Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Expert?!

that is hardly NPOV.

how about "specialist" instead? 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia

This article reads more like her campaign literature than a biographical entry. Typical Wikipedia, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.16.9 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What would you like changed? Be specific. —Designate (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

She's so extreme even the Obama administration thought she was too controversial to head the CFPB. Yet this article with its unencyclopedic "Recognition" section suggests that no reasonable person would think she would be anything but highly qualified for such a position. There is no mention of the Occupy movement in this article, which she claims to be the "intellectual" mother of, never mind her connections to Occupy's most extreme elements. When asked in an interview with WCVB Boston if "these are your people?" Warren declined to create any distance with Occupy, saying "I’ve been fighting Wall Street for a very long time."--Brian Dell (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no suggestion that Warren is "extreme" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). As a preeminent consumer advocate who setup the CFPB, she would clearly have been the best candidate to run the bureau. The Obama administration did not nominate her to head the CFPB because there was never any chance of getting her confirmed. Republicans would've filibustered her confirmation because they knew she'd be too effective fighting against their wealthy overlords. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Warren is extreme in the sense that she's extremely good at understanding the problems of consumer finance, both at a high level regarding government actions and at the level of the man on the street. As Scjessney said, she was not named to lead her own baby because the Republicans never would have approved her. The Occupy events were still in the future at that time.

Remember that this talk page is for article improvement rather than discussion of the general topic. Please bring specific article improvement suggestions here. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless a citation can be provided to support the assertion, the phrase, "that would eventually lead her to become the nation's top authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class" should be deleted. While this may be the opinion of one or more authors, it is unseemly to make such unsupported claims in a biographical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.237.140 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I changed the wording. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Warren taught law at several universities and was listed by the Association of American Law Schools as a minority law professor throughout the 1980s and 1990s." - It was listed this way because she submitted her listing as such, this line indicates the AALS supports her claim to be a minority. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"She has written several academic and popular books concerning the American economy and personal finance." What/who determines them to be popular, even academic while we're at it? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Herring[1] was born June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring." I don't see a reason for the working class parents piece of this sentence. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"When Warren was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to a pay cut, medical bills, and eventually the loss of their car. Her mother went to work answering phones at Sears and Warren worked as a waitress.[6][7]" The two citations here are at odds with each other with the longer more in depth article making no mention of a heart attack, mentioning the mothers job not as a reaction to the heart attack, and bringing up the worries about medical care in a completely different context.

• From the Vanity Fair article: "Her father worked as a janitor, and her mother brought in extra money working in the catalogue-order department at Sears. Warren would recall her mother hesitating to take her to the doctor because money was so tight."

• From the HuffPo article: "When she was twelve, her dad suffered a heart attack. The store where he worked changed his job and cut his pay, and the medical bills piled up. The family lost their car, and her mom went to work answering phones at Sears to pay the mortgage."

Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"She went on to teach for a year in a public school helping children with disabilities." I thought she was a teacher, did she get an award for "helping" the children? This implies she was a superb teacher, do we even know she was a good teacher? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

" In a 2007 interview, Warren spoke of the experience that led her to devote her career to work that would eventually lead her to become an authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class." Who says she's an authority on the economic pressures facing the american middle class? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong and probably am wrong, but this is supposed to be a biography of Liz Warren and the sources being used are heavily reliant on information from Liz Warren and it seems like they should be excluded. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I resoundingly agree with this. The subject is not a verifiable or reliable source of information. Information to be included should be a) verifiable b) neutral c) publicly researched. If you're the teacher of the Sunday school at the place down the street, how can I verify these records? Are they public? Etc. Information which is not easily verifiable should not be presented in a academic biographical context. Wikipedia articles are intended to be informational, not promotional. Promotion is bias. Kyanwan (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thebomer, you challenge the blue-collar status of Warren's parents but then you cite text that says dad was a janitor and mom worked on the telephone. What's the beef?

The cited sources are presenting the information as factual, not as suspicious or doubtful. The information is thus reliably sourced. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I challenge "Blue-collar" as a legitimate status, it is nothing more than political speak. The cited sources, both heavily reliant on Liz Warren herself, are in conflict with each other. They are trying to tell the same story, but it is clear the calculated message in the story is slowly evolving with each telling. Thebomer (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Janitor/custodian is unarguably a blue collar job. Using dad's humble status for political gain is Warren's right—it's a simple statement of the truth. All I'm hearing from you is a plate full of I-don't-like-it. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're addressing one of my comments while grouping with it a separate comment of a different subject. I agree, I don't like the "working class" piece of the sentence and that was my entire point, I don't see a need for it. If you were to compare to other political figures biographies you will see they don't generally include such fluff. I realize such comparisons are moot. Thebomer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You earlier commented separately on sources. The sources you mention as factual are not secondary sources as they relied on Warren. Additionally, they sources conflict with each other, pretty significantly. In one case the family struggled to take Liz to the doctor, while in the other it was the father that drove up medical bills. Similarly, in one case the mother worked to help with the bills, while in the other she worked to replace lost income due to the father's illness. The stories are like parables of the person Liz wants to have been while growing up. Thebomer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Thebomer, you seem to have a lot of knowledge of WP for a first time editor - or perhaps you have edited under a different name in the past? Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just read the talk page of most of wikipedia to try to navigate to other material when it's clear there is conflict between the editors of an entry, so I have a bit of exposure to the arguments made on both sides. Thebomer (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand what a secondary source is. If a reporter interviews Warren and publishes an article based on the interview it is a secondary source, and we accept the facts as far as they agree with other sources, as far as they are not contradicted by equal or better sources. The details that you think do not agree may in fact be all true: maybe both Liz and dad had expensive medical costs. Anyway, the secondary sources you cite are perfectly suitable for our use in the article. We don't consider Vanity Fair or Huffington Post to be unreliable or primary. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what a secondary source is, and it is a stretch to say this is secondary source. They seem to rely solely on Warren for biographical information with no effort to interview neighbors or even family to verify the information. At best it is primary without conflicting information, as long as you ignore the stories of having had 3 cars in the family at a time that it would have been considered an extravagance. I had also posted a few other lines directly above this with odd poistive wording where none is necessary and all exclude citing to attest to them, and I would be interested in your perspective on those.

BTW... I apologize for the copy paste, I meant to delete it from this section as I realized that the conversation was pretty stale this high in the talk page when I added it to the lower section but forgot and then both had comments so I just left both in place. Thebomer (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Highly Questionable Alteration

Information about Warren's supposed Native American ancestry doesn't appear on earlier cached versions of your article. As is, the article might give the impression that you and Warren's campaign presented this information before rather than after the recent allegations. Is there some way to indicate that this information appeared on the website only recently -- after Warren's background was called into question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Designate (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee - Perhaps the voters of Massachusetts and the many thousands of people who are posting to the various articles about Warren's ancestry. Last I checked she was running for a pretty important office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.131.153.210 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no provision for making change date notations within the article itself. That's nothing to do with politics, it's just the way every single article on wikipedia works. They get updated & changed. Some hourly, some very infrequently. The method for doing what you said is found within the article history tab. Those who are interested can clearly see what the article looked like at any revision since it was first written, as well as the details on every single change made. But again, you have to look for it. No page here makes notations like that within the encyclopedia article itself, and to be frank, none ever will. It's just not the way this format works.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical records

Arbor edited the article to indicate that so-called "genealogical records" were found to show Warren ancestry. The AP article actually states that "Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian. Child says more research is needed." No where in that sentence does it refer to "genealogical records". I have properly edited the sentence to correct reflect the facts of the situation by using an old Wikipedia recommendation. I used the actual words of the article as it good Wikipedia practice and as it outlined in various places in the guidelines. Using the authoritative phase "genealogical records" is an interpretation by a Wikipedia and as such fails. The proper sentence should be "Warren produced a document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make Warren 1/32nd American Indian."--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, "genealogical records" was my characterization. I re-worded the section to remove the suggestion that Harvard was using her heritage for it's advantage (that's about Harvard, not about Warren) and included the concern that a single document may not be sufficient proof of her heritage. I think part of the problem here is that, unlike most other racial or ethnic groups, there are specific legal criteria that designate who can and cannot identify legally as Native American. What's not clear to me is whether Warren ever asserted that she fit the legal criteria (it doesn't seem like she does), or whether she was stating that because of her family history as she understood it at the time, she identified as partially Native American? Does that make sense?

Marriage application ARE genealogical records. Handwritten Ellis Island rosters (which can vary from being filled out in the ship by the immigrant, or filled out by a ships personnel with little to no input by the immigrant) are genealogical records. Diary entries are genealogical records!

What do you think genealogical records are?

"there are specific legal criteria that designate who can and cannot identify legally as Native American." No. Do not project your own views onto wikipedia. It is perfectly "legal" for people who do not fir a tribes specific criteria to identify as "Native American". There are criteria for certain government programs and certain rights specific to to certain nation's/tribes settlements admittance. Millions and millions of Americans identify -- perfectly legally -- without meeting any tribe's strict criteria. In fact if one looks at the 2010 census numbers the are double those "enrolled" in tribes. Are those million people with some identity but not meeting a tribes criteria falsifying their descent? That is no different than millions of Americans identifying as Irish who are not eligible for Irish citizenship. In any other sense or situation, there are not any more criteria than who can identify as being of Irish descent or Italian descent.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma requires that membership in the tribe be traced from an ancestor/relative whose name appears on the 1907 Dawes Roll. There are quite a few Reeds shown on the Roll - some listed as 1/4 and others as 1/8 Cherokee by blood. But this is a matter between the Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma and Mrs. Warren. GWPDA (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I really think we ought to both tread rather lightly here and work together to improve the article. Sound good? Arbor8 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I was trying to stick to the supporting Associated Press article. I never made an edit referring to Harvard in any way, so I don't know what you are referring to there. I have been trying to stick to what reliable sources have been stating and they did not use the term "genealogical" or "prove" those are words used by other Wikipedia editors, not reliable sources. I don't think that there is enough evidence to "prove" either Warren is N.A. or is not N.A.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, marriage application are per se genealogical records. Go to any genealogy site or any general volume on genealogical research, they are listed.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps editors are unaware that 1) Even if valid, the so-called application would be considered "secondary"; a primary document is needed to determine ancestry; 2). Even if valid, the so-called application shows only what the applicant wrote (not necessarily what is true); 3). Even if valid, the so-called application's applicant was NOT the so-called Cherokee ancestor herself, but a relative of hers; 4). Genealogical societies have pointedly rejected the specific so-called application even as a secondary source for several reasons; 5). Even if valid, the so-called application claimed as "Cherokee" a person who had previously claimed herself as "white" in the 1860 Census. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is there not a section devoted to this? Someone listing them self as a minority faculty member for possibly being 1/32nd Cherokee shows a disconnection to reality at the very least. As the story develops, there is a good chance it will be uncovered that she personally benefited from the classification. This story is large enough to warrant its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.201.228 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is YOUR interpretation. I see no indication in any of the sourced material that she applied for tribal rights. :"Personally benefiting" an ethic identity, no matter how distant, in politics is common. So "there is a good chance it will be 'uncovered' she personally benefited" is a strange argument to make. That leaves Harvard. Harvard apparently leaves this at self nomination and gives applicants no criteria, no minimum degree of background, to test their self nomination.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The "benefits" of Native American ancestry are far from limited to "tribal rights". The narrative of this matter actually features the allegation that Warren did "personally benefit" from her claims of American Indian ancestry.

• "Editorial: Elizabeth Warren was in a position to benefit from both racial preferences and white privilege" by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2012, [1], "Warren downplayed her alleged Indian roots after coming to Harvard to avoid the stigma of "affirmative action." ...early in her career, "minority status" would have been useful to her advancement. But once she was on the tenure track at an Ivy League law school, she had more or less reached the pinnacle of academia. At that point, if people thought of her as white, they would assume she got the job entirely on the merits, without benefit of racial preferences."
• "Editorial: Jig's Up, Cherokee Liz", Investors Business Daily, May 18, 2012, [2], "Unless Warren can offer proof, she should quit her post at Harvard Law, which has touted her as its "first woman of color." She plainly wasn't hired on merit. ...She also owes Native Americans an apology. They're justifiably outraged over a white leftist gaming the racial spoils system (that white leftists created), and enjoying an affirmative-action leg-up at their expense."
• Commentary: The Massachusetts senate race Indian War of 2012" by Mary Sanchez, The Kansas City Star, May 21, 2012, [3], "Warren, the charge goes, is an affirmative action poser. ...It seems that Warren may be guilty of a crime millions of Americans routinely commit: claiming, with no actual proof, that some ancestor back in the misty past was a Cherokee. Many families perpetuate these myths, perhaps to make their humdrum antecedents seem more exotic, perhaps just to share in the romance of all things Indian."
• "A recipe for trouble" by Howie Carr, New York Post, May 21, 2012, [4], "[Warren] began checking the box, as they say, back in 1984 — and her academic career immediately took off. The newly minted minority catapulted from the University of Texas to the Ivy League, first Penn (where her name was boldfaced in faculty directories to indicate her minority status) and then Harvard."

So, individual editors may agree or disagree that Warren personally benefited from her claims of Native American ancestry, but no one can pretend that such questions aren't easily verifiable. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Geneological Society?

