier to say that native complaints at Warren are just conservatives stirred up by Trump and FOX News. But that analysis is flawed and incorrect. It basically ignores that fact that Warren has misused my tribal heritage and the great suffering that natives have gone through and her misuse is just another example of one more person stomping on the native culture and rights of Native Americans. I know it is easier to blow it off as some kind of Trump thing, but that is flat out incorrect. Simple but wrong. See: Astor, Maggie. Why Many Native Americans Are Angry With Elizabeth Warren, New York Times, October 17, 2018.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: How about checking this article from the Huff Post by Rebecca Nagel: I Won’t Support An Elizabeth Warren Presidency While She Appropriates My Identity, Huff Post, October 3, 2018. There are plenty of liberal voices out there that are angry and unhappy with Warren and her Cherokee and N.A. claims. Trump and conservatives are not the only people unhappy with her and you should not make that false assumption.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The comprehensive coverage given by the MSM should be enough to satisfy you, TFD, that not only conservatives are discussing this. Clearly the initial thrust of the controversy was in the context of a political battle, Warren being the progressive and Brown the conservative. Yet from there, "everybody" had to chime in. Please note the article I linked to in The Atlantic that explores the issue itself and doesn't simply report what the conservatives were saying. The New Yorker article is rather critical of Warren, rebutting an assertion that Brown was asking questions that had already been answered with: "Except that they haven’t been, really. When Warren made her reputation by speaking clearly and sensibly about the economy, she seemed to trust her listeners’ intelligence. Why hasn’t she now?" Other responses to Warren in that same article are "one can’t help but wince," and that one can "still be impatient with her on this one. The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value—that this was all about a Native American woman looking for other Native Americans to talk to—it doesn’t sound good. She doesn’t appear to have looked very hard, for one thing." Then we have the very recent outcry from Native Americans, who are progressive, not conservative, as I already said today. YoPienso (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the two articles you listed and I do not see any criticism from liberals or centrists. The one other group that criticized Warren was representatives of the Cherokee nation and I think that should be mentioned. Note that the two groups criticized Warren for different reasons. Conservatives said she had no Indian ancestry and made it up in order to benefit from affirmative action, both of which claims were false. Can you name any liberals who attacked Warren? Obama, Biden, Shumer, Pelosi, the Clintons - where are their negative comments? TFD (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Your statement that there were no liberals in the two articles was simply false. So after I respond here I will waste no more time with responding to your comments because you are just ignoring them and believing what you want. Those articles quoted three different liberal people: (1) Kim TallBear, a prof. at Univ of Alberta and member of Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe in SD; (2) Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Cherokee Nation Secretary of State; and (3) Rebecca Nagel, registered Democrat, avowed liberal, and a member of my tribe, the Cherokees. All three of these people are critics of Warren. You want to lump them in with all "Cherokees", which minimizes their individual worth and is an ignorant statement because Professor TallBear is not even a Cherokee. It is a blatantly false statement by you and it assumes that all American Indians are Cherokees. It also assumes that all Cherokees think alike. The statement is wrong on many levels. It is emblematic of how non-Indians are discussing this whole Warren misappropriating native culture issue. Also, you asked for names of liberals and I gave them to you and then you moved the goalposts and made a list of the only liberals you would accept, which was made up of only white liberals (except for Obama who is half white) from the Democratic Party (e.g., Pelosi, Shumer, etc). Whether this list of white liberals condemns Warren or not does not decide whether Warren's Indian heritage is going to be in the article. They are not the decider of this issue. Clearly I gave you a list of what you asked for and clearly you ignored the list and came up with a new set of rules. I will no longer respond to the silliness. Warren thought she was an Cherokee because she had "high cheekbones" which is a racist and ignorant thought process.CharlesShirley (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

TFD, I understood your comment, "it was a controversy among U.S. conservatives," to mean it was something heard only in the conservative echo chamber. Perhaps I misunderstood you. At 02:28, 18 October 2018, you acknowledged MSM coverage of the controversy, but stated, "that does not mean they questioned what Warren said." So I quoted from 2 liberal MSM publications that questioned what Warren said. (Imo, they were being impartial and fair--not attacking her, but acknowledging weakness. Nonetheless, they weren't applauding or defending, but questioning.)

