Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren switched from Republican to Democrat in 1995. Isn't this worth expanding on?

According to the little fact sheet on Warren at the upper right side of the article, she switched from Republican to Democrat in 1995. This certainly seems like a sufficiently significant event concerning the subject of the article that it ought to be expanded on. I am not knowledgeable about this myself, but I hope someone who is might put some relevant information in the article.Daqu (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded Mathiastck (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, on general principles, but also, I'll note that, with some rare exceptions, an infobox is supposed to contain summary information already in the article, so it either needs to be expanded in the article, or if the consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article, it should not be in the infobox. However, this is just a technical point, a change in party for a politician is virtually always worth explication.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the change in party was added with this edit

Sourced to this article, so a starting point if someone wants to tackle the addition. I note that the addition occurred after the GA status, which explains why it wasn't addressed at that time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again

I haven't looked at this page before, but I have followed a bit of the controversy. I saw this article today and checked the article. I am surprised that the word Cherokee does not appear. I do see three sentences on point, but that seems low compared to the extensive coverage. While the linked article may not qualify as an RS, it makes some valid points. I plan to look into it, but I'm posting this now, as the existence of the article may attract some drive-bys. I do note the article is semi'd so that should help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added two words to get the tribe in. The original complaint of undue weight seems to have tilted in the exact opposite direction, marked under-coverage. I actually missed the minor mention on first read through. The accusation was about fraudulent misrepresentation in order to gain advantage. That's worth a section heading. TMLutas (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The affirmative action controversy has been whitewashed by partisans and the article is now in need of re-work. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some have missed that the link in the first sentence is to the William A. Jacobson "Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed" post, so I am posting this to make it perfectly clear that it has been linked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article

How did this article reach GA status when the reviewer simply addressed his own concerns. Basically Binkersnet said "This article should be reviewed.", and then did the review and then said it passed! What kind of process is that? Arzel (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see a link that says "you can reassess it" (hint, hint). ► Belchfire-TALK 16:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time to reasses at the moment. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Designate nominated the article[1] and Binkersnet gave a review. Designate, Gandydancer and a few others addressed his concerns [2] That is exactly how the process is supposed to work. AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When I picked up the GA nomination to review the article it was in terrible shape. I listed a bunch of issues I saw and said "It has major problems with a) failure to address the main aspects and b) prose that is not clear and concise. These problems are not insurmountable but they would normally cause a GAN to be failed. Instead, I will hold the GAN open to see if contributors wish to bring the article up to speed." All of this can be seen at Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA1. A week later all of my concerns were addressed—even some additional changes that I specified a few days into the review. That is the normal process for GAN, so I don't understand the complaint by Arzel. Has Arzel ever reviewed a GAN? If not, I can understand not knowing about the process.

That was 14 months ago. Wikipedia biographies about living persons can change over time, especially with political figures and elections. Many hands have been at work here. If somebody wanted to put the article up at GAR there are three possible results: 1) the article is confirmed GA with no changes, 2) the article is modified and newly confirmed as GA level, and 3) the article is delisted. Note that an article may not be brought to GAR without actionable issues identified. It cannot be delisted simply because someone does not like it. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on GA reviews, but I didn't see anything wrong with the review. I don't think primary contributors to an article should do their own assessment, but if I read the history correctly, Binksternet had zero edits to the article at the time a GA review commenced. I was mildly surprised that the reference to change of party wasn't in the article, but I see that it was introduced after the GA review.

I don't think now is a great time to commence a GAR, given the current interest in wordsmithing a section of the article. That may die down in a few days, and it may be worth a GAR at that time (thought I hope someone would find the time to add the change of party to the article (hint, hint to editors in general).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, let's look at your allegation that I decided to review the article after remarking somewhere that it should be reviewed for GA. The insulting implication is that I reviewed the article favorably, passing it too easily because I wanted it to be GA. For starters, I never said "This article should be reviewed". You will not be able to find a diff to prove your supposed direct quote—it is false and should be struck. I never commented on the article before taking the GAN under review. I initiated the GAN page on October 24, 2011. My first edit to the article was the next day, to change some minor typography. My first entry on the article's talk page was also the next day, to announce that the GAN was on hold awaiting improvements. Basically, my editing history in late October 2011 was that I was winding up the successful third Pale Blue Dot GAN which meant that I was available to review another GAN. I went to the GAN page and selected one which had been waiting a long time—32 days—for a review. My first introduction to the existence of Warren as a politician was in my initial reading of the biography on October 24, not from previous knowledge or other ulterior (political) motive. In the first step of my review I looked all over the web to see whether the main points were being covered in the article, and my review was subsequently pretty tough, in my opinion. The article's editors had to perform a lot of improvements to get it in shape.

The GAN process was faithfully followed. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the Native American/Cherokee incident coverage

In November, Yopienso restored a section from September, which was removed by Gandydancer. See Talk:Elizabeth_Warren#Cherokee_self-identification for the rationale. I accept that local races can have extensive local coverage, which may not be reflective of the national coverage. However, I am not in Massachusetts, and was very aware of the incident, which did receive national coverage.

For reference I am copying the section below. I think we should have a discussion about whether:

1. This section, as-is, should be restored,
2. This section can serve as a starting point for a section which does belong,
3. A wholly new section should be crafted, or
4. No further mention beyond that in the article now is warranted

My view is expressed as item 2, I'll go into more detail below.