That bit is WP:UNSOURCED, and it also qualifies as WP:OR, as you're pushing the conclusion that she may not have any Native American ancestry. The rest of the edit is POV-pushing by trying to make it appear that Warren has done something nefarious. I can imagine that this IP editor is likely anti-Warren and trying to use Wikipedia to smear her in light of the coming election. I've been nice to simply undo those edits and not revert as vandalism, but I'll start doing that if you persist. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? I clearly linked the Boston Herald news artilce that mentions it. Additionally, Boston Herald is also the news organization that uncovered the old Crimson reports and I have clearly referenced the specific news article?

You are trying to defend Elizabeth Warren here by labelling clearly linked news reports as unsourced? Chill out dude. You are the one who seems to be vandalizing here. I challenge you to identify which specific part of my edit is unsourced, unverified, original research or states an 'opinion' and is not a fact that has not already been reported by news media. And I mean well established news organizations, not blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.12 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors keep removing this from the article: "On May 15, the New England Historical Genealogical Society announced that it had discovered no documentation to back up Warren's claims, and the society was discontinuing research into the matter."

Here is the quote from the Boston Herald:

• "The New England Historical Genealogical Society, which originally announced they found evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage, said today they have discovered no documentation to back up claims that she is 1/32 Cherokee. ...The Herald reported today that an Oklahoma county clerk said a document purporting to prove Warren’s Cherokee roots does not exist. ...All of which leaves Warren, who said she relied on family lore when reporting her Native American ties, once again without any proof of her heritage."

Plainly, there is no valid objection per WP:SOURCE or WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. While I haven't personally seen a secondary or tertiary source refer to Warren as "nefarious", I have seen published non-opinion discussions of the matter which freely use terms like "dishonesty" and "fraud". On May 9, The New York Observer half-jokingly asked of Elizabeth Warren, "Why does she insist on keeping her campaign running, despite the fact that she’s revealed herself to be either part Native American or an opportunistic liar?" Even the Boston Globe had to admit this week (burying it among a bunch of other "corrections"): "May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven."

It's silly to pretend that Warren's decades of lies (including published lies) should be excluded as non-notable. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren's claimed Indian Ancestry

The Wikipedia article keeps being edited as if there is conclusive proof that Warren has Indian ancestry. The genealogist, Child, that has been working on the issue for Warren has never stated that premise. All of his comments have been clear in that he believes that she has Indian ancestry, but not enough evidence has been produced so far to back up that definitive claim. Please read today's Boston Hearld, it points out that the original document that had the world Cherokee was a marriage application, not a marriage certificate and it does not indicated how much Indian blood that Warren's great-great-great grandmother, Snow, had. We don't know if Snow was full blooded or if she was one half or if she was one eighth, etc. We just don't know that exactly Snow's percentage was, if anything, and that is exactly what Child has been saying in several articles. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect that doubt. It is not possible, based upon the reliable sources, to state that she has Indian ancestry. I have been attempting to edit the article to reflect the facts only: (1) she has found a document that leans toward proving her ancestry, but does not prove it and (2) the principal investigator has consistently stated that more research needs to be done. I am happy to discuss this facts here on the talk page because there is no need for a edit war.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see those efforts ("as if there is conclusive proof") at all. What really applies here is WP:UNDUE, with a dose of WP:RECENTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I don't think it belongs in the 2012 US Senate run section. A brief one or two sentences can go in a Personal life section, and the rest belongs on the Senate election article. This is a small thing that the Brown campaign is picking up to try to win an election. Once there's evidence that the voters of Massachusetts use this in their decision making, it'll belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't think Warren has ever claimed to have a specific percentage of Native American heritage, so I'm not sure why that's an issue. Additionally, the Warren campaign has not stated that the marriage application is hard and fast "proof" of her genealogy, but rather submitted it for exactly what it is: Evidence that back in 1894, one of Warren's relatives self-identified as Cherokee. She's not applying for tribal benefits here; she simply stated that SHE believes she is part Cherokee, and the marriage application gives some credence to why she believes that. Arbor8 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the "incident" has unfolded over a substantial period of time. 1) Warren has long been touted as squeaky clean; 2) For decades through to the present, Warren has "allowed herself" to be presented as part-Native American; 3). Her critics finally said, Hey this claim is pretty self-serving and (by implication) is there really sufficient basis for Warren to be making such a claim?; 3). Perhaps most critically, Warren's campaign overreacted by issuing a statement that "the candidate never authorized Harvard Law to claim her as a minority hire"; 4). Despite her campaign's implied innocence, it was newly publicized that Warren herself had listed herself as part-Native American in several directories that she must have known would be consulted by Harvard and any prospective employer; 5). Her actual percentage of Native American ancestry (1/32 apparently) is arguably insufficient to have permitted the kinds of claims/assumptions which were long-allowed by Warren; 6). The issue is a loser for both Warren and Brown, but it's more of a hit against Warren's pre-controversy image.
Based on the length of time Warren has been associated with Native Americanism, it seems likely that this revelation will remain a permanent part of this article and unlikely that WP:NOT#NEWS will disqualify it. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe we should also consider the SOURCE of the argument to remove said section & commentary. The fact that this particular incident may be pivotal to Warren's political aspirations, is a very important event in her personal history. By attempting to bury this incident, you are a) ignoring the fact that it may be a career changing incident ; or b) you are biased, and are attempting in a miniscule way to hide this incident.

I have viewed your past edits (* Those bringing up the arguments against the section - and documenting this, evidently, embarrassing incident & personal choices on the part of Warren ) , and I am leaning towards one of my possible scenarios. You know what you've edited, you know what you're doing on Wikipedia. I'm positive we all know what I'm inferring to here, without my need to ... directly point fingers. Kyanwan (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyanwan, please refrain from attacking other editors. We're here to discuss content, not cloak and dagger theories. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I'm directing "attacks" towards you personally as an editor. There is only one thing which I would even consider attacking on Wikipedia, and that is bias. This is a neutral information source, designed to present all information in a neutral fashion. Facts are all we should be concerned with - whether they are beneficial to a subject, or detrimental. Please do accept my apologies for reading your contributions history, as well. I can link you to your history page if you'd like. We do have a knack for verifying sources here, and ensuring they are legitimate & reliable. (Sorry if I come off as pompous, I don't particularly like being called a "theorist".) Kyanwan (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The part of the scandal that is irresistible to reporters is not the heritage but the lies. She claimed Native American heritage, then when asked to give details, dissembled. Asked to confirm the extensive Harvard references to her as an example of diversity, she said she NEVER claimed it. When reporters found HER listings where SHE claimed to be Native American, she said she just wanted to find fellow Native Americans. Thus far, it is a drip, drip, drip of revelation, excuse, debunking. Still waiting for another shoe to drop, namely, if she ever used her Native American non-heritage on a grant or job application, or the strong likelihood that the family lore was wrong. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

She didn't "dissemble," where is the Herald claim that she "dissembled"? She was confronted and asked for details. Most Americans today who know they are of distant Irish or Polish ancestry might not be able to cite chapter and verse which great or great great granparent on demand. She then gave recollections as to it being something her aunt told her, and genealogical records CONFIRMED it.

As far as Harvard, what happened is that HARVARD made a big deal of it to showcase diversity. Lots of people who are African Am3ircan or part African American have their minority status is showcased or trumpeted by their employer without the individual doing the "extensive referencing."-[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.186 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear Warren has "dissembled". In fact it occurs in the second of the two sentences on this subject currently in the article

Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore, and thought it would create opportunities to meet people like her, but eventually she "stopped checking it off".

It's been pointed out that the appendices listing professors who claim minority status don't identify which minority status is claimed, and thus would be utterly useless for bringing her into contact with "Native American... people like her".Andyvphil (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter is more serious than idly chitchatting that one is Polish or Irish (neither of which enjoys tribal sovereignty in the United States). An article in last week's Indian Country magazine included this, "“It is one thing to claim to have had an Indian somewhere in the family tree, but it is much different to then use that unexplored notion to check a box indicating concrete Native ancestry,” says Robert Warrior, director of American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."

Warren didn't just casually mention it once or twice, she repeatedly allowed herself to be identified as American Indian for decades at events and in press releases, and she herself specifically self-identified as Indian in multiple official directories. Is it true that "records CONFIRMED it"? Not quite. Just as Warren listed herself as an American Indian, five generations ago one of her ancestors listed herself as an American Indian. Was the ancestor's self-identification accurate? was she half Indian? one-quarter? a poser wannabe? The ambiguity is a major reason the old hand-written application isn't nearly as useful as, for example, having even a single family member listed with the Dawes Commission (that's the type of listing for which pro-Warren activists are desperately searching). Even with all that being true, the current article wording is fine for now. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems necessary to note that currently there is no evidence that any Warren ancestor ever listed themselves as American Indian (so, apparently, Warren was the first to formally make this claim). The so-called marriage application has now been rejected by genealogical societies, and the supposedly-Cherokee 3x-great grandmother had actually identified herself as "white" in the 1860 Census (per reporting by the UK's Daily Mail). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When I mentioned the lies, not the Ancestry being responsible for this whole mess, I was referring to what started the ball rolling; asked a softball question about Harvard touting here as a minority, she gave an evasive and nonsensical answer to a Boston Herald reporter. That is the "dissembling", and what made the press start to frantically dig.

On a similar note, in a discussion of her Senate Campaign, after a month of wall-to-wall stories, bad answers and attempts to change the subject, this topic has without a doubt met and answered any questions of WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. It is a MAJOR part of the campaign, which only has 6 months left.

The only part that probably IS WP:UNDUE is the fact that she plagiarized the recipes she contributed to "Pow Wow Chow". The copying doesn't seem to resonate, and isn't like academic plagiarism, the local media seem to have picked up more on the fact that she thought expensive exotic recipes stolen from a fashionable French restaurant in New York reflected her family's Native American heritage. More an "out of touch" criticism.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

I removed a bit of content about "a genealogist" (who is not named by the Boston Herald cite) saying that Warren's great-great-great grandfather was a member of a Tennessee militia that rounded up Native Americans during the Trail of Tears. I removed it because it has no bearing on whether Warren is or isn't part Native American nor on whether she benefited from identifying herself as Native American. It's just inflammatory coatracking, and it doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a BLP. Arbor8 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing... Warren's great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford actually existed and really did serve in a militia unit known for rounding up Cherokee and marching them to Oklahoma. [6] You deleted that factual information, but left Warren's bullshit claim that she's part Cherokee on the page [7]. The marriage licence showing a Cherokee ancestor doesn't exist [8] and the "geneologist" mentioned on the page who claims he found the license has Run to the Hills [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Trail of Tears genealogist you claimed "is not named by the Boston Herald cite", this Boston Herald piece [10] says he's "Paul Reed, a Utah genealogist who is a fellow at the American Genealogical Society". Perhaps you were referring to a different Boston Herald cite discussing Warren's lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk • contribs) 14:39, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

relevance of this trail of tears material to this article? 71.252.102.186 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE

I've removed the entire thing. Somebody explain how this, at that length, does not violate WP:DUE and what it has to do with her senate run. This article is, btw, a WP:BLP so... enforcement of that is first priority before anything else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we all agree that the WP:DUE argument is no longer reasonable I would call attention to any one that makes that incorrect argument to the words of Elizabeth Warren herself, as quoted in the Boston Globe today, Friday, June 1, 2012:

The Democratic candidate had conceded for the first time this week that she herself informed Harvard that she was Native American — in contrast to her initial claim that she was unaware the school had listed her as a minority professor until recently. And she is acknowledging that the controversy surrounding her heritage is hurting her campaign. Lee, MJ. Elizabeth Warren ‘concerned’ about campaign, Politico, June 1, 2012. & McGrory, Brian. Warren: ‘I won’t deny who I am’, Boston Globe, June 1, 2012.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the Washington Post, also from today Friday, June 1, 2012: The episode could have been a minor nuisance for the campaign. In a race in which the economy, jobs and debt are the overriding issues, it’s unlikely that whether Warren is Native American would matter all that much to voters. But Warren has turned what could have been a small problem into a major story line by not coming out with everything she knew about the episode from the start. David A. Fahrenthold and Chris Cillizza. For Elizabeth Warren, a bump becomes a hurdle, Washington Post, June 1, 2012.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree that coverage of this has exceeded what is due. (A problem that exists on many politician bio's during election seasons). If I were writing this alone, I'd add under her career section that she was listed in that professional book as a native american. (full thought, no back and forth). Then in a paragraph discussing a variety of campaign topics adressed add a single sentence that this listing became a campaign issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pared it down; the way it was, that issue outweighed the rest of the section. It deserves mention here, but it doesn't merit detailed coverage. To those who disagree: please get really familiar with WP:BLP and in particular the part about how controversial/contentious material may only be restored by consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus to make Warren's claims of Cherokee ancestry only one or two lines long. It IS a major issue in the campaign--right now the only issue--it has been for quite a long time. Once again, there is no consensus to pair down the section.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Better, but in my view still excessive — again, how exactly is this relevant to the campaign, and will remain relevant in the future (that's what we're writing for, see WP:NOTNEWS)? I would like to see this removed entirely and restored in a few months if by then it is still an issue (which I'm guessing it won't be). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to further paring; if there's a more general leaning towards complete removal I won't object. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. That is not acceptable. Nomoskedasticity pared down the subject almost to the bones, but complete removal is not appropriate or acceptable. Her claimed Native American heritage has been focus of most of the discussion so far in the campaign. If it was removed from the article entirely then we are treading on creating a white wash. It has been the topic of discussion in the campaign almost everyday for three weeks and to now just completely remove it without a valid reason is clearly whitewashing. It has been pared down and that takes care of the "due" issue. That is just not acceptable. Wikipedia does not censor.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A career of accomplishment is the focus here, many years of forthright leadership, not the passing fancy of Warren's political enemies. The teapot tempest about her fractional Cherokee heritage is not what the encyclopedia biography is supposed to be about. We will write very briefly about it if it proves to be a key issue in the campaign. If she wins her race it will be vanishingly small. If she does not win then we go with what reliable sources say were the reasons. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions above. But let me make clear that those are your personal conclusions and they are not the conclusions of any type of consensus. For example, you wrote, "If she wins her race it will be vanishingly small." Well, I don't know if we can say that. We don't know what the future will hold. We don't know if she is going to win. We don't know if the issue is going to go away, since it has not gone away yet. We don't know if if the emphasis on it will grow or fade away. We just don't know. So for you to jump to that conclusion is premature. Now, to quote Billy Joel, you may be right, or you may be wrong--we will not know until then. All we do know, right now, is that you personally believe that Warren's unproven Native American ancestry claim is a "teapot tempest" and with that comment I can't, at this time, necessarily disagree with you. But I also can't go so far to say that the whole should be removed because it shouldn't be.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The current, short paragraph is not undue, and is fine with me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Binksternet explains the situation very well and I am in complete agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that the entire quote from Warren is completely necessary. Can we just say that she believed herself to be some part Native American based on the oral history of her family? Arbor8 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very apt summary. I'd go with it. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'Trail of Tears' mention in this article is plainly WP:UNDUE, but even without its inflammatory associations, the factoid is simply unencyclopedic (and barely interesting as a factoid). --→gab 24dot grab← 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the controversy information?