If you'll notice, in my list I'm calling the news sources themselves liberal, centrist, and conservative. Clearly the controversy--not the self-identity--arose as a political attack, so, no, of course we're not going to hear Democrats such as Obama, Pelosi, etc., attacking one of their major public faces. (This isn't so much conservative v. liberal as Republican v. Democrat.) YoPienso (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

They did not question what Warren said, they merely repeated the conservative criticisms and her reply. CharlesShirley, it is certainly not incorrect to say that the criticism came from conservatives and members of the Cherokee nation (and we say Native Americans.) But it is misleading to say that liberals criticized Warren. Overwhelmingly they did not. Anyway, this page discussion is going nowhere. The article should reflect this matter the way it was covered in mainstream media and not try to vindicate or villainize Warren beyond what they have done. Have faith that if the criticisms are explained to readers that they can come to their own conclusions. TFD (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrt Warren listing herself as a minority, the New Yorker article called Warren's response disappointing and suggested she was being opportunistic; they explained why another paper called her "Fauxcahontas." Explained why. Not explain away. Then they ask why she's no longer trusting her listeners' intelligence. It directly questions, "She put herself down as Native American for the lunch invitations, and stopped when none were forthcoming?" and then says one can't help but wince at that and be impatient with her. It says, "The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value. . . it doesn’t sound good." And then it criticizes her for not looking very hard. So I don't know how you can say "They did not question what Warren said, they merely repeated the conservative criticisms and her reply." YoPienso (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And here in the Miami Herald is a local Democratic bigwig criticizing Warren for the DNA test. "Instead of worrying about Trump’s attacks and focusing on herself, wouldn’t Democrats be better served if Warren used her substantial intellect to articulate the real issues of the day?" he asks after referring to Jim Messina's criticism of her. YoPienso (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic side discussion ~Awilley (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@The Four Deuces: You are right this discussion is going no where because you are defending information that you want to believe. Also, correct me if I misunderstand your comment above ("and we say Native Americans"), are you trying (unsucessfully I might add) to lecture me on what term I can or cannot say about members of my own tribe? I am a proud enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, unlike Warren. I don't know about your background because you are hiding behind a name that your mother obviously did not give you. Who is the "we" you are referring to in your failed, attempted lecture? Is the "we" the white liberals you have designated to approve changes to this article, e.g., Pelosi, Shumer, Biden, and the Clintons? Just so you understand going forward I will refer to members of my tribe and members of other tribes (not Warren because she is not native) as "native" or "Native American" or "American Indian" or "indigenous". Also, I will not ask you or any of your white liberal overlords (such as the Clintons) for permission to refer to other natives as American Indian because I don't need their elitist approval, or your approval or anyone's approval because all of those terms are acceptable. You clearly did not understand this fact so I had to just explain it to you flat out and fill in the missing pieces of your education. I used to work for an organization called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is not called the Bureau of Native American Affairs. I doubt you knew the BIA even existed because I doubt seriously is an area in which you have any experience or education. Why do I say that? Because you comment is silly and lacks substance or insight and it clear I had to education you about a basic fact of Indian Country.CharlesShirley (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say "we can say Native Americans" meaning we can say Warren has been criticized by Native American organizations instead of saying has been criticized by Cherokee organizations. I resent your reference to "my white liberal overlords" and the statement that I was not aware of the DIA. When I say liberals did not criticize Warren, that does not mean I am defending them, just stating the facts which should be reflected in this article. Incidentally, I have worked for aboriginal bands and tribal councils, and came into contact with the Department of Indian Affairs (since renamed) but I don't claim that gives me any special expertise in editing Wikipedia articles. While the nomenclature used was different, I believe the generally accepted term in the United States today is "Native American." TFD (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: I apologize for jumping down your throat. Please note that: There is nothing in the U.S. federal government called the "Department of Indian Affairs" or "DIA". There is the main U.S. agency that serves as the U.S. government's main contact with American Indian and Alaskan people and that agency is called the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which I used to work for. I gave you a link to the BIA article in Wikipedia. Now, there is a division of the United States Department of the Interior called the Indian Affairs division, which is essentially the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and that Presidentially appointed job is to run the BIA, but it is NOT called the "Department of Indian Affairs" or "DIA". The BIA is probably one of the oldest agencies in the history of the United States government and it has been called the Bureau of Indian Affairs throughout that timeframe. There has never been a "Department of Indian Affairs" or a "DIA". There has never been a renaming of that agency. I just don't know what you are referring to because the BIA has never been renamed and the BIA is the federal government's main agency that deals with Indian people has been called that for well over a century and still is today. And NO there is no "generally accepted term" for people like me who are members of tribes. Please do not say that, it just isn't true. What tribe did you work for?--CharlesShirley (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC) It was in Canada. TFD (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to amend the third paragraph of the lead by inserting "During the election, controversy over her Native American heritage arose" right after the first sentence? YoPienso (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Although given the recent test results, it would be more adequate to state "controversy arose over her purported Native American heritage"… — JFG ^talk 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not funny JFG . OK, this sounds good to me as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(To those that do not understand, this means that I appreciate JFG's humor - it is not meant to be some sort of mean dig.) Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Let Us Preserve the Notability Policy

