Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Controversies

Harvard Crimson in 1996 described her as Elizabeth Warren as Native American. A 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color," based upon an August 6, 1996 phone interview with the news director at Harvard Law, Michael Chmura. The claim is based upon having ancestry of 1/32nd American Indian which she was unable to support, .

While she denies promoting herself in this way and that she did not know that Harvard was billing her as such beginning in the mid-1980s when she listed herself as Native American in the faculty directory for the Association of American Law Schools, on the “Minority Law Teachers” list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogershok (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Already in the article. TFD (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is already too much about this in the article, and now there is also Donald Trump's racist use of the term "Pocahontas", in the article. Neutron (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Racist"? just seems like good-natured teasing to me. Motsebboh (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing good-hearted about Trump's manner of speech. Motsebboh I must implore you to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It has been deeply affected by both Trump supporting and anti-Trump wikipedians, so we don't need any more of this bias.Radiohist (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Whose bias? Yours? Everyone knows the kind of fellow Trump is. There are millions of men like him. They get very vocal and defensive when challenged and they tend to use crude language, but heir bark is much worse than their bite. However none of this has anything to do with the article. Motsebboh (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He is the president, which means he is in a position to "bite". You cannot defend him by saying there are millions of men like him. You could just as well be referring to school bullies. Once again, there is nothing good-hearted about him. Trump has no heart.Radiohist (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, none of this has anything to do with THE ARTICLE which is about Elizabeth Warren, not about whether Trump is a fine fellow or a heartless SOB. And even if it were about the latter, OUR opinions shouldn't matter. We go by our sources. So Long. Motsebboh (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This all started, because of your desire to point out the so-called "good-hearted teasing", but I agree that it's time to drop the stickRadiohist (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence, which I just added to a little bit: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories, called the AALS Directory of Law Teachers.[62]" Reference 62 is: Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". Boston Herald. Retrieved June 9, 2012, which points to http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2012/04/harvard_trips_on_roots_of_elizabeth_warren_s_family_tree. However, that reference doesn't say anything about Warren listing herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directories.

Cheekbones

While I was preparing this info, Marteau reverted Xenophrenic's revert of my revert of his removal of reliably sourced and relevant narrative. Thanks, Marteau! I'm going ahead and posting this to Xenophrenic here on talk.

Nope, here's Warren herself, quite adamant about the cheekbones.

The CBS reference in the article is reliable. CNN links to it.

Then the Washington Post wrote about the cheekbones, quoting Warren at length and editorializing about it:

Asked if she regretted self-identifying as Native American given all the grief she’s gotten over the past week, Warren gave a long, rambling response.

“I have lived in a family that has talked about Native America, talked about tribes, since I’ve been a little girl,” she said. “I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee [sic] has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she though this was the bad deal she had gotten in life. Being Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it.”

That kind of convoluted answer, filled with odd details, is exactly how not to respond to an attack. Instead of a short and to the point response about why she claimed Native American heritage on some law documents, Warren instead launched on a personal reflection that gives her political opponents plenty of fodder. (High cheekbones!)

Also see The Atlantic.

Most importantly, Indian Country Media Network reported Warren's statement.

Please be careful, Xenophrenic, not to edit war, and note that long-standing, well-sourced text should not be removed without consensus. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my! And while I was posting yet another editor reverted. I undid that revert. Let's talk this over! YoPienso (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction, Yopienso: the content was not "long-standing"; it was inserted on March 13 by a drive-by editor who has made no other edits to the topic. I disagree with including it and agree with Xenophrenic; we already include too much about this minor and long-since vanished nontroversy, and adding more simply puts more undue weight on it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As for your revert, you seem determined to include this material without consensus. The default position is that disputed material remains out of the article, until and unless consensus is developed that it should be included in the article. I thank you for initiating this discussion, and now it's a matter of discussing the issue and creating consensus one way or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To discuss my objection more specifically, I disagree that we should include a poorly-contexted fragment of a quote in which Warren is quoting a statement by her aunt, for reasons of ambiguity to start with. It is enough to state that her family has made historical claims to such ancestry, and that Warren based her statements on those family claims. Quoting her quoting her aunt adds nothing to that statement.

Frankly, if you wanted to directly quote any part of that response, a far more straightforward and less cherry-picked quote would be to use the final line, Being Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it. That sentence accurately and completely sums up her viewpoint on the matter and has the substantial virtue of not being an attempt to quote someone's quote within a quote from a third party. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, NBSB; hope you don't mind my indenting your comments. My bad about thinking the info about high cheekbones was long-standing. I was active on this article once and didn't realize four years have passed. Please assume good faith; I'm not determined to edit against consensus but with it.

Still, let's talk about this, since CNN reported on Trump calling Warren "Pocahontas" just last month, mentioning the high cheekbones 3 times.

Multiple RSs reported the same story, mentioning high cheekbones: HuffPo, AOL, for three. Nor is it a one-off; Trump did it a year ago, as reported by many sources, and repeatedly during his campaign.

I don't see how including something that has been all over the media is cherry-picking. Trump stood in front of a national audience and pointed at his own high cheekbones while mocking Warren. YoPienso (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced, it's notable, it's a memorable and often quoted line from the campaign, and it's inclusion should, in a perfect world, be a no-brainer. But it was kind of awkward and somewhat embarassing, which will bring out her admirers and defenders... a particulary tenacious bunch for sure... which is why I'll not be investing more time than this in voicing my support for it's obvious includability. Ciao for now. Marteau (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. It should definitely be in the articles about Warren's 2012 campaign and Trump's 2016 campaign. YoPienso (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our article says this:

Warren responded to the allegations, saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots. Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

A couple editors have been edit warring to have it say this instead:

Warren responded to the allegations recalling a story from her aunt stating her grandfather "had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do," and saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots. Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

Could someone please explain what encyclopedic information about Warren that additional text is supposed to convey to our readers? I see some would like it in there because they hope it will be "embarassing", but is there an actual legitimate reason? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the side by side comparison. So we have the consensus version, with a quote by her brother, as being fine. But a quote by the woman herself, about the same issue (her heritage) is being challenged. And we all know why, of course. Because what her brother said sounds noble, but what she said sounds goofy. And we can't have that, can we, for such a noble woman fighting the good fight. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election

It should probably be mentioned that she received two faithless electors' electoral votes for the Vice-Presidency during the 2016 election, taking them from Tim Kaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:34C0:CC40:80A0:690F:152F:3128 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Where has her religious beliefs gone? Isn't she a Methodist that teaches Sunday School? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.191 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of a person’s religion is encyclopedic only when it is central to their career or identity. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is according to this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/elizabeth-warren-on-health-care-and-religion/2012/08/23/5c509058-ed6c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html?utm_term=.b67214e6c302. It even quotes the specific bible verses from the Book of Mathews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.144.137 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How is religious beliefs not central to a politician's career in the United States of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.191 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

151.213.144.137 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)