I hear this all over the news about her being a Cherokee. I actually came to this Wikipedia article so I could learn the truth, the accusations, rebuttals, and facts of this major story regarding her campaign. An entire section about this is absolutely warranted (I remember "Maccacca" got a 500 word section all to its own). Lets make Wikipedia neutral and informative and discuss relevant and widely reported items regarding political candidates, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See above Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of action for you in the five references currently in use on that issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It is glossed over, and actually made more favorable than what I'm hearing. The information does not highlight that this is a real and genuine controversy. It deserves its own bold titled section. I just looked at Scott Brown's corresponding article, and he has a big bold sectioned titled "Plagiarism controversy". Can we at least be neutral Wikipedia? I know that its tempting for left-leaning authors to protect left-leaning candidates from controversy, but as an independent, I think BOTH articles warrant the bold section, because the information is current, it is widespread, and major points of the campaigns. Please stop protecting Warren, just give us the facts, its all readers want...not coddling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If "what you're hearing" is what forms your view on this, why don't you just stay with those sources? We're not going to echo them. This is an utterly trivial thing dug up by opponents; if you believe this is as important and relevant as they make it seem, you've been duped. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added the personal pov at the end there, but agree with the end result. This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to look big picture. All the daily updates, that's what newspapers are for. There are 2 boston newspapers. The Globe & Herald. The Herald at least writes about this every day. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place where you get every single detail on every candidates every pro/con come election. That's why you read newspaper articles, listen to debates, there's talk radio, town hall meetings, etc. We can not be, and should never try to become a substitute for all that.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Duped? Is this what you resort to? Personal attacks, in order to defend a political candidate? Why are you here? When does Wikipedia become an advocate and extension of a political campaign for a candidate? You approve of the bold controversy sections on one candidate (Scott Brown), but forbid one here, that has even more widespread coverage than Scott Brown's ever had. Furthermore, this controversy is more current than Scott Browns, yet his article still holds the bold title. I reiterate, this makes Wikipedia look like it coddles candidates, and your ad-hominem attack furthers that notion. When looking at both Scott Brown's article, and this one, the bias is obvious and irrefutable. Take down Scott Browns bold controversy item, if you refuse to put one up for Warren. Political candidate articles are only balanced and neutral when taken together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the Scott Brown-article. Can you point me to a section or part that digs up equally trivial mudslinging against him? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that the editor was indignant about this nugget (which was only removed AFTER the above discussion): Scott Brown#Plagiarism controversy. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA&WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"trivial mudslinging"?!? Warren has been running around for decades lying about being a Cherokee everywhere from professional directories [11], to law school publications [12][13], to cookbooks [14]. Only the kind of idiot who thinks that Ward Churchill is a scholar thinks this was a a misunderstanding or that she didn't benefit from lying about her ancestry... what other Harvard law professor went to a crappy third-tier law school like Rutgers? And where is the mention of any of that on this page? Nowhere, because wikipedia is run by a bunch of commie quislings who censor any criticism of leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

One drop

Ms Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee. The Cherokee follow a one-drop rule for inclusion. Bill John Baker, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, is also 1/32nd Cherokee. - Frankie1969 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite.

• 1. Warren would have been 1/32 American Indian only *if* her 3x-great grandparent had been 100% American Indian.
• 2. Currently, there is absolutely no proof that Warren is even 1% American Indian (or has "one-drop"). If proof is newly discovered, please provide it.
• 3. The Cherokee Nation does NOT follow a so-called "one-drop rule", but rather accepts all descendants of those on the Dawes Roll (see Cherokee.org, the official website of the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Nation#Tribal enrollment).
• 4. Bill John Baker is a descendant of Dawes Roll registrants; Warren is not.

Despite all that, Warren continues to insist that she "is Native American" and literally possesses genetic- (not merely cultural-) Native American heritage. Her own unsupported (unsupportable?) insistence is what keeps the story alive and Warren's credibility in question. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Family lore

On the quote, I basicaly agree although I'd be careful with the wording. The wording as is minus the whole quote - 'Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore.' Works well and is accurate per source.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Getting better... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the source I might swap out the word lore for stories. I know I've seen the word lore in print but I'm not 100% positive if she used it or if it's a subtle dig by others. Not sure either way.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proof

I've restored the heart of the story which is, of course, she hired a researcher to review her ancestry and that society could not find any proof of her claims.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The provided reference[15] doesn't currently state that Warren herself hired the researchers, so that's been removed. Of course, this week it was revealed that there are serious questions about the claimed 1894 marriage application, so the Genealogical Society refuses to cite it. As most know by now, the supposedly-"Cherokee" ancestor is actually listed as "white" in a primary historical document: the 1860 Census. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Warren never said "I am Cherokee and I can prove it" or "I am a specific percentage Cherokee" or "I am of Native American ancestry as defined by the US Federal government" or as recognized by the Cherokee Nation or anything of the kind. She said that she believed she had Native American heritage. That's all. It seems to me that other editors are projecting their own definition of what it means to be Native American onto Warren's prior statements, when there's no evidence at all that they apply. For that reason, none of the dithering about to what degree Warren can or cannot "prove" her heritage belongs in this article. Arbor8 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant. Yesterday the Boston Herald reported that Warren contributed recipes to a 1984 Native American cookbook (the unfortunately-titled "Pow Wow Chow"), signing each of the five recipes as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee". A different Boston Herald article included this:

• "Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics...said that Warren’s claim that she didn’t list herself as a minority to gain an employment advantage is not believable. “This is what happens when candidates don’t tell the truth,” he said. “It’s pretty obvious she was using (the minority listing) for career advancement.”"

--→gab 24dot grab← 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookbook? You know how many people talk about themselves as "Italian" or "Mexican" in cookbooks when they present their pizzas and enchiladas? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is unaware that Warren's participation in the cookbook was actually touted by her as evidence of her American Indian ancestry. Per the Las Vegas Review-Journal (5/15/2012): "The Warren camp now says (and this is not a script from "SNL") that she is 1/32 Cherokee because her cousin was the editor of the book "Pow Wow Chow."" Despite what her sycophants may pretend, no one seriously thinks Warren was merely claiming "honorary ethnicity". --→gab 24dot grab← 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That quote is from an opinion column. Please stop trying to "disprove" something Warren never claimed in the first place. Arbor8 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's silly to pretend this is merely 'an opinion matter'. Per WP:V, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". It is demonstrably verifiable that Warren's choice to sign her writings "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee" constitutes her "claim" or "tout". Here are three headlines discussing the matter; two use 'claim' and one uses 'tout':

• Headline: "Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American heritage in 1984 cookbook called Pow Wow Chow", UK Daily Mail, May 17, 2012, [16]
• Headline: "‘Pow Wow’ factor: Elizabeth Warren touted native roots in ’84 cookbook", Boston Herald, May 17, 2012, [17]
• Headline: "Cookbook claims Elizabeth Warren is of Cherokee descent", Fox Boston, May 17, 2012, [18]

Verifiable non-opinion reporting informs us that Warren explicitly claimed to be (or 'touted herself') as "Cherokee". That's a separate matter from the validity of her claim. I don't believe anyone cites the cookbook to disprove Warren's ancestry; the cookbook has been cited to prove that Warren personally chose to make these claims. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, you are free to think whatever it is you're thinking. It doesn't belong here, though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, article Talk is precisely the place to park verifiable sources which may or may not make it into the article. The editor may wish to review the guideline at WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages, which explicitly states, "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." --→gab 24dot grab← 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your personal interpretations don't belong, and that's all you've been giving us. And don't refer to me in the 3rd person. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've quoted and linked to more than a dozen WP:SOURCEs, so plainly I have been "giving" more than mere "personal interpretation". Regarding your protestations about my use of the third person, see here.

Anyway... Regarding the many references I've cited, my thinking (anyone's thinking!) absolutely does belong here at Talk. Per WP:Etiquette, "Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you". If you believe I have somehow breached a Wikipedia guideline, please elaborate at my User Talk page; thanks! --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, you need to stop this; this is a WP:BLP; I advise to take any of yoru future additions to this talk page first to hear what others have to say about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren said, "I’m proud of my Native American heritage" [19]. It's a huge lie and every reasonable person knows that it rates mention on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It cannot possibly be a lie; read the statement, understand, then see that it cannot be a lie. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I be proud of my imaginary Nobel laureate heritage? A factually-insupportable self-serving statement is ALMOST a lie, and a candidate shouldn't be surprised if critics call it a lie. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could be proud if one of your ancestors had won a Nobel prize. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Alas, I cannot present proof that my ancestor won a Nobel prize (no proof actually exists). So, if I were to run for office and publicly state, "I'm proud of my Nobel laureate heritage", I would fully expect criticism from those whose families include actual Nobel prize winners and criticism from anyone who values honesty. If I'd said similar things for decades, I cannot imagine keeping my unsupportable claims out of campaign coverage. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not an apt metaphor, because there's a finite list of people who are Nobel laureates. More apt would be someone who says "I'm good with my hands because some of my ancestors were carpenters." Well, now, that may be true and it may not be, and really there's no solid way to prove that it isn't. Plus, since so much familial history relies on oral tradition, it could very well be that I always grew up hearing that my ancestors were carpenters and simply assumed that it was true. Now, I understand that there are specific criteria for being classified as Native American in certain circumstances, such as scholarships and tribal memberships. Warren never claimed to belong to an official classification of Native American. Rather, she repeated what had been passed down to her by her family -- that Native American was part of her heritage. Therefore, whether it can be proven is immaterial and doesn't belong in the article. Arbor8 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop pretending that what might be said by a vague someone is exactly the same standard that will be applied (rightly or wrongly) to a candidate for public office; a candidate's unretracted claim is a news event, and may build over weeks and weeks to become a major news event. Consider User:Arbor8 preferred example...
If a candidate had for decades listed himself in published directories of those with carpentry ancestry, and if a candidate had for years allowed his employers to pretend that his "carpentry ancestry" was an example of the employer's diversity in the building trades, and if a candidate had signed his name "Joe Shmoe, Cabinetmaker" in a how-to book, and if a candidate had (almost nonsensically) showed off a callous on his hand "just like carpenters have", and if a candidate had remarked that he's "proud of his carpentry heritage"... well that candidate is going to be asked for details and if details are not forthcoming or credible then that candidate will have himself created a news story where none would otherwise have existed but for his needless braggadocio.

The article should contain all that is notable per verifiable sources (as allowed for biographies of living persons). The editor perhaps hasn't noticed that I haven't added anything to the article about the complete and utter non-existence of any proof that candidate Warren actually has any bonafide American Indian ancestry. However, it seems remarkably biased to try and hide this story, as WP:Candidates and elections#Information to be included plainly states, "For many candidates, a good deal of independent, verifiable information should be available. It can include:...News events from the campaign". Frankly, this has been the biggest news event of the campaign, by far. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article? The article already states her claim of Cherokee ancestry was challenged and that she had no factual basis for it and has since backed away from claiming it. I don't know what "all that is notable" means as notability is a standard for article subjects, as far as I am aware. Jesanj (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the article as it stands does not mention the extent to which Warren asserted her Cherokee background and it certainly does not state she had no factual basis for claiming it. There are just two measly lines devoted to it when her claims of Cherokee heritage existed over decades. Barring serious objections, I plan to create a separate section within the article on this issue. It probably deserves its own article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a serious objection to a separate section on this issue: it would be completely WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers can confidently conclude "family lore" has no factual basis. See my reply below. Why not propose a sentence to include into the article based off of the Atlantic piece? Jesanj (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that readers would be justified in concluding that Warren's claims are unsupportable (not merely unsupported), but the article does not currently make that plain. It hasn't just been "proposed", it's actually been added and reverted a few times already; certain editors prefer to keep both terms ("unsupported" and "unsupportable") out of the article, despite the fact that multiple sources have applied the terms to Warren's claims. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. " Notable, relevant; probably not, if she were still just a Law Professor, but in a Senate Campaign? Arguably THE issue in the campaign, perhaps unfortunately, but nevertheless factual. They have a pact to exclude Super-PAC money that isn't mentioned, and should be. The fact that Warren has relied on platitudes and sound-bite attacks thus far has meant she hasn't had much to fall back on once the scandal hit. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof one way or another as to Warren's Native American heritage. Please read this quote:

Warren’s statements come as genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society were unable to back up earlier accounts that her great great great grandmother is Cherokee. While Warren’s great great great grandmother, named O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on a electronic transcript of a 1894 marriage application as Cherokee, the genealogists are unable to find the actual record or a photograhic copy of it, Society spokesman Tom Champoux said. A copy of the marriage license itself has been located, but unlike the application, it does not list Smith’s ethnicity.