Good-faith discussion that sprang from a misunderstanding of what WP:N means — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The WP:NOTNEWS are no excuse for evading the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy. So long as the info is "significant, interesting, or unusual," you cannot use the Not News policy as an excuse for political bias. The Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State made a notable statement which deserves to be included 2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles. WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles. GMGtalk 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Nope, it deals with determining "significant, interesting, or unusual" events which can be included in articles. A verified response to Warren's DNA test from the Cherokee Nation is indeed very significant and interesting.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Here is the original source too.[15]2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. GMGtalk 17:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Read the article that determines how to enforce this policy Wikipedia:Notability (events): Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Are you disagreeing with me? I can't tell. GMGtalk 17:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I'm only disagreeing with you if you can't accept that matches with "significant, interesting, or unusual." It is also not wise to omit the succeeding sentences which described more.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC) WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles. WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles. GMGtalk 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (events) is irrelevant; it regards when an event should have an article, and The Cherokee Nation's statement in response to Elizabeth Warren's DNA test is obviously not a suitable topic for an article. (the statement might go on Wikisource if it is licensed in a way to allow that). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Since the verified event is "significant, interesting, or unusual," it is not at all irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a fan base for anybody. I don't think omitting succeeding sentences which showed more was appropriate either2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Have you considered that WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles and WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles? GMGtalk 17:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Of course. You can't use that one either. Interesting first paragraph "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Nothing tiny with the Cherokee Nation.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Lets Also Preserve the Undue Weight Policy As Well

same as the section above. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After all, it guides us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source" There is also nothing insignificant about the Cherokee Nation which contains the people which Warren claimed she was a descendant of.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Positioning