Cherokee self-identification

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her background as Native American ancestry. Warren said she identified as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background. Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration and sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.

The Brown campaign called on Warren to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record". Warren's campaign responded that she was proud of her heritage and denied any wrongdoing. Warren's claim angered many Cherokees, who questioned why she did not continue to list herself in directories or reach out to other Indians if she truly wanted to meet people like her. A group of Cherokee women sought to meet with Warren but were unsuccessful; one member of the group from Warren's home state of Oklahoma said her claim was "shameful and extremely disrespectful not just to Cherokees but to all tribes". A group of Cherokees started a website saying, "You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!" In response, a Warren spokesperson emailed Politico a recycled statement that had been circulating for days.

Warren said she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed Native American heritage, and stated, "Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect."

The New England Historical Genealogical Society initially announced in May 2012 that they had found evidence for Warren's claims, but later recanted, saying, "We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent."

Discussion

Quite apart from the merits of this entry as it now stands, I find it odd that there is only one brief paragraph about the Cherokee flap in the entry for 2012 US Senate Election. In sharp contrast, in the entry on the McCaskill-Akin Senate race in Missouri, the flap over Akin's "legitimate rape" remark is extensive and detailed. It strikes me that the two entries related to Warren have it backwards: in her bio entry, it may be more appropriate to keep the Cherokee issue to a couple of sentences, while in the election entry, it should be more fully described. After all, this was a major issue in the campaign. This approach would make it possible to include much more of the campaign back and forth -- where it more appropriately belongs.Burke242 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)JEB242

I think the references to the two groups of Cherokees might be too much. Not sure whether one, or the other, or none is best.

• Not surprisingly, many of the references are Boston papers, with one CBS references. It would be worth looking for other national, or outside the region sources to confirm the national scope of the issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by the comments I made in November. I live in Alaska and saw it all over the news. Yopienso (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the existing three sentences in the article, along with the material removed earlier, into a subsection. I also added a Washington Post cite, to support the notion that this was national not regional. The WP article was very much on point, a it attempted to do fact checking of the various claims.

I'm still open to the possibility that mention of the Cherokee groups may be too much (as well as open to any discussions of the wording of the section, but in view of the absence of any dissenting opinions, I felt we should have the items in the article, and then discuss whether any trimming or editing is warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm supporting the article as it currently stands; thanks for fixing it. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We should continue to edit this. Can we agree on these points?

• Omit the mention of the Reagan administration. It's a weak attempt to make the guy look trustworthy but it's irrelevant.
• Omit the genealogical society. If they don't know then it doesn't matter. It certainly didn't affect the story.
• Combine the three sentences which mention Warren's various responses. Have one sentence summarizing her response to the whole story instead of having a response to each person.
• Combine the Cherokee group criticisms. Their responses made for good Boston Herald headlines but it's unlikely each group had a unique effect on the story.
• Remove the "recycled statement" quip. This is obviously unencyclopedic.

I think this is a starting point, anyway. —Designate (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good food for thought.

I hope we can agree to discuss some issues, then put together a straw alternative, then replace once discussion settles down, rather than doing too much piecemeal (recognizing that clear errors should be addressed more quickly.)

• Re Reagan. I initially thought it was gratuitous, and could be removed, but I think it helps illustrate that he is unlikely to be a hyper-partisan simply supporting the liberal position. I'd be inclined to leave it, but I don't feel strongly either way.
• Re Omit the genealogical society. I'm not supportive of this. The inference isn't that they don't know, the inference is that they are the experts, and cannot find the linkage. Like any responsible organization, they don't make the stronger case that there is no evidence, because they can't be 100% certain, but this is their area of expertise, and they did investigate. This isn't a minor aspect, they were very much part of the story, partly because of some early reporting by the organization that seemed to report her claims. (I do note that the link is bad, so need correction.)
• Re Combine the 3 sentences - sounds good, but we need someone to offer suggested wording. I may try something tomorrow if no one else has a suggestion.
• Re Combine Cherokee groups. I've supported this, but haven't done it because I haven't found a clean way to do it. Open to suggestions, or I may try tomorrow.
• Re recycled. Good point that is sloppy wording. Are you just proposing removing the whole sentence, which would leave no trace that there was a response, or did you have an alternative in mind?

While looking for a better link for the genealogical statement, I found this Atlantic article. It helps support the notion that this was a national, not regional story, although I'm not sure that is still needed. I don't want the section to be too large, so I don't propose including this unless we can omit something else. Does it add anything of substance that isn't already present? Is it a better source than any of the existing sources?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the section as it currently stands places pretty excessive weight on the incident. As it stands, it's longer than her "government work" section and almost as long as the rest of her senate section. Having looked across half a dozen articles about prominent American politicians on both sides of the spectrum, I can't find a case where a similarly sized issue gets this much coverage. A mention of the incident is probably warranted, but I cannot imagine that the section possibly warrants the amount of length it currently has. I agree with most of Designate's points. @SP - I can see leaving the genealogical society in... but only if someone comes up with sources that speak about its lasting importance. Without more and better references, I don't think it has the lasting encyclopedic importance as to warrant a mention in the main article.