To state in the article that "Genealogist Chris Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society researched Warren's claimed native ancestry, but Child was unable to find support for Warren's claim.[48][49]" suggests that her claim must be false, which is not accurate at all. Then to note that Warren' ancestors are not included in the Dawes Commission rolls without explaining why to not be included would certainly not "prove" a lack of ancestry is misleading to our readers. Keep in mind that this is an article about a living person and if the article is going to suggest that she has lied about her ancestry we need to either cover it in great detail (which would not be appropriate for a WP bio) or only mention that it has been brought up as a campaign issue. I will remove Edmonton's edit which was boldly added while discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Child researched the genealogy, and found a document, which was a family newsletter that REFERRED to what the person called a Marriage Application. This was mis-reported by the Warren campaign, and Warren herself, as having found the Marriage License that proved Cherokee heritage (and where everyone gets 1/32). Child had not said that, and has not actually seen the document referred to (there is only a description of what was on it). The License has been found, and it does NOT list the membership, and the document anecdotally referred to as a marriage application CANNOT be a marriage application, because they did not exist in Oklahoma on the date of the document, 1894. It COULD be an application to get Cherokee lands, but not a Marriage License, and if it is such an application, it was evidently turned DOWN.

Lack of registration proves that she could not claim Native American ancestry insofar as the Federal Government defines it, and that the EEOC claims of Harvard (and according to the EEOC officer at Harvard at the time, Warren) were false. That is not the same as a proof that there is no possibility that SOME Native American biological heritage. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, "lack of registration" is not proof that registration wasn't possible. Frankly, there is no proof that Warren isn't Native American, and she herself continues to insist that she is. There seems no encyclopedic reason to hide her accomplishments on behalf of the entire Native American community (and all "people of color"). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren's Claims of a Cherokee Background

There should be a whole section devoted to Warren's claims of a Cherokee background. It has been a major part of her life for decades, and the controversy about its legitimacy has been covered by hundreds of sources. A new piece in The Atlantic does an excellent job of summarizing the issue and would be a great source. See it HERE. MiamiManny (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says it has been a major part of her life for decades? The topic is covered here already. Given WP:SS, one would think such content that exists here would already be at United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, but it's not; there appears to be a much stronger argument to be made for content inclusion there. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Warren herself has prominently included her Cherokee heritage in her biographies over the course of decades. If it wasn't a major part of her life, she certainly wouldn't include it in a brief bio. See another good source HERE. Warren has also discussed her Cherokee background in several interviews and mentioned numerous family discussions about her Cherokee background while growing up. Barring serious objections, I plan to create a separate section within the article on this issue. It probably deserves its own article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please quote a RS that shares your conclusion. I see an objection above. While it is possible a sub-article could exist eventually, I do not agree this article is the place to start. It should go to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave you sources, so I am not sure what would satisfy you. If Warren saw fit to included her Cherokee heritage in her biography in law school directories, why should it be excluded from her biography here? Also, she identified herself as a Native American long before she ran for Senate, so why would we limit its mention to the United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 article? One's ethnicity is a core part of one's being and Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage and the resulting controversy belong in her biography. Again, could you please give us a compelling reason why this issue and the ensuing controversy should not be more prominently featured in this article? I still haven't seen one. MiamiManny (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a "cross-over" part-time editor of Wikipedia from MA curious how this topic has been handled. I must say reference to this controversy seems poorly addressed. At a bare minimum, the paragraph discussing this should be flipped around. The start of this is Warren's earlier action, the reaction is the Brown campaign questioning this. My version would be:

"Warren during the 1980s and 1990s listed herself as a minority of Native American ancestry in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, a directory of law professors. This and additional references of her being minority or Native American became (has become?) a controversy in her US Senate race, with the Brown campaign and the Native American Rights Fund questioning whether Warren was right to have listed herself in this manner and whether she benefited professionally from this assertion. Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore of a Native American ancestor that would maker her 1/32 Cherokee. [47]. No documentation of this has been found. A thorough examination of the controversy was written in the Atlantic [20] User:dkhydema (talk) Dkhydema (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

HUGE problem with the attribution in this version and the one on the Article page. namely "with the Brown campaign" questioning....etc. The Boston Herald and just about every New England columnist has run with this non-stop for a month. Brown has been asked to comment at every stop, and has pretty much been limited to saying she should just come clean, answer all the questions reporters ask her, and that she is making it worse. A month ago (when he first said it) that would have been the best campaign advice she had ever gotten. The Brown campaign has every interest in staying as far away from this as possible, and has done so. I am sure the Herald is also not happy with your mis-attribution.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that even the "1/32 Cherokee" claim is bogus. The marriage cert doesn't show it and no marriage cert applications were in use there until 1897. Andyvphil (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. It absolutely should be a more expansive section within this article. Barring a compelling reason to the contrary, I plan to create a separate, objective, and well-sourced section on the Native American issue within the article. MiamiManny (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That idea has been addressed; read through this section. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the inclusion of a separate, expanded section hasn't been addressed and as everyone can plainly see, no one has voiced a compelling reason against the creation of an expanded section. Again, can anyone raise a compelling objection? Please speak up now. Thank you. MiamiManny (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Seb_az86556, you are wrong. It is time that we developed some kind of real consensus here. I believe that editors that have watched and waited concerning Warren's controversies being constantly removed and deleted and edited out of existence has gone on long enough. That silliness is going to stop. Warren's claim that she is a Cherokee has made its way into the national dialog, but not in this Wikipedia article. There has been way too much censorship and that censorship is coming to an end. If the Cherokee thing has lasted a day or two or may be a week and then went away then I can understand how the "undue" argument made sense. However, (1) her lack of candor, (2) her wild, borderline racist comment about all Indians have high cheekbones, (3) the allegations about receiving special affirmation action treatment in hiring, (4) the way that Harvard and Penn held her out as a minority hire, (5) the fact that various genealogists have looked into the documentation of her Cherokee claim and they have not been able to find one shread of documentation to back up her Cherokee claims, and (5) now the allegations about plagiarizing recipes from Better Homes & Gardens, etc. Censoring all of these controversies has gotten out of control. All of this information is going to be incorporated into the article because they are notable topics and they are being discussed in the real world (not the Wikipedia world). They will be incorporated in a manner that does not violate BLP, but they will be incorporated. Also, the argument that only censorship of these issues was appropriate because consensus demanded it no longer applies because there are several editors that believe that topics are notable and as longer as they are incorporated in a manner that does not violate BLP. To continue to censor these five topics can no longer be justified with the false argument that consensus demands that we censor. There is no longer any consensus to censor. The censoring must stop.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a "real consensus" already, the general agreement that this stuff is small potatoes and not worthy per WP:UNDUE. If it derails her campaign it is big enough for inclusion, otherwise not. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FALSE. You are claiming that there is a consensus to suppress information relating to Warren's Cherokee background. No such consensus exists. If anything, I see a growing number of editors who desire a more significant section dedicated to the issue. MiamiManny (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no censorship going on here. We're just following wikipedia policy. This is an article about Elizabeth Warren, not about the last month of her 2012 Senate campaign. The issue should be covered in the 2012 campaign section with weight in accordance to its relevance to the entire campaign. This is a major campaign, with dozens of stories, dozens of polls, hundreds of events and campaign speeches. Even though this issue has only appeared in a few reliably-sourced stories (out of hundreds of other stories), it already takes up a third of the 2012 campaign section. If anything, more material should be cut back. johnpseudo 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A short paragraph would probably suffice for this topic: perhaps two to four sentences, and keep the good citations. No doubt this is a made-up controversy, but a reasonably notable one. While we have to be NPOV and not give UNDUE weight, certainly, at this point, a brief mention is enough, but one sentence will probably confuse neither our core readership nor a moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I don't see what's wrong with the current wording, except that I'd like to see another good source or two; BLPs should have lots of cites. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, please stop accusing editors who disagree with you of censorship. It's tiresome. The fact that she never, ever claimed that she was a specific percent Cherokee should put to rest your concerns (1) and (5); (3) and (4) would belong on the articles of the universities, if they belonged anywhere, and honestly if her record as a recipe plagiarizer ends up having an impact on the campaign, I'll eat my hat. Arbor8 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not point out any specific editor. What I stated is a fact. There is censorship going on. This is a fact and it is not a personal attack on anyone. There are several issues that are notable but have been removed from the article under the false claim of consensus where the only consensus that has been reached is that editors who want to remove these items have been consistent and persistent in their refusal to cover these topics and there attempts to ignore the editors who disagree. That is fact. Now, may be not all of the issues need to be covered in the article, but some of these issues do need to be covered because they are now, three weeks later, clearly notable as part of the campaign. Her attempts to have a genealogist find someone, anyone, as a member of the Cherokee Nation and that genealogist could not find anyone is a notable fact that has been removed without valid reason from the article. It is merely a matter of time before it is properly placed back in the article because the so-called consensus no longer exists. There is no absolutely no rule that states that once something is agreed to a certain consensus that is it a consensus forever. And the attempts to repeat it over and over does not make that fact less so. There are many editors that find the information important and notable and the proper mention of her failed attempts to prove her claimed ancestry in article is now appropriate because the topic just has not gone away--regardless of the previous consensus. The attempt to keep the information out is censorship and there is a basic rule to Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not censored. I'm sorry that you find my pointing out the basic rule of Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not censored is tiresome, but whether you find it tiresome is not the standard to judge these things. Also, the repetition of "consensus" when consensus no longer exits is not the standard either. Consensus can and does change and that point has been reached. The Warren controversy has gone national and it has lasted well past three weeks and there are several editors who have reached the independent conclusion that the information is now notable and as long as the information is presented in a NPOV then the information can be returned to the article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You ignore the big picture. The difference between your suggestions and what we are doing is the difference between an op-ed piece and an encyclopedia. You find a small fact that you know is negative and you want to paint Warren black with it, in a fashion appropriate to certain kinds of journalism, but we are writing an encyclopedic biography. We consistently weigh various facts and decide what is central to Warren's life. All else is thrown out as unimportant or non-critical. This little Cherokee heritage story serves primarily as a political wedge applied by Warren's political enemies, a campaign stratagem certain to be relegated to the dustbin of history if it proves ineffective. There is no need to go into greater detail than we already have. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: What you are saying is simply not true. It is as simple as that. Your response is completely outside of what we are supposed to be discussing here. Your response assumes, incorrectly of course, that you know what thought process that I am going through. It is quite clear that Wikipedia rules state that you are to focus on the article and not on the editor. You have no idea that I, and I quote you directly from above, "you find a small fact that you know is negative and you want to paint Warren black with it". You don't know if that is what I want to do or not. I have not stated that is what I want to do. I have never said that. You are attempting to put those words in my mouth. This attempt by you is clearly a violation of good faith editing on your part. I have stated that I believe, and other editors believe likewise, that there are certain facts about Warren that have come to light recently that are notable and should be worked into the article. I have stated repeatedly that the information MUST be put back in the article in NPOV manner. So your comment is untrue on several levels. It is an attempt to put words and thoughts in my mouth and brain, which is not what we are supposed to be doing here. Also, the whole focus of your comment is incorrect in that we are supposed to be focusing our discussion on how to make the article better. I have pointed out over and over again that there are certain facts about her life that have been brought to light in the last two months that are notable and should be put in the article in NPOV manner and that the manner in which they are covered should not violate BLP. Please stop attempting to put words in my mouth. Also, I would ask both you and Arbor8 to stop focusing on me as an editor and only focus on the facts of Warren's life and how to make the article better. Now, you might think it is unimportant that a fairly famous person has been holding herself out as American Indian (I base that on your statements above) when it is clear that she cannot prove that she is American Indian and you might only see a discussion of it as a mere political strategy of Scott Brown, but Native American folks, especially enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation such as myself, do find her unproven claims to be notable and her claims need to be covered by this article in a proper manner, which includes pointing out how she has held herself out and then she tried to find documents to support it, but was completely unable. Several times, Warren has held herself out as Cherokee. Also, Harvard and Penn held her out as an example of a Native American law professor and she went along with it--even though she had not worked through the due diligence required to determine accurately whether she had native ancestry or not. This fact is notable and it keeps being removed. The fact that she just recently attempted to do the due diligence using a genealogist and that genealogist was completely unable to confirm even one native in her background is notable and important to people in Indian Country--especially to members of the Cherokee Nation. Now these two facts can be supported with reliable sources and they can be incorporated in a neutral POV manner. But whenever there are attempts to develop these notable facts (facts that are important to her life story regardless of the election) these attempts are censored. The censorship of these important, notable facts about her life needs to end.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize you were so involved personally with the issue. Perhaps you are too closely involved to see the big picture. The nontroversy about supposed Cherokee heritage is not a big issue until and unless it affects the campaign. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: Once again, I will have to ask you to stop focusing on me as an editor and focus on the facts of the situation. You are not supposed to comment on me. It is I that sees the big picture. She claims that she has being Native American is been a part of her life since she was born. Those are her words, not mine. She listed herself as Native American on the dean's deskbook and now we learn today from the Boston Globe that she self-reported to Harvard that she was Native American for Harvard's equal opportunity statistics. The article from today's Boston Globe makes is clear that the issue has not ended. It is now clear that the campaign is being effected by it. Also, you argument does not go to the heart of another issue--which you keep ignoring. She says that she is Native American and she has stated it over and over then there needs to be a discussion of it in her personal history section of her biography. Clearly the topic belongs in both the campaign section and it belongs in the early history section of her biography. There needs to be a discussion of how she hired a genealogist it find some evidence of her claim, but that genealogist could not find any information. There also needs to be a discussion clearly about today's development. Your statement that the issue is not important has become almost laughable at this point since Boston Globe reporters are putting a microphone in her face and demanding answers--almost four weeks later.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The attempt to turn this campaign issue into something that must be given a great deal of copy on the Warren page suggests that some editors believe that Wikipedia should become an extension of a candidate's campaign propaganda. Wikipedia does not take sides in political campaigns. All things considered, the article's present copy is adequate and fair. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, this talk page is NOT a place to discuss the motives of editors such as me (and at least six or seven or other editors) and then insult the motives of the those editors, therefore, Gandydancer, please do not comment on our motives. Please focus on the article and the facts of the article. I've stated this basic premise of Wikipedia several times and it is time that it be respected. I am merely stating that she has stated over and over again, in response from questions from the Boston Herald, the Boston Globe, prominent members of the Cherokee Nation, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Association of American Indians, Breitbart, Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, Denver Post, etc. This issue has grown way beyond the day-to-day back and forth of a campaign. Now, on May 25, 2012, not only did the Boston Globe raise the issue that Harvard Law School was listing her as a "woman of color" (WOC) in Federal filings and that the Harvard employee in charge of the Federal filings clearly stated that Harvard would not have listed Warren as a WOC without her self-identification, which directly contradicts her claim that she doesn't know why Harvard would say such a thing. Also, on the same day, May 25, 2012, Breitbart reported that the Harvard Women's Law Journal listed her as a WOC as far back as 1993 (long before she was hired as a tenured law professor at Harvard) and the authors of that law journal article specifically outline in the article their methodology for putting someone in the article and they stated that they used the law dean's deskbook but they did not stop there. They worked hard at reaching out to each and every one of the women to specifically ask them for: (1) their permission to be listed in the Journal article, (2) verify their minority status, and (3) to verify their current position and contact information. Warren was a visiting professor at Harvard at the time so it is clear that the authors had the ability to contact her and probably did. The day that she was announced as a new tenured professor at Harvard the dean of the law school at the time (Robert Clark) tipped off the students who held a vigil in her (Warren's) honor. Also, it is time to stop calling the whole thing a mere campaign strategy of Brown. This topic has grown way beyond that. There are questions about violations of Federal guidelines in relation to Federal affirmation action hiring reporting. It has dominated the campaign for over a month. It is wrong that this article in Wikipedia specifically censors the information that the New England Genealogy Association ("NEGA") was specifically hired by Warren to find Warren's native ancestry in response to these types of questions and NEGA wes unable to find one Indian ancestor. That fact has been put in the article several times and it keeps getting removed with arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny. The consensus argument is no longer valid because there are at least six or seven (I need to read through all of this discussion to get a better idea of the number because it could be higher) who do NOT agree with the so-called (faux) consensus. That word (consensus) has been thrown around over and over again by the loudest editors, but the claim of consensus is NOT based in reality. The argument that this information violates BLP is a false complaint because it is clear that if the information is handled in a NPOV manner, which will require the cooperation of all editors, then BLP will not be violated. Remember she is the one who claimed American Indian ancestry in the law dean's deskbook and she is the one who was approved the listing as a WOC in 1993--two different sources at Harvard confirmed this: (1) the author's of the Harvard Women's Law Journal and (2) the Harvard employee who handled Federal EEOC filings with the Feds, who himself is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. She states over and over again that being native has been part of her life from the beginning and she clearly claimed that ancestry while she was working her way up from a University of Houston law professor through University of Texas, Penn, and then Harvard. This is an important part of her LIFE, not just this campaign. I understand why editors are losing focus because of the campaign, but as the information grows it is clear that the native issue should integrated fully in the article, not just in the campaign section, but it should have its own section as part of her life--and that is based upon her comments, not mine.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, are you suggesting that everything that is in this morning's Boston Globe should also be in Wikipedia? That would clutter the place up quite a bit, I'd imagine. Arbor8 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbor8, I agree with you that ALL of the different things that have been reported would clutter things up a bit. I think that basic things need to be covered and the fact that a well-known, highly respected group such as the New England Genealogy Association ("NEGA") was specifically hired by Warren to assist her in researching her native ancestry and that well-known, highly respected group could not find one shred of evidence to support her claim needs to be in the article. That fact, more than the Boston Globe information or the Breitbart information, speaks to the heart of the manner more than anything. But this fact keeps getting removed based upon the false arguments of (1) consensus and (2) BLP. Those are false arguments as I pointed out above. Also, the argument that Warren did not claim a certain blood quantum and therefore all information about NEGA's efforts must be removed is a non sequitur. It is not required that Warren claim a certain blood quantum to make NEGA's work notable for purposes of Wikipedia. That is a red herring. The information is important in that a well-known, highly respected organization dedicated to genealogy specifically researched her native background claims, at her request, and they were unable to find any form of support for the claim. It is also not required that the article repeat ad nauseam the whole back and forth of NEGA's work (e.g., first NEGA thinks they find something, newspaper reporters falsely claim 1/32, and then NEGA does more research, based upon research done by others, and then NEGA completely backs off their original claim of 1/32, and then NEGA goes completely quiet out of fear that they have done damage to NEGA's reputation). I think is sufficient that we mention that fact because: (1) it is a fact (2) it can be supported with reliable sources, (3) it is notable, and (4) leaving it out misleads the reader of Wikipedia.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that Edmonton, nor any other editor of Wikipedia feels that daily news should have a place in Wikipedia. I, personally, am annoyed by it. Elizabeth Warren's albatross of longstanding claims of Native American heritage - which were used by her employer for Federal classification reasons - are a legitimate concern for her trustworthiness, and reliability. They have also been turned into a media issue for over a month. That's 1 month of regional news coverage, and national news coverage as well. In today's day and age of rapid media, and short lived news stories which literally get their fifteen minutes ... I do believe that citizens of our future deserve to know of the issue.