Where exactly is the talk page consensus that says we should put a current controversy under her early life instead of chronologically in her biography like everything else is? GMG^talk 00:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's because she was taught as a child that she had Native ancestry. I myself am unsure where the best placement is, but have no problem with where it is now. Chronologically, it was part of her childhood and youth, which would be the 1950s and '60s; she referred to it in a cookbook in 1984 and at Harvard in the 1990s. Those two instances are clearly documented, but suggest she had a general self-image throughout her life of having some Cherokee background. Then, it became a campaign issue in 2012, which is where I suppose you think it belongs chronologically. I wouldn't mind placing it there, either. YoPienso (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The section is entirely about the controversy, which did not occur in her early life. It belongs there neither chronologically nor topically. I'm not terribly concerned about chronological sequence, and we don't have that now unless pop culture, books, and awards are the latest things that have happened in her life, in that order. Topically, it belongs under "Career" or "U.S. Senate", probably the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. If only the political controversy is going to be noted, it should be under the 2012 campaign (or I could agree to "Career,") when the Globe raised the issue and Brown challenged her. Imho, we should tell the fuller story with the whole arc since childhood, yet without adding length to what is already probably too long. YoPienso (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph belongs, which says she grew up believing she had Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the text belongs in her 'early life / family' section. I don't think this should be thrown into a career sub-section or be titled as a 'controversy'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that there's no need to title it 'controversy' and it certainly belongs in early life/family. It can be titled simply "Native American heritage". ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked the editor who reverted the text back into the early life section and it looks like their edit summary about there being consensus for the controversy being in the early life section was due to a misunderstanding about what GMG's edit was doing. [16] ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep in Early Life and Family - clearly family lore arising from her earliest years, so it belongs in "Early life and family". False that it belongs in the 2012 campaign, since she admits she self-identified as Native while teaching university, which was years and even decades the 2012 election. Note we don't know if she identified as Cherokee in her college or law schools applications but given that as recently as last week she was still concerned enough about the issue that she scientifically proved she has 1/1024th Amerindian blood, evidently this is an important family issue for her and has been since her earliest days until today. Please respect her self-identification from earliest childhood. XavierItzm (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren's response to The Cherokee Nation

"Warren went on to state that she was neither claiming nor seeking tribal membership with the genetic test results."

Does her response to the Cherokee Nation need to be here? It's a strawman fallacy, as she's implying that the Cherokee Nation stated that she is seeking tribal membership, but they never said that. Their words exactly are, "Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong ... Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage".

I'm not even sure if her response is warranted even if she weren't strawmanning them. Do we need to include every politician's rebuttal to criticism, even when they are wrong and invoking logical fallacies? It just seems like someone is trying to push a POV to contradict or minimize The Cherokee Nation's criticsm. ScienceApe (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should simply quote her response. I'm not sure why the quote in the article was replaced with an editor's synthesis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove her response - Agree that she was strawmanning the Indians. Her response is offensive to the Natives, shows lack of respect towards them, and should be removed. XavierItzm (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course we include response to public criticism when it is available - as is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's fallacious and dishonest? That sounds like propagating fake news. So if Donald Trump lies as a response to public criticism, we would include that too? ScienceApe (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

​Yes, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

O rly. Please quote where in WP:PUBLICFIGURE it says that. ScienceApe (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course her response needs to be here. We can't include negative claims about Warren without including her reliably-sourced responses to those claims - that would place undue weight on the criticism and violate WP:NPOV by presenting only one side of the argument. I don't know what you're talking about when you say this is "POV-pushing synthesis" - the statement is clearly included in the cited reliable source: Warren did clarify that she was talking only about family history and not claiming any sort of right to affiliation. The fact that you don't like what the source says is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You invoked a strawman fallacy, I never said I don't like what the source says. The fact that you so easily strawmanned me, shows me that you do not understand what a strawman fallacy is. Which is exactly why you don't understand why her response is inappropriate. For now though, I'm willing to settle for just a quote of her response, not a synthesis. ScienceApe (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. To be fair to Warren, this needs to include the quote *and* the context of the quote directly cited from the reliable source. You do not seem to understand that synthesis is only prohibited if it is original synthesis not found in a reliable source. If that synthesis is included in a reliable source, that is literally what Wikipedia exists to do - report things as reliable sources report them. The reliable source not only quoted Warren, it provided the necessary context to the quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, if your concern is "synthesis," I've added essentially the same statement as a direct quote from Warren (via Twitter). I trust this resolves your problem with the statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So you want to quote her, and then say what she said? That's redundant. You're pushing a POV and you strawman people because you don't know how to debate. ScienceApe (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You just spent a bunch of words objecting to the sourced paraphrase on the grounds that it was a "synthesis." In an effort to compromise with you, I replaced the synthesis with a quote. Your response is... to just repeat "strawman" over and over again? You can't just keep calling something a "strawman" as if that has any meaning whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I just spent a bunch of words? That doesn't even make any sense. Your exposition was redundant and a synthesis. ScienceApe (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The full and complete conclusion of Bustamonte