Since this is a BLP and I think this is a fairly sizable issue, I'm going to make some edits to the current wording before consensus is reached. Obviously, if a consensus is reached that disagrees with me, material that I excise or reword can be restored. I don't generally make significant edits that are actively under consensus except when dealing with BLP issues - but since BLP stuff has a lot more potential for harm if bad material is left up for a few days than if good material is taken down for a few days, I think it is important to err on the side of safety. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If the "bad material" were libelous, I would agree. Since it's true, I don't.

The reasons for heavy weighting are twofold: the incident found a person in the public trust making exaggerated claims for her own benefit, and the U.S. is sensitive to Native issues. Note that this was not entirely a political "gotcha" moment, but there was genuine anger from the Native community.

Nonetheless, ample explanatory footnotes and sufficient refs can pare the article space devoted to this issue to probably half what it is now. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP policy covers a hell of a lot more than just libel. It speaks specifically of undue weight issues in this section. With the sources that have been brought forth so far, there's no conceivable way that the section as it currently stands gives due weight to the issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that you did make an error in your estimations about the length of the section. At the time of the current revision, of which the present was at 01:14 on the 8th‎, the "Cherokee self-identification" section contained one less line than the section before it, called "2012 election," and contained fewer overall references and total references. (The total amount of references in the "Cherokee self-identification" is equal to the overall references in the "2012 election" section.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the length of the section to the coverage of government work and the senate section is a relevant comparison, but I reach a different conclusion that you do. While one would abstractly hope that a Senator's Senate career would be a longer section than a scandal, and that is the case for most Senators, that isn't any sort of rule. She has been a Senator for all of five days now, so I don't expect much coverage of her accomplishments in the Senate. So far, her Senate career has consisted of the race, of which this is an integral part. In fact, speaking personally, while I knew she was running for Senator, I knew very little about her other than this incident. I'll be surprised if many average people could name any of her accomplishments. Has the Atlantic done a piece on her government accomplishments? In fact, they have, more than once, but the piece on the Native American issue is about as long as the others put together. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that a ref was a bad link, so I found the article, and properly formatted a reference.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous one-paragraph version (Jan. 7)

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s, Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as having Native American ancestry, specifically Cherokee. Warren said she identified herself as a Native American in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background. Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration and had sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.

FWIW, the previous version was only one paragraph and I think it was the appropriate length. There's no reason for this to even have its own heading. We can cover this in just a few sentences. It's just a question of making sure that paragraph is balanced. —Designate (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At present, the section is eleven sentences. I've suggested, as have others, that some compacting can be done in a couple areas, just awaiting someone to propose more concise wording. Care to take a crack at it?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly will not agree to expanding our coverage of this incident. No professional bio of Warren would devote a large portion of their copy to this incident. Furthermore, it concerns me that a blog such as the one that has been referred to should influence our editing. Also, please see the Scott Brown article and note that the Elizabeth Dole bio incident, which was widely covered, even more so than this one, is not mentioned in his Wikipedia bio. Wikipedia must be aware that some editors use the 'pedia as a political mouthpiece--I don't want to see that happen. IMO the long-standing copy re this issue should be returned during this debate, not the one that was not accepted by the WP community. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your word choice "I certainly will not agree..." implies veto power, which I'm sure was just a mistake. As for the blog influencing our editing, note that it hasn't been referenced. It isn't being used as an RS. In the same way we wouldn't reference a Twitter feed noting a misspelled word in an article, we wouldn't cite the Twitter feed, but we would correct the misspelling. Jimbo made this very point, And yet there is a valid point. Shoot the messenger if you feel it appropriate (just kidding) but the truth is, there's a story here which must be reliably covered. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Veto power? Please be realistic--we are both experienced editors and we both know better. As for the need to "cover the story", please keep in mind that we are dealing with a bio of a political figure--perhaps loved by about half of the U.S. population and hated by about half as well, both wishing to portray their representative in a different light. In the end this incident was only a small incident related to Warren's run for office, not a major incident that deserves extensive coverage in her WP bio. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Small incidents don't get extensive coverage by local media, as well as significant coverage by entities such as CBS, the Atlantic and the Washington Post. And not minor mentions, but entire articles on the incident.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think the Scott Brown article is missing something relevant, please bring it up at that talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take another look at my edit--this was used to compare articles. I was very much aware that this info was deleted from Brown's article during the Brown/Warren campaign and I did not make any edits to his page to restore this info. My "vote" (I live in Maine) was for Warren, but that does not mean that I approve of dirty politics to the point that I would want to blow minor issues into major issues in our encyclopedia just to paint a rosy picture of any candidate. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I attempted a rewrite. My opinion is that not every news article requires a new sentence and not every source requires a whole quotation. Feel free to adjust the wording/organization but let's not revert to that five-paragraph mess any more, it's clearly overkill. —Designate (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your attempted re-write was not obtained by full consensus. Your edit removed all concerns raised by real, enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation. She made these claims throughout her career and it became a major part of who she claimed to be. Just stating over and over again, as a minority of editors of this article do, that he lifetime long claims are just "an incident" is not correct or true to the facts of her life.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The current version wasn't arrived at by "full consensus" either. The consensus of this discussion is that the section needs to be rewritten, so if you want to propose a rewrite, do it. Otherwise you're not contributing. —Designate (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not comment me as an editor directly. Assume Good Faith and focus on contributions to the article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So here is my first attempt at rewriting this thing. Let's discuss it. Designate (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as a Native American. Fact-checking efforts by the New England Historical Genealogical Society and the Washington Post found no evidence of Cherokee lineage in Warren's family history. Warren's claim drew criticism from the Brown campaign, which called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record", and from several Cherokee groups. Warren maintained that Native American ancestry was a part of her family history, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background. She denied receiving any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry. Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision.