I'll dig lightly, as I'm a bit busy at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark - Senator Clark - in 1899 was involved in a bribery scandal. I do not see that he was convicted, however - it was noted for history's sake. Senators and Senatorial candidates - are important to the history of the United States of America. Their history, their accomplishments, and their blemishes - are all relevant to their personal story AND our national story. Because you (by the way, I'm saying this on your opinion that the scandal should be erased from Warren's Wikipedia biography) or someone else disagrees that the pimples should be recorded along with the citations ... does not make it the ethical thing to do. The primary goal of a repository of information is to be just that - a repository of information. This is not a repository of promotional or derogatory information - it's a repository of ALL information. I would say - it is best to keep it that way. If you are unable to neutralize your views for the sake of humanity, perhaps it is time to step aside, grab a cup of coffee (my favorite drink, I'm sure you may have your own.) - and think about it for a bit. Then - contribute neutrally to topics of mankind's interest. Blemishes and all.

Also one last suggestion. If you wish to discuss a topic with people who are presenting thought out arguments, you should give your peers a slight bit more than a oneliner in response to each argument. It gives a disingenuous air to your argument ... to reply in such a curt fashion. Just a thought. Kyanwan (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The amount of coverage in the mainstream media to the topic merits its own article. It should be censored, nor restricted to only a minimal mention with no discussion or mention of public reaction allowed. This indeed looks a lot like censorship. Redhanker (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"The amount of coverage in the mainstream media." WP is not a newspaper. "It should be censored." I love Freudian slips. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Has Warren herself commented publicly on the issue? If so, that should be less controversial to place in the article, as it is her own words about herself. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As the weeks have passed the story has grown rather than faded, and it seems certain that it will continue to grow. The section belongs here at this article rather than at the campaign article because the matter began decades ago and affects Warren's credibility as an intellectual and advocate (not merely her viability for one particular campaign). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wish I COULD see what George Will would say

^ Will, George F. (October 28, 2011). "Elizabeth Warren's winning formula". The Washington Post.

The linked source is not by George Will. SteveO1951 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected it to Dana Milbank who's listed in the by-line. Thanks for the catch.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Plagarism charge

Since Scott Brown still has a "Plagarism" charge in bold from 2011 on his article, this is a perfect chance for Wikipedia to demonstrate its neutrality, and show that it does not favor political candiadates. Warren now has a plagarism charge against her, that has forceful merit, and I would like to see it on her article...especially since Scott Brown has one. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes Doing anything else is irrefutably biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What is or is not on Scott Brown's page has no bearing on what's presented here. If there's something on Brown's page you don't think belongs, handle it over there. The mere fact that other stuff exists doesn't change Wikipedia policy or how it should be applied. Arbor8 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, the editor refers to the section at Scott Brown#Plagiarism controversy. See 14:17, 18 May 2012. --→gab 24dot grab← 22:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - Charges of plagiarism against Warren should absolutely be included in this article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren's plagiarism

Per The Oklahoman, I now see that Warren herself has been accused of plagiarism[21]. Despite what has been tolerated over at the 'Scott Brown' article, I'm inclined to wait and see if this becomes something more before including it in this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 22:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What ever is listed on Scott Brown's article is frankly irrelevant to this article. However if the sources claiming Warren's plagiarism prove to be reliable and are cited, such a section would indeed be appropriate to add to this page. Diraphe (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see someone took down the entry on Scott Brown's page. Not notable, not a scandal, more of an embarrassment for the web designer who put it up.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The charges of plagiarism against Warren should absolutely be included in this article. The charges are especially serious in Warren's case because she is an academic. MiamiManny (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's undisputed that Warren plagiarized three of the five recipes she contributed to Pow Wow Chow. She stole them from a Virgin Island paper sydicated by the New York Times, all available in the public record. What's the big fuss? It goes in, and the public will decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Many Oklahomans believe themselves to be part Indian. It's often true and is likewise simply part of the state's culture. In any case, that the subject was considered the first woman of color hired as a law faculty member of Harvard probably shouldn't be included in the article's lede or career section, owing to the fact that recently this assertion has become controversial. A reference to the controversy w/i the campaign section would be appropriate, however. --74.92.86.1 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a little silly. Recipes are passed around and it can be impossible to be aware that a family recipe is from a published source. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting silly around here. Family recipes are often copied carefully, retaining the original wording. Family members often do not know the source of the recipes. This supposed plagiarism accusation is undue emphasis on a triviality. Should not be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If one of her students did this they would likely be kicked out of law school. Plagiarism is a serious academic issue. To claim someone elses work as your own is not trivial. Arzel (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Recipe books are not law school, are not academic. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, not to Harvard. Non-academic publications also must have a high standard of honesty. Frankly, I am suprised that anyone would defend her claiming the work of someone else as her own. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it matters. It's just a recipe book! The argument I'm making is twofold: The plagiarism is most likely unwitting, and the whole matter is insignificant. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Harvard it doesn't matter, and I don't know how you could unwittingly copy word for word a recipe that is only a few years old at the time. Perhaps if she was not a professor at Harvard it would be insignificant, but since she is, it is highly significant. These two incidents have had a huge impact on her run for senate, I don't know how you can claim this is insignificant. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't know how you could unwittingly copy word for word a recipe that is only a few years old at the time." I don't know how you could think that you could repeatedly get away with inventing your own facts. No one has demonstrated that Warren ever plagiarized a recipe or anything else. As Steven Taylor has explained: "the expectation was clear that the contributor did not write the recipes in the first place" (link). There's a reason why it's not possible to copyright a recipe: because it's considered normal to pass them around. Also, no one has shown that the other sources (for example, LHJ) didn't get the recipe from some other common source that preceded both LHJ and Warren.