I have reverted edits by CharlesShirley and I request that he discuss his proposals here rather than continuing to edit-war. His edits misleadingly place the emphasis on something Warren has never claimed, in contradiction to the emphasis of the reliable sources cited - that Warren does, as she has stated, have some significant (more than average) native ancestry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:I need to fact-check the statement above by NorthBySouthBaranof ("NBSB"). Since Glenn Kessler is unavailable, I will have to do it myself. NBSB makes a false claim above that I am "[placing] the emphasis on something Warren has never claimed." NBSB does not make it clear what exactly I am putting emphasis on that NBSB just does not like. However, after interacting with NBSB, trying to get him to make his complaint more clear, he did respond below. And below he falsely claims, "No one (much less Warren) has disputed or claimed that she is not mostly European ancestry." He says to justify leaving out part of Bustamonte's conclusion that Elizabeth Warren's role in this whole Native identity thing is so innocence and she has only been simply saying that she has one little Indian somewhere in his heritage. This is blatant poppycock. When Warren started to run for U.S. Senate in Mass. she claimed that if elected she would be the first Native American Senator from Massachusetts in June 2012. On June 1, 2012, she was asked by FOX Boston WFXT, Channel 25’s Sharman Sacchetti if she (Warren) would be Massachusetts’ first Native American senator, Warren responded: “I would be their first senator — so far as I know — who has Native American heritage.” You can read about her claim and you can watch Warren make it here: Pappas, Alex. ELIZABETH WARREN INSISTS: I WOULD BE MASSACHUSETTS’ FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN SENATOR, The Daily Caller, June 3, 2018. One-on-One interview with Elizabeth Warren, FOX Boston, June 1, 2012. Also, at one point this Wikipedia article about Warren actually mentioned her false claim. You can review that former version of this page here: Wikipedia Warren Article on June 12, 2012. This factual piece of Warren's false Native American story has been whitewashed from the article I think it might be time to put it back in since there are editors who simply do not know about these facts. --CharlesShirley (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that one has "Native American heritage" is not a claim to tribal membership, nor is it a claim that one is not mostly descended from Europeans. You appear to have an ax to grind against this biographical subject and want to depict her as negatively as possible; I suggest that you may not be able to objectively edit articles about Elizabeth Warren because of this bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article to include all of Bustamonte's conclusion from his report. The article had been edited to only give one half of Bustamonte's conclusion. The article says, incorrectly: "In October 2018, Warren released the results of a genetic ancestry analysis conducted by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante to The Boston Globe, which concluded that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". This sentence leaves out one half of Bustamonte's conclusion. Bustamonte actually concluded that Warren is about 95% European and this sentence in the article should be edited to accurately represent what Bustamonte actually stated.