It looks like a good first attempt. I agree that the section needs to be trimmed down--Elizabeth Warren is not Ward Churchill, but on the other hand she has not proven that she is a member of the Cherokee tribe or the Delaware tribe and there have been reputable third party groups that have looked at her heritage and they have not been able to find anything either. Also, it was not a "one time incident". She made the claim many times over many, many years. And finally, to attempt to make the issue seem like it was just a campaign issue between her and Brown completely ignores the hundreds of members of the Cherokee Nation across the country who find her claims to be offensive.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But there's no implication that it was a "one time incident", and I don't know where you're getting that phrase. Every version of this section has mentioned that she called herself a minority "from 1986 to 1995". That's not a one time incident. —Designate (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A few comments: I would like to see it made clear that the fact that Native American heritage could not be proven does not mean that it is false. Many people may not be aware that one's heritage can be hard to trace, especially so when one considers that for a long period of our history Native American lineage (like African American lineage) was hardly something to brag about and most likely would not be reported on an official document if there were a way to avoid it. Also, I would prefer the wording "She denied receiving any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry." changed to "She stated...". Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking back, this was used at one time, "Warren said she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed Native American heritage, and stated, "Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect." Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal Insurrection blog has noted the Wikipedia whitewashing of Warren's ethnicity claims. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-wikipedia-page-ethnically-cleansed/#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim9101 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That article was linked hours ago. See the section above--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that even devoting a paragraph to it is giving it too much importance -- it feels like WP:RECENTISM. While this was in the news for a time during the election, there's no evidence that it has any long-term significance for the subject of this article; it's an election flap with relevance only to her last election. It deserves a sentence here (if that), with the longer paragraph people are discussing above in the article on the election rather than in her BLP -- this is how election-specific controversies are genuinely handled, and there's no indication that this will ever have any relevance outside the context of that one historical election. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are correct and I certainly never thought we'd have to go through this all over again. As I've already pointed out, the "accidental" bio incident is no longer on Brown's page, and more recently, the "Indian war whoops" incident which I brought up on the last talk page [3] was never used in his article nor in the senate run article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • I think it was a large enough issue to merit at least a sentence. It wasn't a single gaffe or a staff error like Brown's incidents; it was a longstanding professional choice on her part. Even if she didn't get the job by claiming to be a minority, the fact that Harvard chose to present her as a minority when she wasn't is biographical. Maybe it would make sense to move it to the academic section rather than the election section, though. Designate (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• A sentence? Are we really debating whether it merits a single sentence? Warren made this an issue. She claimed Native American ancestry throughout her professional career, and arguably used this false claim to advance her career. I understand that not everything related to this incident will be included, but this is an ethical issue that clearly deserves its own section. The section, as removed, is a good starting point. Soderstrom (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism from widely red blog

The blog Legal Insurrection written by William A. Jacobson is severely criticizing the missing ethnicity controversy information [4] I put a notice about it on Jimmy's talk page. While what and how much should be in the article about it is debatable, the lack of any section at all looks really NPOV.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, but did you even look at this page? The Jacobson article is linked, and discussed. The section has already been restored. Sorry if I sound petulant but you are acting like nothing has happened.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The section has been removed again. Why not just make the paragraph covering that issue a subsection under the 2013 election section? It is significant enough to stand out, but it can stand out under the election piece. $0.02 174.50.99.112 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you really believe that any major encyclopedia would do that in an Elizabeth Warren bio? It should be obvious to anyone that is not politically motivated that this was a minor bump along the way, not the mountain that some here want to make of it. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not a news daily or weekly. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting a solution. Why so serious? 174.50.99.112 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer and others have been working hard to minimize this issue in the Warren entry and to knock critics like Jacobson as "partisan." But facts are facts and Wikipedia has no business shading them, especially not to favor an active politician who has been talked about as a future Presidential prospect. This was a major issue in the campaign, and this Senate race was among the handful most closely covered in large part because Warren is widely regarded as a comer. She did claim Cherokee heritage on more than one occasion over a period of time. Challenged, neither she nor anyone else was able to find a shred of proof of her claim, while significant facts were adduced that tend to undermine it, such as the fact that relevant ancestors were white. She says that she never benefitted professionally from the claim but neither she nor Harvard have been willing to back that up. Gandydancer says "this is an encyclopedia, not a news daily." Exactly. A newspaper is free to be biased or partisan. Wikipedia should be neither.Burke242 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Burke242

You're missing the point entirely. You and others keep saying "there's no proof, there's no proof", "it was over a period of time"—those complaints are true but they have *nothing* to do with this discussion. Wikipedia is not the battleground where we decide whether each subject is an honorable politician or a liar. That's not our job. Wikipedia's job is to report the mainstream perspective on a subject, and the vast majority of mainstream, reliable biographies of Warren do not go on for pages about her ancestry at the expense of all else. So we're not going to. —Designate (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the point is the issue was a larger part of the campaign than you are acknowledging. That's why "over time" is pertinent--this was not a one-time gaffe of Warren's, but a sustained claim, and one very likely made in good faith. Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Useful source

This article[5][6] in the Boston Globe, where Warren's cousin recalls her grandmother's claim that their family is part Delaware is relevant, but currently not cited in the article. It's slow to load, so I'll include the relevant text below. FurrySings (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As a child growing up in rural Arizona, Ina Mapes remembers her mother as a highly discreet woman who rarely expressed her personal feelings except when it came to one particularly incendiary topic: Did Mapes’s father, a raven-haired lawyer, have Native American roots, or did he not? Mapes’s grandmother maintained that he had one-quarter tribal blood. But her mother wanted to hear nothing of it.