But it's nice to know that you think this is serious, and are also arguing that Romney's assault on Lauber shouldn't be in his bio because it's "gossip" and "was dug up for a specific purpose." You need to be reminded of your own advice (that you issued on another page): "Seriously, please go somewhere else for you political pov pushing. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for pushing political points of view." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I made no mention of copyright, I said plagerism, there is a difference. I never said the Romney thing was gossip I said the that your accusing him of committing a crime without him ever being charge of anything is like gossip. The two issues are completely different, but now we have a good baseline for leaving out the Lauder stuff since you are arguing the comparison. Arzel (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"I said plagerism." I know what you said. You should check a dictionary and find out what the word means. As I had to remind you on another page, words don't mean whatever you find convenient in the moment. Plagiarism means to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. Unless she presented the recipe as her own original creation (and that's obviously not what she did), then what she did is not plagiarism. "I made no mention of copyright." I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did. Maybe if you read what I said you'll be able to figure out why it's relevant, and why I mentioned it. "I never said the Romney thing was gossip." Then there must be more than one Arzel here, because someone using that name said the thing you are claiming you never said. See here. John said this: "This information warrants inclusion." You responded as follows: "It is an accusation of a crime without even being charged with one, which to me is nothing more than WP:BLPGOSSIP." The first word in your sentence ("it") is a reference to what John called "this information," which is a reference to "the Romney thing." Here's a suggestion: stop pretending that you didn't say what you said. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You certainly don't seem to know what you are saying. You are implying that since you cannot copyright a recipe (which btw is not entirely true) that what she did was not plagiarism, which is so completely unrelated that it is hard to believe we are even having this discussion. Plagiarism is a specific issue related to original literary thought. As an academic she would never accept her students doing the same for any work, and I find it absolutely hilarious that the left is defending her taking someone elses work and claiming it as her own. I see no reason to repeat your false recollection of my statement regarding Romney, but it is nice to know that you don't feel that that issue belongs in that article since you have now made them equal. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Plagiarism is a specific issue related to original literary thought." Plagiarism means taking someone else's work and presenting it as if it's your own. Let us know when you're in a position to prove that Warren did this. "taking someone elses work and claiming it as her own." Except that "claiming it as her own" is false. "I see no reason to repeat your false recollection of my statement regarding Romney." I cited your exact words. Everyone can see that the "false recollection" is all yours. "[S]ince you have now made them equal." I did nothing even remotely like that. You're continuing your adorable practice of inventing your own facts. Repeating them over and over again doesn't make them less false. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We're done here. Time to move on. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very apt rejoinder. It removes Arzel's flip-flopping position. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spin Spin Spin Spin, you should both get jobs working for her. Per [http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Thankfully most people do not rely on Wikipedia for factual information. [redacted (WP:BLP)] I find it funny how people can defend her no matter what she does. Pretty sad.Panzertank (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, yes, she plagiarized, but am not all that comfortable using the term in an article on an academic. It implies stealing of her professional work product, which recipes in a local fundraising cookbook is NOT. I think the stealing part hasn't lit up the electorate, but the stealing from the most expensive French restaurant has, as evidence she is aspired to be an elitist.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Have to say, yes, she plagiarized." You can say whatever you like, but you're only demonstrating that you don't know what the word means. That word does not apply because she was not presenting this work as if she created it herself. "[S]tealing from the most expensive French restaurant." Making unwarranted assumptions doesn't enhance your credibility. It's entirely possible that they both got it from the same common source. I already explained this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Magazines and newspapers frequently print recipes from famous chefs and restaurants. To suggest that anyone that copies their recipes and passes them around to their friends or submits them to a local fund-raising cookbook is plagiarizing is the height of ignorance. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Warren did not simply 'copy and pass around a recipe to friends or submit to a local fund-raising cookbook'. The work (almost unbelievably titled "Pow Wow Chow") bills itself as a compilation of "special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families" and is published by the "Five Civilized Tribes Museum" in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Second of all, Warren did NOT submit anonymously or even hint that her submissions were another's work, but instead she plainly implied ownership by choosing to sign each recipe with her own name and "tribe" (namely, "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee").

Third of all, Wikipedia editors cannot hide the term "plagiarism" because verifiable sources plainly use that term to describe Warren's actions:

• "U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., submitted recipes to a cookbook that purported to collect Native American recipes, but some of her submissions appear to be plagiarized"—The Oklahoman, May 18, 2012, [22].
• "Warren may have plagiarized the recipes published in a family cookbook called Pow Wow Chow"—The Inquisitr', May 19, 2012‎, [23].
• "Scott Brown must be feeling optimistic...when it was reported that Elizabeth Warren gave plagiarized recipes to the “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook... hers apparently came from a New York Times review of a fancy French restaurant."—WBUR.org, May 23, 2012, [24].
• "Warren was recently in hot water after other allegations surfaced that she plagiarized her 'Cherokee' recipes in the book Pow Wow Chow from the New York Times and other publications."—UK Daily Mail, May 31, 2012, [25].
• "Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, is not an Indian — just a plagiarist."—New York Post, May 20, 2012, [26].
• "At least two (and maybe three) of the five Warren recipes appear to have been flat-out plagiarized from Pierre Franey, the chef at Le Pavillon restaurant in Manhattan. ...Warren's recipes are virtually the same, word for word."—Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 27, 2012, [27].
• "That is not the only plagiarism accusation that has come up during the Senate campaign. ...Friday questioned whether three recipes Warren submitted to a 1984 “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook edited by her cousin came from other sources. The Warren campaign has declined to comment on that accusation."—MassLive, May 21, 2012, [28]
• "Pow Wow Chow," the cookbook to which Elizabeth Warren contributed possibly plagiarized recipes, was published in 1984, not 1994"—Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2012, [29].
• "Elizabeth Warren Accused of Plagiarizing Native American Recipes"—New York Magazine, May 18, 2012, [30].

So this new scandal, regarding Warren's recipe plagiarism from the 1980s, seems increasingly likely to also become a permanent part of this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

first woman of color

It sure seems like the page should mention that Liz was Harvard Law's "first woman of color." [31][32][33] After all, Obama's page mentions that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review twice! Only a misogynist racist bigot would censor this important achievement in the field of diversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - It should be included. MiamiManny (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - I don't agree with the poor way that the IP stated it, but I do agree that this is another example of information that is being censored from the article in direct violation of the rule that Wikipedia does not censor.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, keeping the Cherokee bit to one, short, well-cited paragraph will be enough; see my comment above. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have just one opinion and now there are many others that do not find the continued censorship acceptable.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - Lani Guinier is noted by Wikipedia as the first African-American woman tenured professor at Harvard Law School, but Harvard has repeated noted that Guinier is merely the SECOND "woman of color," after Elizabeth Warren. Why should Elizabeth Warren's groundbreaking achievement toward racial diversity be ignored and suppressed? I tried to place Warren in the category List of Native American women of the United States but that appears to have been inappropriately removed by anti-Warren activists. Cheeseburrito (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Total B.S.. This specious discussion should be closed. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Either she lied or she did not. If she did not lie (as her supporters like myself claim), her accomplishment should be noted (as Harvard has noted) as an inspiration for other Native American women and women of color. If she did lie, that should be explicitly mentioned in the 2012 US Senate run section. Cheeseburrito (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your stance here is false. From other contributions of yours it is clear that your are not a Warren supporter. Trying to fool people regarding your position poisons your other arguments. I imagine that the closing administrator will give very little weight to your arguments. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nah -- transparent bullshit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree It's a sad day that I need to spend my WP time in such a frivolous manner. WP does not take part in mudslinging campaign issues. It's time to end this foolishness. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying its a "mudsling" to call her a Native American and a woman of color? Cheeseburrito (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn in to what you apparently consider to be a very cleaver way to prove your position. You are not being cleaver and it's time to end this idiotic gotcha game. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to be "cleaver" or play a gotcha game. Instead of making insults and conclusory remarks, please explain why WP should not recognize her diverse background and her own achievements that she, Harvard, UPenn, and numerous publications have repeatedly stated for decades. If WP currently mentions her NLJ note as one of the top 50 women lawyers in America, why should WP omit her one-of-a-kind status as Harvard's first woman of color. Cheeseburrito (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Opps, perhaps a Freudian slip - I meant "clever". :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree Political opponents trying to make her appear to have lied by putting words in her mouth. She never claimed a specific blood quantum, so it's a non-issue. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. I support Elizabeth Warren; I think she is a great person doing good work, but she is not Native American. She may be of Native American descent, but so are about 30% of all African-Americans and 7% of all European-Americans in the United States. In the 2010 US census approximately 800,000 people claimed, as she did, to be Cherokee. She is neither enrolled in a tribe or eligible to enroll in a tribe, and so cannot claim to be Native American. Thus far, this is the best article I've read explaining her situation: Harjo, Suzan Shown. "What’s the Deal With Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee?" Indian Country Today. 15 May 2012. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Disagree. For the reasons already stated. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Like it or not, she was widely touted as such by Harvard (and UPenn) for years. Major issue around the Lani Guinier hiring. Even though it isn't true, the "Recognition" section does not necessarily have to list only uncontroversial ones.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You agree with an obviously specious argument? Dang. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. I guess that makes me a "misogynist racist bigot [who] would censor this important achievement in the field of diversity." The anonymous person who started this thread is violating the WP:POINT guideline, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. FWIW... Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree If, and only if, there are reliable sources to stating that to be true. Though I'd like more than just the sources posted above. Arkon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The original source (1997 Fordham Law Review article) is here [34]. Go to the 57th page (page 898 in the article) and it clearly says "Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995." with the News Director of Harvard Law School as its source. On March 24, 2012, Warren confirmed that she has a Native American background.[35] Cheeseburrito (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your "original source" is that you have no quote from the "original source." What you have is secondhand, not "original." You have no quote from Chmura. The actual text is from Padilla, who is not a representative of HLS. We have no way of knowing what Chmura actually said, and if Padilla's words are an accurate reflection of what he said. She could simply have been offering her interpretation of what he said. This is not direct, confirmed information. We should not state that HLS described her as "its first woman of color" unless we have an actual quote of an actual statement that was actually issued by HLS. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What you call an "original source" is what Wikipedia disfavors as a "primary source". The Fordham article is what Wikipedia favors, a reliable secondary (third party) source (see WP:source). Andyvphil (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Law review articles are endlessly cite-checked by law students to make sure that their citations are accurate. The statement confirms exactly what Harvard has been reporting to the Department of Education and the public for years, which is that it had one female Native American professor before it hired its first female black professor (Lani Guinier). All Harvard professors are known, yet we have no records of any previous women of color. Also see this NY Times letter stating that Harvard has one female Native American professor before Guinier's hiring (and implied no female blacks and Hispanics), written by ... Chmura. [36]. Of course we don't know exactly what Chmura said there, since the NY Times often edits letters sent to it. Based on your curiously strict standards for sourcing on this issue, half of WP would be eliminated. Cheeseburrito (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Law review articles are endlessly cite-checked by law students to make sure that their citations are accurate." Unless "law students" were on the phone while Padilla chatted with Chmura, there was no way for them to verify this particular citation. "[W]hat Harvard has been reporting … see this NY Times letter." If those are better sources, then those are the sources you should be referencing. Unfortunately, the letter doesn't mention Warren, and it doesn't say anything about "first." "[C]uriously strict standards for sourcing." This is a much better example of "curiously strict:" the Romney article doesn't mention his violent assault because editors have claimed that a report via four named eyewitnesses is "gossip." I'm not being nearly that strict. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on your sourcing criteria, any time a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority, that cannot be used as a WP citation if we don't have a tape of that individual's conversation or some other contemporaneous verification of what he said word-for-word. What is in Romney's article has no relevance to Warren -- if you have an issue with his page, fix it over there. Cheeseburrito (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"[A]ny time a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority, that cannot be used as a WP citation if we don't have a tape." No, that's not what I said, and that doesn't follow from what I said. A key problem here is that Padilla is not even presenting a quote. Normally when "a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority" they present a quote. When no quote is provided that is indeed a reason to be concerned about the quality of the sourcing. "What is in Romney's article has no relevance to Warren." You said this: "based on your curiously strict standards for sourcing on this issue, half of WP would be eliminated." It was your idea, not mine, to make a comparison regarding what allegedly happens elsewhere at WP. That's why I presented you with a specific example. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The alleged, contrived "sourcing" problem has been resolved, as Harvard Law's own women's journal identified her as a woman of color in 1993. So cite that, instead of the Fordham source. Problem solved.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked for abusive sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson.