I did edit where I simply added in the full quote from Bustamonte. I did not add my opinion and stuck directly to the provided reliable source. I edited the sentence to read as follow: "In October 2018, Warren released the results of a genetic ancestry analysis conducted by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante to The Boston Globe, which concludes that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". There is really no reason for the sentence not to be edited as such. It was reverted and no reasonable rationale with given for the reversion other than the other editor did not like it. Unless there is some reasonable rationale given for the reversion then I will restore the edits because there is no reason not to give Bustamonte's full and complete conclusion. Without the full and complete conclusion of Bustamonte we are giving only a cherry-picked representation of what he concluded. The cherry-picked version gives the false impression: (1) that Warren is a Native American, when the full conclusion gives the accurate impression that she about 5% or so of Native American and 95% European, and (2) the results of the test, when it deceptively leaves out the fact that Warren's DNA makeup is vastly (almost exclusively) made up of European heritage (about 95% that is).--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that words added come directly from Bustamonte's report. Why disagree with there addition? Since you reasonable rationale for their removal was given I can only conclude that the other editor simply did not like them. I have a reason for adding them because they give a fuller, more complete understanding of Bustamonte's conclusion.--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note the Boston Globe article says this: "He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor." It stuck to those word faithfully. Why the other editor wants to remove the wording that points out Bustamonte conclusion that the vast majority of Warren's ancestry is European. Leaving out this fact is a falsehood. It gives the wrong impression. It is information bought and paid for by Warren. It is information that Warren made a positive decision to release. Why would we not make the same impression to our readers, unless we are looking to give them the wrong impression of the report? We don't want to do that, do we? No of course not. We want the correct impression of the results, just like the Boston Globe did.--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No one (much less Warren) has disputed or claimed that she is not mostly European ancestry. The question was whether her claim to a Native American ancestor had any validity. A genetic test was demanded; the implication being that she made it all up. The genetic test was performed and, indeed, found that she did have significant Native American ancestry as compared to the average white American. The emphasis of the media stories (in reliable sources) is that fact. Your version turns those sources on their head, emphasizing instead the percentage that is not Native American - but she has never claimed otherwise, and the sources instead emphasize that her claim has, at the least, been significantly supported. You may not turn this result on its head merely because you do not like the emphasis of the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Let's begin with your first point: No one has disputed she is Mostly Euro. Let me say, not true. At the beginning of this discussion about her heritage she made the initial claims that she was a Cherokee and that she was a Native. After a couple of years of criticism from Cherokees she backed down a whole lot. So your comment is simply not true. Your second point: She has proven she is an Indian or at least she has more Indian than the average American. Let me say, so what? She took the test and the test says that "vast majority" of heritage is European. Now, of course, the test also concluded that she has an Indian ancestor somewhere between the 6th and 10th generation. You admit that you want to "emphasis" that second part of the results. This is called POV pushing. You admit that you want to focus only one part of Bustamonte's conclusionary sentence. You admit that you want to remove from the article the words that Bustamonte said that the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European and you tell us why. You want to remove it because it does not tell the story that you want personally want the story to be. This is classic POV pushing. Warren paid for a report. Warren paid Bustamonte for a report. Bustamonte did his research without knowing who Warren was. Bustamonte's conclusion flat out states that the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European and she does have Indian heritage thrown in there 6 to 10 generations down the line. And you want to, in your own words, "emphasis" (read: push the POV) the Indian heritage part of the conclusion and completely ignore and leave out the 95% Euro heritage. This is POV pushing. Just give the readers the full sentence of what Bustamonte said and let them decide for themselves. The Boston Globe did. The reliable source which is the basis of the sentence did. They gave their readers the whole sentence and you still walked away from the article wanting to put the focus on the Indian heritage and ignore the 95% of European heritage. How the can Wikipedia readers understand the Bustamonte conclusion if we only give them one half of it. They can't. That is deceptive editing. It is wrong. It POV pushing. It is the kind of thing that has led to articles in Wikipedia like this one: Racial bias on Wikipedia. You want to emphasis the Indian heritage to assist Warren. You do not want to tell the whole story, which is she paid for a report that concluded that she is 95% European. Even Warren was willing to give people the whole story. Why can't you?--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It concerns me that the wording implies that Warren claimed a much larger degree of Native American ancestry than she in fact did. What about we quote the full conclusion of Prof. Bustamante? "While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."[17] TFD (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It concerns me also. I just want to put the full sentence in the article. It is deceptive to only put one half of Bustamonte's conclusionary statement in the article. It only gives one half of the story. The only reason given to edit out Bustamonte's main conclusion (i.e., the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European) is another editor wants to "emphasis" the second half of the conclusion. That rationale does not fit into classic Wikipedia editing. The point of Wikipedia is to tell the story accurately. As editors we are not supposed to push our own personal point of view (POV) on to the reader. We are to present the information from reliable sources that are usually secondary sources. But what we have here is an editor who wants to pick and choose the wording from a primary source (i.e., the Bustamonte report) instead of using the wording from the secondary source (i.e., the Boston Globe article).--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Wanting to "emphasis" one part of Bustamonte's conclusion over the other violates the principal of Neutral POV.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does not, because we are supposed to emphasize whatever reliable secondary sources do, which in this case is her native ancestry. In my opinion, your version provides undue emphasis to the findings of Warren's European ancestry, which was never in question. Why would you object to providing the complete quote which after all is the same length as the paraphrased version? Certainly there is undue issue with it? TFD (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest quoting or paraphrasing the full sentence TFD quotes (the way Charles Shirley rewrote that sentence would work, with perhaps a little tweaking), while leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is now — the "found many segments of DNA typical of Europeans" bit seems repetitive/extraneous, though perhaps the 95% figure could be worked into the quote, like: [...] concluded that while "the vast majority", 95%,^[NYT] of Warren's ancestry is European, "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago". Journalists reporting on the results stated [...]. Would this adequately cover the fact that the test supported that "the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European" (which apparently no one disputes?) while respecting that most of the sources seem to be focused on its finding of DNA typical of Natives (in a proportion "significantly more than the average American of European ancestry") (obeying WP:DUE)? -sche (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"The genetic test was performed and, indeed, found that she did have significant Native American ancestry as compared to the average white American." She does not have significant Native American ancestry. Most Black and White people that have ancestry for several generations living in America have some Native American ancestry. ScienceApe (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say - as per the cited Washington Post source, Warren has significantly more Native American ancestry than the average white American. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That's how you start spreading fake news. Between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American DNA is not significant Native American ancestry, and is within the margin of error. Stick to the facts only. Not the synthesis the source is making. ScienceApe (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Most European and African Americans have no Native American DNA The average of Native American ancestry among European Americans is 0.18 percent compared with 3% for Warren. It is 0.8 percent among African Americans.[18] Despite the headline, the source of the article says that only 3.5% of European Americans have Native American ancestry.[19] TFD (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Most European and African Americans have no Native American DNA" That's false and a strawman. I said, most Black and White people that have ancestry for several generations living in America have some Native American ancestry. Additionally, she does not have 3% Native American ancestry. She has between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American DNA, which conspicuously has been removed from the article. That range is well within the margin of error for DNA tests too. ScienceApe (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