“My mother did not approve of Indians, and she insisted that my father was not an Indian,” said Mapes, 77, of Catalina, Ariz. “In those days, it was not a plus to be an Indian, not at all. She said that Granny, my father’s mother, was just making it up and she did not believe it.”

Mapes, a mother of four who volunteers in a clothing bank, is a second cousin to US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. The two women, who have never met, share more DNA than most second cousins: Not only were their grandmothers sisters, their grandfathers were brothers. Those brothers — a team of carpenters named Harry and Everett Reed who plied their trade in the Indian Territory that would become the state of Oklahoma — are believed by some family members to have roots in the Delaware tribe. Mapes, who said she was unaware of her cousin’s candidacy until contacted by a reporter, said she does not doubt her heritage.

“I think you are what you are,” said Mapes. “And part of us is Indian.”

Do we really need more discussion about why Warren was wrong? Many editors want the section trimmed back, not expanded. What useful information would this anecdote add? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You mistake my intent. The article doesn't show that Warren is wrong, it shows that Warren's claim is right. Mapes (Warren's cousin) states that her grandmother had always claimed that her son (Mapes' father) was 1/4 Delaware, which would make Warren's father 1/4 Delaware as well. Right now, the article makes it seem as if no one has backed Warren's claim of Native American ancestry, this is incorrect. FurrySings (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The article reflects that the claim hasn't been documented, which AFAICT is actually the case. We already know that Warren and some members of her family claim native heritage, but can't prove it, and I see nothing in your sources to change that. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That some other family members also claim native heritage is not in the article. I have added it. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since some editors seem to be misled by the title of the article, and didn't read it in it's entirely, let me summarize the relevant points here:

• Some members of Warren's extended family have memories about Native American heritage, some do not.
• Close relatives (cousins, all her siblings) recall the stories. Warren’s brothers, Don, John, and David Herring, also issued a joint statement supporting their sister. “The people attacking Betsy and our family don’t know much about either. We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage. They’ve passed away now, but they’d be angry if they were around today listening to all this.”
• In her parent's time, and when Warren was a child, being part Native American was a black mark against you. David Herring of Norman, Okla., one of Warren’s three brothers, said in an interview that even when he was a child his relatives were reluctant to talk about the family’s Native American heritage because “it was not popular in my family.” Only when he begged his grandparents, said Herring, did they finally explain to him: “Your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee. It was not the most popular thing to do in Oklahoma. [Indians] were degraded, looked down on.”
• More distant relatives (especially in-laws) were unaware of any Native American heritage. "other cousins, some of whom also do not know Warren, say they know nothing of Native American blood in the family"
• Childhood school friends of Warren recall her talking about her Native American heritage. “She talked about her grandmother being a Cherokee, and I talked about how my aunt by marriage was a Choctaw,” said Cochran, an Oklahoma psychologist. “I was making a totally illogical argument, saying I was just as Indian as she was. It was ridiculous because she had the blood and I did not, but it made us laugh.”

This is not something that Warren made up when applying for jobs so as to get an unfair advantage. It's something that's always been in her family. Editing to imply otherwise is misleading. FurrySings (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are counting cousins that back up her story as close, while cousins that don't to be distant. The recent edit your took offense to accurately reflects the source being used. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the article. Mapes recalls her grandmother's claim that her son was 1/4 Delaware, which would make Warren's father 1/4 delaware as well. Her three siblings back her. The article makes it clear that only more distant relatives were unaware of Native heritage. No one in her extended family has said 'No, there is not a drop of Native blood in Warren.' This is what the edit made it seem like. FurrySings (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All of her cousins from her grandmother would have exactly the same relationship. You misprepresent the edit, the other cousins stated that had no knowledge of it, there wasn't anything that said emphatically that there was not. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, Please read the article in full. It makes it pretty clear that only the more distant relatives are unaware of her Native heritage. Her three siblings back her. Her cousin recalls her grandmother making the same claim. Her school friend recalls it. The so called 'mixed' memories is that some of her extended family were aware and some weren't. Please don't restare language that makes it seem as if some back her claim and other refute it, saying something like 'No, she's lying, she's white through and through.' No one from her extended family has said anything like that. It's only that some of her extended family did not know about the Native heritage in Warren's family. If you want to add that some members of her extended family were unaware of Native blood in Warren's parents, that's fine. But make sure to make it clear that her close family (some cousins, her brothers and sisters, make the same claim). FurrySings (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the source, and it does not back up your point of view. The edit never made any accusation that she was lying, it was quite clear. Now your last suggestion is simply not an accurate reflection of the source. Some members of her family were unaware of the claim of Native blood, but your wording implies that it was true and they just didn't know about it. You also seem to have some confusion about family relationships. By definition of the relationship all of her cousins which shared the same blood relative would have the same amount of Native blood (if it exists), how personally close Warren is to them is simply not relevant. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely you must see that an edit like this: "Even though Warren’s 'family has mixed opinions on' Warren's Native American ancestry claims," makes it seem like some in her family say "She's lying" while others say "She's not lying". This is not what the article says. The article says "A number of her cousins echo Warren’s assertion" and "other cousins say they know nothing of Native American ancestry". I hope you'll help me in reaching consensus about how to reflect what the source says. FurrySings (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article?!?