"Harvard Law's own women's journal identified her as a woman of color in 1993." The proposed text that I thought we're discussing is this: "first woman of color." Where does your source say anything about "first?" It doesn't. Also, your source does not establish that Harvard Law School viewed her as "a woman of color." Your source does not establish where the author got this information about Warren, and it definitely doesn't establish that this information about Warren came from Harvard Law School. Your source is a student publication. It's not authorized to make statements on behalf of the HLS administration, and it didn't claim that it got this information from the HLS administration. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment should say "was identified as ..." lest we mistakenly suggest that she ever said to anyone that she was remotely Native American anywhere in any form. Collect (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You could not possibly be more wrong. Liz said in a recent interview, “You know, I’m proud of my Native American heritage.” [37] If you had read the page you're commenting on, you would have noted that Liz listed herself as Native American in a law directory. [38][39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, she came clean Wed night and admitted that she was the source of the info that Harvard and UPenn have on her. Either she's lying now or she was lying all last week when she claimed that she wasn't the source. 66.105.218.3 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, she didn't. She was listed only as an (unspecified) minority. It's what makes her assertion that she did it to link up with others "like" her so laughable.Andyvphil (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. If you're actually serious about this, it's not properly sourced; a single reference in the Fordham Law Review is nothing like an official statement or listing from Harvard. Furthermore, the fact that Harvard does not list her does not imply she is lying--for instance, Harvard may not consider Native Americans to be people of color (and since it doesn't have affirmative action for Native Americans this is entirely plausible). Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• AGREE - Has garnered a reasonable amount of coverage in RS. If their are reliably sourced opposing viewpoints we can cover those too. NickCT (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Include if she has publicly stated that she is of Native-American ancestry, this should be included in the article. Also, if she has publicly commented on the recent controversy about it, then this can also be included since she herself has said something about it. If she has remained silent on the controversy, then more discussion is needed before deciding to include or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment if Harvard's statement to that effect can be adequately sourced, sure, include it. But also include that it has been disproven and if Harvard published that, they were wrong. Genealogy has shown her to have only caucasian ancestors, she is not enrolled in any tribe or band and is not eligible for enrollement, and the tribe she claimed (Cherokee) does not claim her. I've included sources in the article about the Cherokee protests against Warren's handling of this issue. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Include. The wrinkle for those seeking to exclude Warren's accomplishment as Harvard's "first woman of color" is that neither Harvard nor Warren has recanted the honorific, and no one has proven that Warren is not a "woman of color". Of course the accomplishment should be mentioned. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It's been pretty thoroughly disproven. Indian Country Today has written the most detailed information about her genealogy and even provided images of the original documentats in question. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Not exactly disproven; one particular "proof" has been disproved. That doesn't necessarily indicate that other proof does not exist; it's nearly impossible to prove a negative (aka "argument from ignorance"). At this time, it cannot be proven that Warren is not part Native American, and there are verifiable references which plainly state that she is (eg The Harvard Crimson). If a bonafide entity has chosen to bestow an honor on her, than it would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for us to contradict that without another unequivocal source. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Troll suggestion in the present controversial context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. Being a person of color is not about genealogy but about life experience as member of a minority community.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree, sort of. She claims to be Cherokee. The Harvard Crimson quoted then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura saying so, in 1996. Harvard & Penn said she was Native American in their diversity reports. So, who's saying she's not? Andyvphil (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Puff

There is a lot of it here - being High School debater of the year is not a major item, etc. Wording like "also led the conception and establishment of ", " Initially aspiring to be a teacher", "hoping specifically to work with brain-injured children", "By this point she and Jim had moved to New Jersey, and she was pregnant with their first child, so she stayed at home for several years" ad nauseum is the type of prose I expect to find in promotional BLPs and not in any which actually aspire to be encyclopedia articles.

She has taught Sunday School and cites Methodist founder John Wesley as an inspiration

Really? Ya gotta be kidding! Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note also "The finding was particularly noteworthy because 75 percent of families who fit that description had medical insurance" (in "Popular works")--sourced to an article by her. The second paragraph of that section likewise presents her opinion/conclusions as fact (I don't doubt the veracity of it, but it can't be written like this). When protection runs out this will need to be adjusted (it's a GA!), or we could place an edit request. Since I asked for protection I'm not going to override it. Thanks Collect, Drmies (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"also led the conception and establishment of "... What is the problem with this, exactly? An abundance of sources list her as the person who conceived of the bureau, and the person who fought for its establishment throughout the Dodd-Frank negotiations. It may be a bold description but it's accurate, and it's encyclopedic (the point is to relay her significance immediately in the first paragraph, rather than a wishy-washy mess calling her a "politician" and nothing else). —Designate (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be no problem with it Designate. Now this should be seen as problematic, but no one seems in a rush to fix it: xxx has not served in Iraq or Afghanistan, but said in 2009 that he was prepared to go if called. "I go where they order me to go... I'm just proud to serve and be part of the team."[2] Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note on sockpuppetry

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson, the accounts TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) and NeutralityPersonified (talk · contribs) have been blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry. As their edit-warring led to full protection of the article, the protection could conceivably be lifted if other editors here feel that they can move forward productively. Given that this high-profile biography has been the target of abusive agenda-driven sockpuppetry, I will keep a close eye on it from an administrative perspective and would encourage other uninvolved admins to do so as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well done. Just yesterday I looked at the archived SPI case, where to my surprise I read "Data for TruthfulPerson and NeutralityPersonified is Inconclusive; at best it's Unlikely". The quacking was obvious even to me, and I'm glad you re-reported this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to sound my thanks as well. I value Wikipedia as a resource, and I would prefer that persons with an agenda one way or the other are discouraged from using it for whatever ends they wish. Wikipedia is an invaluable educational asset to the world, not a means to get out messages or promote agendas. Kyanwan (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But it rather seems that the information provided by the alleged "sock" regarding Warren's use of her Cherokee heritage at Harvard has now been included in the biography, doesn't it? What is apparent is that the original attempts to include that well-sourced information, from the Boston Globe and New York Times, was censored by people with a liberal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad Rewrite?

The Cherokee section was much more informative a week ago. What happened?

While I didn't agree with the pro-Warren "spin" on much of the info, I never advocated deleting it (and certainly didn't do so myself!).

That said, thanks (I guess?) to whoever vandalized things in the right direction for once!  :) 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Ray?

How can this guy be a Cherokee at HLS? Every news story says Warren was/would be the LONE minority on the HLS faculty. Is he not considered faculty as an "administrator" (whatever that is, exactly)? So there are minorities, including Native Americans, among the STAFF there, just not the faculty? Is that it? 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nursing...

Warren's nursing history is not needed here. I pray that we will not need a long argument to explain why I have deleted it twice... Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight given to an unimportant factoid. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Even two sentences gives undue weight to this trivia, as would her clothing size, weight, IQ score, grades in law school, children's sports, or such nonsense. Two sentences, well supported by multiple sources, are well enough for the issue of her ancestry. This is Wikipedia, not MassachusettsSenateRace2012Pedia. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

clothing size, weight, IQ score etc would all be relevent if she claimed she had the HIGHEST/LOWEST/FIRST in any of those in state history!

nobody cares whether she breastfed during an exam; the issue is whether she will get a pass on making another ludicrous, preposterous, claim. 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

definitely needs to be in the article. especially after the governor's quote yesterday that the voters of massachusetts are "not interested" in te veracity of her various claims. 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note: These two edits are the only edits made by this stable IP address. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

no, i made several other edits as well, but they were vandalized.

oh well. i won't bother again. whitewashpedia clearly in the warren camp. 66.105.218.29 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that editors are referring to this unsupported claim by Elizabeth Warren: “I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey”.[40]. That quotes Warren in context and verbatim, but the self-aggrandizing claim is preposterous, of course. Until a reliable source uses it as an example of Warren's undisciplined speaking or her needless braggadocio or whatever, the claim could only be used in this article as her claim (that is, we editors cannot in the article opine on the nonsense of Warren's claim); based on that limitation (at this time), the factoid seems unusable in the article at this time. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue?

The "Cherokee" section just keeps growing and growing. I certainly agree that it merits inclusion -- but we've gone beyond the limit of WP:UNDUE here, particularly with the section subheading. The Cherokee bit now dwarfs the rest of the section on her campaign. I recommend cutting it back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Attempts at censorship keep popping up, one after the other. It's been well established that the controversy is valid, is major, and merits inclusion in the article. It's no longer than any other section in the article. Kyanwan (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

NYT considers it important - seems we should do. It is decidely more important than the piles of Marshmall Fludff in the article. Might you reduce that pile a bit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The subsection need not be under the 2012 election section. Warren's formal claims to Native American ancestry began decades ago and (combined with her unwillingness to set aside these claims) affects Warren's future credibility as an intellectual and advocate (not merely her viability for this one particular campaign). That being said, the current level of detail seems excessive. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll, I have added two data points that show the voters don't care: "Most voters surveyed did not consider this controversy to be a decisive issue. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject does deserve mention, as it has taken a life of its own. I do agree, however, that the section is starting to get a little out of hand. It can safely be condensed some, in my opinion. Some of the information can be taken care of via citation. Reign in the updates of it please, it should not be a play-by-play of the daily news. Kyanwan (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Credibility: Elope? Breastfeeding?

Elopegate

Anyone going to add the latest whopper -- that her mother's Indian blood forced her parents to elope? Turns out it was...TO THE FAMILY PARISH!

LOL. keep digging, Liz.

I won't bother adding it since it will surely be vandalized. But someone should at least add her nicknames "Lieawatha" and "Fauxcahontas" here -- even the LIBERAL papers are starting to use them! 66.105.218.30 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the section on ancestry claims should be expanded into a larger section on Warren's overall credibility. News reports yesterday note that Warren has finally, after weeks of denying it, admitting that her employers did learn of her claim to Native American ancestry directly from her. The matter is discussed in this Washington Post article entitled, "For Elizabeth Warren, a bump becomes a hurdle", "Warren has turned what could have been a small problem into a major story line by not coming out with everything she knew about the episode from the start."[41]. A separate Washington Post opinion piece yesterday noted, "Not long ago, we encouraged Elizabeth Warren to stop digging herself into a hole. She’s still digging."[42].

Now, secondly, other reports today reveal Warren claiming to be the “first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey” (news organizations have labeled the claim "practically impossible to prove or disprove"[43]).

Thirdly, despite evidence that they were actually married in a local church, there are new reports that Warren claims her parents were forced to "elope" because of anti-Indian bigotry. Here are two news reports discussing the matter:

• "Warren said. “My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope. ..." Asked what made her mother’s family distinctly Native American, Warren laughed and replied, “It was exactly what I said.’’ Asked again, she responded, “One side was Cherokee and the other side was Delaware.""—Boston Globe, June 1, 2012, [44].
  
• "Warren continued to argue... “My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope,” she told the Globe. ...David Cornsilk, who co-founded “Cherokees Demand Truth From Elizabeth Warren” [said,] “...What matters is that she’s honest. And I’m seeing that she’s not.”—Politico, June 1, 2012, [45]
  

Any thoughts on creating this new section named "Credibility" or similar? --→gab 24dot grab← 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A standalone "Credibility" section would be too hurtful to her and her family[46]. I think all of her life narrative remarks are crucial to who she is and should be interwoven with her standard WP life biography. For example, the elopement could be mentioned following the sentence that described her working class parents, one of whom is apparently of Native American descent on both sides. Similarly, her TARP Oversight section mentions her work on foreclosure mitigation, which could include her own personal investments in buying foreclosed people's homes at deep discounts[47]. Cheeseburrito (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason my comment here was deleted? 66.105.218.38 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Now this: Boston Herald, June 3, 2012[48]:

• "Elizabeth Warren has been tripped up on another chapter from her colorful “family lore.” Last September, [a Warren speech said]: “My grandmother drove a wagon in the [1889] land rush..., and she...lived to be 94 to see her youngest grandchild, that’s me, graduate from a public university...” Turns out Warren’s grandmother, Hannie Reed, died Nov. 13, 1969, [the year before Warren actually] graduated from University of Houston."
  

Compared with her other credibility-straining claims, at least this Warren-"whopper" is a provable lie. It seems as though a "family folklore" section may be indicated. --→gab 24dot grab← 07:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Her national notability is due primarily to the issue of her Native American notification, so it should not be surprising that the significance and coverage of this issue is in fact dominated by this one issue. In such a case, it would be appropriate to create a dedicated for the issue apart from her biography, just as the Watergate controversy could not possibly be covered entirely in the biography of Richard Nixon. Redhanker (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. Her "national notability is due primarily" to her work with the Congressional Oversight Panel to create TARP and her work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Just reminding those who are coming in late to this party. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

100% false. Redhanker has it correct.

Is Binksternet the same user who keeps vandalizing my posts? Could the mods pls take some action here? 66.105.218.35 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

When the article was stubbed in 2004 (more than 8 years ago), Warren's notability was established by her writing.[49] Her notability has grown through her work with the Obama administration and her 2012 candidacy for the Senate. She would never have a Wikipedia article if her notability relied on her claims to Native American ancestry. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That may have been the case in 2004, but i'm willing to bet if you took a nationwide poll in the here and now, waaaaay more people would know her as "the 'Indian' lady" than "the 'TARP' lady". And that goes double (triple?) if we're talking news coverage.

Except in Massachusetts, perhaps. Here the conversation has shifted to her more recent whoppers. So her "notability" here is less for the Indian claims per se than for the overall pattern. 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

References

More WP:SOCK

Wow, take a look at this. Nothing like honesty. Bearian (talk)

Flip This House

i find this week's foreclosure bombshell more disturbing than any of the indian or credibility issues. did she REALLY flip 2 houses at the same time she was running around grousing about those who do likewise?!

doesn't this warrant inclusion here? this gets to the very heart of her beliefs/career/activism. 66.105.218.30 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor apparently refers to news such as this:

• UK's Daily Mail, June 2, 2012, [50], "U.S. Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren is back in the headlines after it was revealed that she took part in around 12 lucrative real estate deals using manoeuvres such as ‘flipping’ properties to make profits. Warren has in the past rallied against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures but that didn’t stop her using the controversial tactics to make fortunes."
• Boston Herald, June 3, 2012, [51], "Warren, a relentless foe of predatory banking and unfair foreclosures, faces new criticism over Herald reports that she herself purchased foreclosed-upon homes in the ’90s in her native Oklahoma."

The revelation that Warren simultaneously criticized foreclosure speculation while participating in foreclosure speculation seems newsworthy but perhaps not Wikipedia-worthy. It seems best to see how the matter unfolds. This section (which should have a more encyclopedic title) was moved to its proper chronological place by me. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First senator who has Native American heritage

Earlier this month, Warren herself chose to keep the whole Cherokee/Native American/American Indian thing going strong when she chose to say this in an interview earlier this month (June 2012):

• "I would be their [Massachusetts'] first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."