My source is Bryc, Katarzyna, et al. "The genetic ancestry of african americans, latinos, and european Americans across the United States." The American Journal of Human Genetics 96.1 (2015): 37-53. What's your's? And yes, the test proved that Warren had exactly the amount of Indian ancestry that she claimed. TFD (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote it, don't just list a citation without the quote that supports your ridiculous claim. ScienceApe (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"We find very low levels of African and Native American ancestry in Europeans with four grandparents born in Europe. We estimate that only 0.98% of Europeans carry African ancestry and 0.26% of Europeans carry Native American ancestry. These levels are substantially lower than the 3.5% and 2.7% of European Americans who carry African and Native American ancestry, respectively." (Bryc, et al)[20] Now please provide your source that says most European Americans have Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The first part is talking about EUROPEANS, not White Americans. The second part, they don't specify what constitutes "carrying" Native American ancestry. Elizabeth Warren who has .097% Native American ancestry could very well not qualify as carrying Native American ancestry according to their study. ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The second part refers to all Americans who self-identify as European Americans and includes Americans who have all four grandparents born in Europe. You appear to me to be intelligent enough to understand that. Pretending that you are stupid is an irritating tactic. TFD (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plenty of sources saying that: [21] [22] [23]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please stop the personal attacks. Per WaPo: "Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American." [24] Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think anyone is claiming the average american has no Native American. In fact most sources are saying they have an average of 0.18%-0.19%, which is higher than the low end of Warren.[25] PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Okay lets go with that fact checker report by Gandydancer right above. “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.”[26][27] PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I was mistaken, sorry about that. Source says otherwise. with the vast majority of European Americans having no Native American ancestry PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The average European-American is 0.18% Native American.

Warren is 0.09% Native American (1/1024)

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

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

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

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

Both. The average DNA found in European Americans was 0.18% AND most European Americans have no Native American DNA at all, which btw is what the source that both the NYT and I are using says. You can read an article the Independant that explains why your interpretation is wrong.[28] TFD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of non-native americans

CorbieVreccan yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to establish native american ancestry - per wapo, as I quoted in my revert, "There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level." Also, the use of claim is inappropriate per MOS:CLAIM and that sources don't doubt that the ancestry exists. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (for other people, this is regarding [29])

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

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

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

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

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