Ya gotta be shitting me... Further proof that Wikipedia's GA review process just needs to go away... Carrite (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to this talk page. Please note that the issue is being discussed above at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#Good Article. Also, feel free to peruse the history of the article in October 2011 as it responded to concerns brought up at Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA1. Finally, note that 14 months have passed since then, including many changes to the biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet beat me to it, but I think that comment is a bit unfair. There are issues today, but many/most/all are post-GA review. I personally think that GA and FA articles should have some limitations on editing, requiring talk page consensus, but I know I am in a distinct minority, so I haven't pushed it. Your observation is a reasonable criticism of our general approach, but I don't think it is fair to suggest that the process should go away. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

note ..

I was just going to drop a note on one or two folks talk page, but since there's so many folks active here, I'll drop the link here.

• link

Now I don't know that there's any value to this as far as a WP:RS in order to add content to the article, but it is about both this topic, and Wikipedia in general, so I thought perhaps the folks who enjoy reading and writing about Warren may enjoy reading through this. Cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Will someone here please explain what is happening: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/wikipedia-expert-removal-of-elizabeth-warren-cherokee-controversy-contrary-to-wikipedia-rules/

Wikipedia is on the verge of losing complete credibility. Readers deserve better. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.190.33 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New articles

There's a new Legal Insurrection article. It specifically calls out User:FurrySings and the coverage he linked in a section above that claims to show that Warren is right, with the LI article pointing out that the coverage has already been debunked by Cherokee genealogists led by Twila Barnes. Silverseren^C 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be a good idea for you to do your research before you announce that Warren's claims of Native American ancestry have been "debunked". In the first place, Twila Barnes is not a professional genealogist, nor does she claim to be. And even if she were, genealogists would be the first to admit that while they can sometimes prove ancestry, they are generally unable to "debunk" anything. It is only common sense to realize that ancestry can be difficult and sometimes impossible to prove, especially when it involves proof that one has "Indian or Negro blood" in one's background, a fact that many Americans have wanted to remain unknown. Warren has said all along that she has relied on family lore to support her belief in her Native American heritage, not genealogical proof. Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer's line of argument on this point is absurd. The absence of documentation of her claim cannot disprove the claim but it does reduce it to a claim, not a fact, and thus, in the case of a leading political figure running for office a glaring problem. That's why it became an issue in the firsf place, as would any other unsubstantiated claim made by a candidate for high office. Complicating this further, Warren was claiming kinship in one of a small number of racial minority groups in American society which have special legal and arguably political standing. 108.41.168.224 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Burke242

Then the fact that members of the group she is trying to claim to be a part of have stated that they do not agree with her claim is important to include. Silverseren^C 07:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, why is the section now lumped in with the election section, when this information is important to both her life and her entire career, not just the election. Silverseren^C 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that we may be trying to bend to a partisan website too much. If the info can be added in a neutral way than it should be added, but not at the expense of worsening this article. The website is obviously trying to bully us, and we shouldn't blindly fall for it. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious that this was the result of political attempts to suggest that Warren's past behavior should prompt one to vote for Brown and not Warren. While her heritage remains in question, there is no confirmation what so ever that she claimed Native American heritage to further her career. None. If that could be documented it would be an issue and should be considered to be placed in her career section. It never was, and properly remains in the senate run section. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The website is very obviously partisan. However, it's doing this the right way, by providing links and evidence for what it's saying. We clearly won't be using it directly as a source, but it is pointing out appropriate problems with the article. It has nothing to do with falling for anything, it has to do with making sure the article is neutral. And, as it looks to me now, it seems like this article is being white-washed. Silverseren^C 04:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I would be one of the first people to call them out on BS. I may be an Independent, but I definitely lean liberal on a lot of things and I wouldn't kowtow to something that was just partisan ranting. The difference here is that the site isn't doing that (much). So long as you don't look at the comments section, at least. Silverseren^C 04:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? A Wikipedia editor who states he is non-partisan states that Wikipedia, after hundreds of hours of edits by editors of all opinions, has resulted in whitewashing this article. He goes on to show the WP editors the correct path to follow, the one led by a partisan blogger (but don't look at the responses to the political blogger's articles and thus get the wrong opinion of his posts!). Disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on your comments here and in above sections, Gandydancer, I am extremely concerned that you are not approaching this subject from a neutral point of view, but instead from the point of view that criticism of Warren is wrong. Silverseren^C 07:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, you have accused me of not adhering to the Wikipedia policy that we all use a neutral POV. You say you are extremely concerned--and I am as well since I also take WP policies seriously. I would like to reply to this accusation but to do so you will need to be more specific than "Based on your comments here and in above sections". Please be more specific. Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The writer of the blog is himself a Wikipedia editor. What appears to be happening is that an editor with a preferred POV, frustrated that his POV is not being adequately represented in the article, is using the bully pulpit of his own website in order to bludgeon this article into something that he would prefer. If he was properly following Wikipedia policy, he should just present his sources and arguments on this talk page, and would not be canvassing his readers to come here and edit on his behalf (or insult us as happened here). FurrySings (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The source you're using says "aluded to" a newsletter "supposedly listing". Your source then goes on to say the person who made this claim in the first place didn't actually have the documentation (marriage license). In a better reference, the Atlantic has the actual quote from this newsletter and that the writer says she doesn't believe she even saw the document. Many sources say it may not exist. So there is no reason to include this line about the newsletter in a wikipedia article other than to try to fight this battle over her Native claims in Wikipedia. Again, there's no reason to include an incorrect article from a newsletter that has been shown was clearly incorrect and about something that even the (amateur genealogist) writer Linda Smith says she probably never saw. The newsletter doesn't belong in this article because there is no factual information in it. Odestiny (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose this wording:

Current In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as a Native American. Harvard Law School had publicized the entries in the 1990s in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Native American lineage. Warren’s three siblings have backed her claim, stating, "We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage." A number of her cousins echo Warren’s assertion, but other cousins say they know nothing of Native American ancestry. The Brown campaign, called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record", and several Cherokee groups came out against her. Warren maintained that Native American ancestry was a part of her family folklore, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background. Warren stated that she has not received any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry. Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision.

Revised In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as a Native American. Harvard Law School had publicized the entries in the 1990s in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren maintained that Native American ancestry was a part of her family folklore, a statement supported by her three siblings and several of her cousins, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background. The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Native American lineage. The Brown campaign, called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record", and several Cherokee groups came out against her. Warren stated that she has not received any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry. Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision.

which gets to the point a little faster. Designate (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support for your suggested edit. The shorter and more to point, the better. BTW Indian Country Today's "Elizabeth Warren’s Genealogical Challenge" is the more thorough investigation of her background I've seen on the internet and contains copies of the primary documents in question. She isn't Delaware or Cherokee, that has no bearing on her political career, and I can't wait until everyone can move on. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There is no support for reference to the newsletter that NEHGS refers to early in the discussions of Warren's ancestry. I can't support any references to that newsletter. It is not a primary document. It is not a secondary source. It is not a source, period. It is hearsay. It is not appropriate to go back and re-write all of these things that happened. NEHGS does not put any kind of credibility in that newsletter and just because one editor keeps pushing it does not make that newsletter important to this topic. The fact is that Warren has not provided one piece of documentary evidence to support her ancestral claims and that is what this article should clearly state. The point of this article is tell the issue, as quickly as possible, and let the reader make up their own mind. It is not for us to re-write history or to interpret evidence or use the article to act as apologists for Warren. She made the claims, for several years, it became the topic of a campaign in Massachusetts and later was discussed nationwide. It is notable so it should be in the article. Editors need to stop saying, incorrectly, that it was a one time thing and that was merely raised by political opponents because the Cherokees that have raised questions and complained did not do it for political reasons. To push forward the premise that: (1) it was a one-time claim or (2) only political opponents cared about Warren's claims is old-fashioned POV pushing.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that editors need to remember that this is a BLP and we all need to be especially careful with what we say in both the article and on the talk page. Editors that apparently refuse to read the sources and continue to state that Warren does not have any Native American heritage need to stop that. Just because a blogger has repeatedly made that statement without quality sourcing does not mean that Wikipedia should. We need to make it clear in our article that professional genealogists state that they cannot document Warren's claim to Native American ancestry, but we can't, due to pressure from a blogger or some of the editors here, take that as proof that no Native American ancestry exists. Professional genealogy researchers made that point very clear and it is not our place to refuse to accept their observations and continue to state, even on the talk page, that Warren has no Native American background. Please take the time to actually read our sources to understand that at one time Americans did not want it known that they had any "Indian blood" in their background and certainly would not have identified as Native American if they didn't have to. Some of us that write articles here in WP are even old enough to remember when the "Indians" were expected to sit in the back of the classrooms at school. Who would want to invite that sort of treatment for themselves or for their children? Once again, please note that Warren has never claimed to have documented evidence of her ancestry--she said all along that it was family lore--and there is no evidence that she used her claim to gain advantage. In the end, we are left with no documentation of wrongdoing on Warren's part. In my opinion we already had too much copy devoted to this incident. But what we had remained stable for some time and I was willing to accept it. But now to come along and call it a whitewash, and attempt to expand it and place it in her career section, is not acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer seems to reduce this controversy to whether or not Warren's critics can supply definitive proof that her claim to Native heritage is NOT true, which would be impossible, which shifts the burden away from a leading politician to back up what she says about herself. Further, he asks us to lean mire heavily on her side of the scale to be fair, because, he says, there was a time when people were reluctant to admit to Native heritage. Even if that were true, it would be pure speculation to imagine that it might have had some bearing on Warren's case. To be objective, accurate, and fair, Wikipedia should not insinuate that Warren's claim might be false, but neither should it insinuate that her critics are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.168.224 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that Elizabeth Warren has not been able to provide one shred of written documentation to support her claim that she is Cherokee or Delaware. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Delaware Tribe. These are facts, not opinion. Another fact is that the article was, at one time, completely whitewashed of any mention of Warren's claimed native ancestry. Another fact is that the article was completely scrubbed of the complaints of actual enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation who have been critical of Warren's native ancestry claims and have been critical of the fact that Warren has not provided one shred of written documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Another fact is that the article was scrubbed of any references to various enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation being critical of the appearance that Warren might have gained preferential treatment in hiring at various law schools throughout her career based upon her spoken claim of Cherokee ancestry without providing one shred of documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Ignoring the fact that there are credible questions about her native ancestry claims and credible questions about how she was treated as an employee in at various law schools does not tell the whole story about Warren and her career. She has not been able to provide documentation to support her claims. I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation and I do not have some family members questioning whether our family has Cherokee's in it!!!! I had no problem finding the written documentation to prove my Cherokee ancestry. It is whitewash job for a small number of editors to lecture others about life in Indian Country. There are tons of fake Indians in Indian Country that claim Indian ancestry to obtain the same number of benefits of being Indian entails. There are legitimate questions in Indian Country about Warren's claims and whether she used those unsupported claims to work her way up the affirmation action ladder at various law schools. She never participated in Indian issues as an attorney. But she marked herself down as Indian in a directory whose audience was law school deans, the exact type of people that she needed to further her career. These are facts, not opinion.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User ExclusiveAgent said:

It is a fact that Elizabeth Warren has not been able to provide one shred of written documentation to support her claim that she is Cherokee or Delaware. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Delaware Tribe. These are facts, not opinion.

Correct

Another fact is that the article was, at one time, completely whitewashed of any mention of Warren's claimed native ancestry.

Not correct.

Another fact is that the article was completely scrubbed of the complaints of actual enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation who have been critical of Warren's native ancestry claims and have been critical of the fact that Warren has not provided one shred of written documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Another fact is that the article was scrubbed of any references to various enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation being critical of the appearance that Warren might have gained preferential treatment in hiring at various law schools throughout her career based upon her spoken claim of Cherokee ancestry without providing one shred of documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.

Correct only if you consider consensus editing out some article copy "scrubbing" it out. The article was stable for many weeks without the mention of the Cherokee Nation information and I, for one, certainly have no objection to returning it if that is what consensus agrees on.

As to the rest of your concerns, as a WP editor you are aware that anything that an editor is unable to document, while perhaps true, remains merely opinion. The article has documented that Warren's claim as a Native American did not have any bearing on her hiring. Can you document otherwise? Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User Odestiny said:

Gandydancer - You're missing an important point and also your comments show that you do not enough knowledge of the subject to back what you're saying. The Cherokee are the best documented tribe on the planet. Not only have we had a written language with which to document ourselves, the British and U.S. governments have also done it for us. It is impossible for a person to have only one Cherokee ancestor. That ancestor has siblings, parents, cousins, nieces, grandparents, etc. Anyone having authentic Cherokee ancestry knows multiple family names related to them that are within the tribe. It is a "tribe", which is a large family of inter-related people. A person who would attempt to obtain a position such as Warren did that she knew was based on ancestry, without documentation is wrong. Otherwise anyone can apply for Native set-aside jobs by simply saying they think they have Native blood. In fact, this happens all the time. People are constantly attempting to benefit through false claims just as she did. Whether the her claim had any benefit on her hiring is not the point. The fact that she as an educator with full knowledge of the requirements still made the attempt is what is wrong. What keeps you from going on USAJOBs and applying for a government job set-aside for Native Americans and say that your grandma told you that you were Cherokee? Don't you expect before you do that you better have some kind of documentation in hand? Think for a moment that you're going to apply to Harvard for a Native American position. Do you expect to tell them your grandma said you were Indian? How ridiculous would that be?

Your statement that an Indian wouldn't want it to be known that they were an Indian is exactly the kind of thing that is used by fake Cherokee everyday. The fact is that it has never been a choice as to whether you are a Cherokee. I grew up during the time Natives were persecuted because every TV program was about Cowboys and savages. Teachers in school including my own mother were required to separate the Indian kids from the whites and search them for lice the first day of every school year. And this was within the fourteen counties of the Cherokee Nation itself! Yet I have never known anyone of any tribe who tried to hide their ancestry. Would you disclaim your family? Who would do such a thing? During the Dawes rolls, the U.S. government wanted to destroy the Cherokee Nation leadership and searched far and wide to identify those who might have any future claim. They didn't just ask people if they were Indian, they took old tribal rolls and government rolls from half century before and compared them. They asked people about their siblings, their ancestors, their cousins so they could identify them and be certain there would be no future claims. Remember that they were giving people land. Though a few were against the Dawes actions, people still wanted that land, otherwise it would be given to whites. Why would someone cover that up? So those names are there and the documentation of who has Cherokee heritage is there. So the issue is not whether it had any affect on her hiring, though why didn't it? The issue is that she made application at all based on this claim. Warren knew she didn't know a thing about the tribe, yet she was willing to take an Indian job and keep someone who was actually a tribal member and who deserved it from getting it. That's the real problem here. And that's what really needs to be in this article. Odestiny (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)