An editor had added that to the article,[52] another editor removed it claiming a lack of WP:RELIABLESOURCES,[53] and now I have reverted[54] the removal and included two reliable sources for verification (The Daily Caller and Fox Boston). If editors seek to hide Warren's continued and continuing claims, they should only do so on encyclopedic merits. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I whole completely agree with 24Dot. This comment is notable and it is backed up with reliable sources. It gets to the heart of why this section needs to be here, which many editors have been attempting to either fully eliminate to scale back to one or two sentences. She has been promoting herself as Native American on the campaign trail. This happened, not in 1994 or 1995, but right now in the campaign that this article is about--completely notable and reliably sourced. It does not violate BLP because it is her own words.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, this comment is very, very important because it is factually incorrect and there will noise coming from Indian Country on this one. Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado) is an enrolled citizen of the Northern Cheyenne and of course Charles Curtis, former Senator from Kansas and Vice President of the United States under Herbert Hoover, was Kaw, Osage, and Pottawatomie. She will get grief over this most recent gaffe. It shows that, once again, she doesn't even know American Indian history--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore the above commentary. I misheard her in the audio.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor again removed[55] Warren's new claim that she'd be Massachusetts' "first senator...who has Native American heritage". Since the removing editor simply claimed "not needed" and since the new claim is multiply sourced, I've again reverted the removal[56]. The original addition was not by me, but it seems relevant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced and the new information should not be removed except regarding its encyclopedic merits. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn about WP:CONSENSUS, on which WP:BRD is an excellent resource. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has again removed Warren's own statement ("I would be their [Massachusetts'] first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."), with the editor's edit summary stating "WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT." Admittedly, this specific Warren statement is recent, but I'm confident that it easily passes Wikipedia's suggested 'WP:10 year test' because Warren's statement contains a succinct, plain, explicit summary of what Warren is actually still claiming and likely will always claim. I haven't seen another quote like it from her, and it serves as a metaphoric "bookend" to the section. Weight-wise, the statement is her own official statement during an interview and almost by definition it cannot be considered undue weight. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remarkable about Warren's statement, certainly nothing that suggests that it be included in her WP article. This is her bio, not a blow by blow account of her campaign. Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement should be added to WP because (a) if true, it illustrates a noteworthy historic first, and (b) if false, demonstrates in a very simple and straightforward fashion that Warren is lying. Cheeseburrito (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'WP:10 year test' doesn't require remarkableness. Warren's statement encapsulates her view, and makes it clear that she isn't now and won't ever back down from those who question her Native American bona fides. I contend that this Warren statement has more significance than almost any other currently cited in the article. Which other quote also passes the 10-year test? --→gab 24dot grab← 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Warren has repeatedly said that it is part of her family history and she has no reason to "back down" from anything. Perhaps you do not understand how difficult genealogy research can be - I know from doing my own family research that it can be extremely difficult. Names were commonly changed to make them more English-sounding and it would not be surprising if someone "forgot" to mention that an individual was an Indian when filling out records. Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

24Dot, instead of edit warring, I suggest you start a content RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've waited two days, and this thread has seen no specific objection to the article including the following sentence:

• Elizabeth Warren has personally confirmed that if elected by Massachusetts voters, "I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."

So, I reinstated it.[57] If an editor wants to hide Warren's current, succinct position on the matter, that editor should explain himself or herself here at this Talk thread. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Information about ancestry research generally

An editor put in a quote that talked about the difficulty of doing research on ancestry, especially Indian ancestry. The quote did not refer to Warren specifically. It just stated that doing Indian ancestry research is difficult. I removed it because it is not notable for this article. The quote did not speak to Warren's specific situation. If the quote was providing insight into Warren's particular situation then it would relevant and notable, but it just states that ancestry research is difficult. It might be a relevant and notable quote for another article such as about ancestry, etc., but not here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer returned the information back into the article without discussing it on this page. There is NO consensus for the information being in the article. Gandydancer has so far refused to provide an explanation on why it is relevant. Gandydancer has simply stated "It is relevant" as if that solves the issue, but it does not. Gandydancer, please do not engage in an edit war and please discuss the reason for putting the information back in. As Nomoskedasticity is fond of saying, "your edit has been rejected, therefore, you need to go to the talk page to get consensus to reposition it in the article."--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That advice has been completely ignored on this article. We have a free-for-all here. So fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article has turned into a free-for-all. That information is taken from an article about Warren. It is not an article about genealogy in general. Comments from the article are directly related to the Warren genealogy debate and certainly do belong in the Warren article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Do the comments provide information about Warren? No. Under your line of thinking if we found someone who said that getting a law degree is difficult then that quote is relevant and notable simply because Warren went to law school. No, notability does not work that way. These comments are generic comments about finding out about one's Indian ancestry. They do not, in any way, provide new information about Warren's particular situation. There is zero relevance. Also, you reverted my edit before you even made your comment above. Please show where the relevance is. Please show the notability. So far, you have not shown either of these. The information does not belong in the article. Almost every editor agrees that the section on Warren's Cherokee self-identification is too long. Your quotes do not provide new information, we already knew that proving Indian ancestry was difficult of Warren would have done it by now. The quotes do not speak directly to whether Warren is a Cherokee or not. All your quotes do is add clutter and make the section longer, which is directly opposed to almost all editors--which violates consensus--and it is directly opposed to what you have been arguing as an editor all along. You have repeatedly stated that the section is too long and violates "undue weight". Well, we now have an opportunity to delete some information that is neither relevant or notable and yet you want to keep it in the article even though you state that you believe that the section is too long. These quotes need to be removed because they are not relevant to Warren, they are not notable, and they unnecessarily clutter up the section and make it too long.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a great many things are relevant in this article. Any attempt at getting people to rein themselves in has failed miserably. The section is not too long -- there's room for all sorts of stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that the direction that you and Gandydancer have decided to go? Seems like you will be opening the door to a lot of other topics that have successfully blocked up to this point in time.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is every reason to include the information. There seems to be an attempt to prove that Warren lied about her heritage because to this point there is no genealogical proof that she is of Native American ancestry. She has said all along that it is part of her family lore and has never claimed that she has any proof of it. As the article which is specifically about Warren's heritage points out, it is common in Oklahoma to have an Indian heritage and yet be unable to back it up with genealogical or governmental records. I'd suggest that if you are sincere about wanting to shorten the article we get rid of this: Politico.com characterized the Herald story that began the controversy as a "blockbuster scoop"[58] and the Washington Post observed that she had "turned what could have been a small problem into a major story" by the way she had handled the issue.[59] According to Politico, the two rivals, the Herald and the Globe, have been "duking it out" for scoops long before the Scott Brown Elizabeth Warren senate race.[60]. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all I did not put the Politico information in the article, but that is not what this article is about. You have not provided any reason why we should put non-notable, irrelevant information in the article. You are wanting to change the subject from the irrelevant information that you placed in the article. The Politico information just might be irrelevant, but that can wait for another discussion. These quotes that you demand, against consensus, to include are NOT relevant. As I pointed out before if we had two different experts on childbirth who pointed out how difficult childbirth is then, under your incorrect definition of relevance, then we would have to include the quotes from the childbirth experts because Elizabeth Warren has given birth. There is no end to the ludicrous quotes that we could put in the article. We could also put in the article a couple of quotes from experts about serious problem of affirmation action fraud in academic settings by people that are white but they claim that they are Native Americans. And, yes, the articles are out there. As a matter of fact, this has been such a difficult problem in the academic world that there has been various serious research articles on it. There has been a draft protocol on how to handle Native American affirmative action hires. I can get generic quotes on this topic and include in the article since you and Nomoskedasticity have decided that everything should be included whether it meets notability or relevance or not.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct re the deletion I suggested. I should not have muddied the water with that suggestion and I was wrong to discuss it at this time. As for the relevancy of the other information, I guess that we will have to wait for other editors to give their thoughts. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that reliable sources are using the quotes we use to defend Warren. Reliable sources have not discussed this alleged protocol with respect to Warren. The first is not improper synthesis. The second is. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Hypocrite. What you just stated is flat out wrong. Those quotes that Gandydancer placed in the article did not mention Warren by name. Those folk did not speak to Warren specific situation. For you to assume that the quotes are talking about Warren is wrong and it borders on original research. Is this article now an essay by you, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity? Apparently, under your line of thought if you want to take bits and pieces of quotes, as long as they are from reliable sources, then we can piece them together however we want to to make the article say whatever we want the article to say. If we want to write an essay that defends Warren's actions then if we can find comments from reliable sources, regardless of whether we are taking those quotes out of context, we can write just about anything that we want to, as long as defends a certain point of view. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we are not suppose to engage in original research AND we are not suppose to have a POV. We are suppose to write the article in NPOV manner. So, in summary, your comment is wrong. Taking quotes out of context to defend Warren's actions is original research. And making edits just for the specific reason to defend Warren violates the NPOV premise. So it appears that the longer you, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity defend this edit the clearer it becomes how it violates several aspects of the Wikipedia rules.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So the source of his quotes in no way discussed Warren? Wow, that's a real problem. Is that what you are saying is true - that the source of the quotes doesn't discuss Warren at all? Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Hipocrite. I do not know if you are being sincere or if you are mocking me. Therefore, I will assume good faith and take you at your word. First of all, if you truly unaware if the quotes are talking about Warren then you did not do your due diligence before you started commenting on this page. A straight-forward reading of the Seattle newspaper article would have made it undeniably clear to anyone that the quotes were talking about families doing research on their ancestry and that the quotes are not talking about Warren specifically. I have reprinted the wording from the article below. Hipocrite, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity please provide the exact place where these individuals say Warren's name. If Michael Dean had commented on Warren's background we would have heard about it by now. This is original research. It violates NPOV. It is not relevant. It is not notable.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dean with the Oklahoma Historical Society said it's not unusual for families from Oklahoma to claim some Native American heritage. "There was so much intermarriage back in the 1890s that was fairly common," Dean said. Tara Damron, assistant curator of the society's American Indian collection, said finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land. "There are a lot of people in Oklahoma who do have native lineage but can't prove that," Damron said.--This article was written by Steve LeBlanc of the Associated Press and it was published in the Seattle Times on April 30, 2012. You can see the whole article here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that article isn't about Warren? Because up above you said very clearly that using those quotes about Warren would be taking them out of context - IE, they were not about Warren. As such, I'll ask again - is the source that the quotes are from about Warren? Yes or no will work. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he's been clear that he is saying the quote is about "ancestry research generally". Present your case that it -is- about Warren, please. Arkon (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Arkon, thank you. You are absolutely right.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article it comes from is "In Mass. US Senate race, a question of heritage." That a specific paragraph does not have the word "Warren" in it does not make the article about something else. This is yet another edit in the pattern of Edmonton7838 misrepresenting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please focus on the article and not me. There is no evidence that either of these quotes are referring to Elizabeth Warren. If you have some kind of proof that Dean and Damron are referring to Warren please provide it.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this article need not discuss genealogical research; that's what Wikilinks are for! --→gab 24dot grab← 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Rey

I removed a wikilink that went to a page for a basketball player. Also, is there a reason we are giving him the description "blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee nation"? It seems a little disparaging in context:

Alan Ray, the administrator then responsible for HLS' diversity statistics (and himself a blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee nation) said that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide".

Thought it should be removed but thought I'd ask here. Ayzmo (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My response is that the phrase, "and himself a blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee Nation" is not notable or relevant to the Elizabeth Warren article. The color of Rey's eyes have zero impact or relevance on whether Warren is a Cherokee. That is information is not relevant, therefore, it is not notable. It should be removed. And, yes, it is disparaging which is also a reason to have it removed because it is a personal attack on a living person. There is no reason to have the information in the article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is essentially, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The current article seems to not mention Alan Rey (or "Alan Ray" or "Allan Ray").[58] --→gab 24dot grab← 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The part about him was removed today by user FurrySings here. I actually came to remove it and found it gone. Ayzmo (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This bit of serendipity about Rey (that he's exactly the kind of person "like" Warren that she wanted to meet as a result of listing herself a minority) doesn't seem the slightest bit disparaging to me. All those folks in Oklahoma who want to say they're part Cherokee without much or any justification aren't doing it because they think it's a bad thing. But the main reason Rey must be mentioned is that he's directly contradicting Warren's story that the administration classified her as Native American without telling her. He's saying that he didn't do that. (And I can confirm that that's not the way it works. Back when I had a work-study job at a university I was given a form and told to select my racial idenitity. Not much caring for this, I checked "other" and wrote down "Klingon". I was then called in by the responsible beaurocrat and told that if I didn't provide an acceptable answer that he would decide what I was by looking at me. But the point is FIRST THEY GIVE YOU THE FORM!) Andyvphil (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Category Cherokee Nation

An editor added the category Cherokee Nation to the article. I do not support this edit because this is not the appropriate use of that category. The purpose of that category is to mark Cherokee Nation topics. It is not mark every single person that claims Cherokee Nation ancestry. It needs to be removed. You can review the edit here: Inappropriate edit of Elizabeth Warren article by adding inapplicable category. Even real Cherokee Nation members, which Warren is not, do not have that category on their article. See Wilma Mankiller example.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor, Seb az86556, removed the category today. I agree and it should stay off of the article. That is not the appropriate use of that category. It is used for Cherokee Nation businesses, Cherokee Nation government, etc. It is not for individual Cherokees. And it definitely is not for people that claim Cherokee ancestry but cannot prove it. Please leave it out of the article. You can review that edit here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)