Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Native American Controversy

She's NOT Cherokee, even partially, and she's not from any other Native American tribe either. It does not matter that her brothers claim that older relatives say that they thought they had a Native-American ancestry. Many Americans who have a purely European background like Warren does have heard such claims from older relatives that they were related to Native-Indian tribes and very few of them actually really are, and even if they mistakenly believe that they are native they do not identify this way in order to get into law school or to get benefits, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.48.207 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

On April 27, 2012, The Boston Herald reported that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had touted Elizabeth Warren as being a Native American faculty member.

On May 1, 2012, according to a Boston Herald article, the Warren Campaign offered two pieces of evidence it said supported Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry.

The first piece of evidence was a statement by genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society that Warren might be 1/32 Cherokee. That claim, based on a type of documentation which did not exist at the time in question, later was withdrawn as lacking any evidence.

The second piece of evidence the Warren Campaign offered reporters was an undated article from the Muskogee Phoenix about the contributions of Elizabeth Warren’s first cousin, Mrs. James P. Rowsey, to the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Oklahoma as proof of Ms. Warren’s Native American ancestry:

The campaign also hastily produced an undated newspaper clip last night from the Muskogee Sunday Phoenix detailing a “Mrs. James P. Rowsey” — who they said is Warren’s cousin — and her involvement with the Five Civilized Tribes Museum, which is dedicated to preserving Native American art.

   “Mrs. James P. Rowsey was Elizabeth’s first cousin — shared the grandparents in question,” a campaign official said in the statement.

Investigative reporter Michael Patrick Leahy traced Ms. Rowsey to a book titled Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole. In the Pow Wow Chow cookbook were recipes allegedly authored by Warren, as reported by The Boston Herald.

It was later discovered that three of Warren’s recipes appeared to be plagiarized.

elizabethwarrenwiki.org/pow-wow-chow-cookbook/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/9996688445/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

This has been extensively discussed, and is already covered in the article. You have not added any new reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Warren's claims of having Native American ancestry continue to be a matter of public controversy five years after they were first (?) made public. For instance, as of 27 Nov 17 Trump is referring to her as "Pocahontas" and she is accusing him of using a "racial slur." Does the continued controversy make the issue important enough to merit a separate section in the article? 66.162.249.170 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Warren seems to have no affiliation to any Cherokee organizations.

Locked

I find it frightening that pages like this are locked. Let the people edit this page, not just admins hiding under pseudonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.173.219 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are misguided/misinformed on several points, but it appears that the semi-protection applied in July 2016 is no longer warranted and I have asked the protecting admin to consider removing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've lifted the semiprotection though am not optimistic about the results. Note that edits of this page fall under WP:ARBAP2 so caution is needed for all editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish I had a nickle for every hour I've spent on this article related to the Native American stuff. Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Native American section

The section as it stands is buried in the middle of her campaign article. Her spats with the President over the heritage question are intensely newsworthy--as measured by RS, which is how we measure news-worthiness or notability on Wikipedia--and so the controversy deserves a more fully-formed discussion.

I think that the Native American thing should be expanded and given a subsection under "career," since the allegations relate to alleged unfair career advantage, and have persisted far beyond the 2012 election. Here is my draft, which I will insert in the article in a week or two pending discussion.

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories.[64] When asked why she listed herself as a racial minority (the directory did not specify what race a particular minority was), Warren stated that she was Native American. Her campaign declined to provide documentary or genetic proof of her heritage.

Because the AALS directories were used for minority hiring, and because she was unable to document her heritage or point to a specific Native ancestor, Warren's critics have alleged that she had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in the employment market.[65][66][67] Warren denies the allegation. She has stated that she listed herself in the AALS because she wanted to meet others with a similar background.[68] Former colleagues and supervisors at universities she worked at stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring.[69][70][67][74]Her brothers said that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage", while members of her extended family denied any Native American ancestry.

As a presidential candidate and now a the President of the United States, Donald Trump has repeatedly alleged that Warren lied about her heritage for professional advantage. His press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, repeated the charge on November 27, 2017. He has disparaged her as "Pocahontas," a claim that Warren and some Native advocacy groups characterize as a racial slur. Warren continues to insist that she is Native American but never benefited from her claimed ancestry.' Steeletrap (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because something was in the news today does not make it more significant to the subject, per Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And when we introduce criticisms we should explain who is making them and how credible the accusations are. TFD (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You lost me at sparked a campaign controversy. Besides that, Wikipedia is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Steeletrap. Whether she likes it or not, the Native American controversy is a huge part of Warren's public image and notability. I have two suggested changes to the proposed paragraph. First, the sentence about "former colleagues and supervisors..." is included twice. Second, I believe the sentence that reads "In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful" should be moved to the second paragraph because it relates to the allegation that she used her purported ancestry for personal gain. SunCrow (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• IMO this all seems to suggest that we use the president's disrespectful remarks as yet one more excuse to expand this section. We have page after page of work on this section with almost every word disagreed about but finally agreed to using consensus. For example see Mast Cell's remarks on talk page #8. What we've got in the article is far from perfect, IMO, but it's the best we could come to after almost endless discussion and I'm far from ready to open this can of worms all over again. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• It needs to be a subhead - not because Trump, but because of the massive amount of news coverage the claim has generated,in what has now been a series of news cycles over many years. There has certainly been sufficient coverage to support a page on the subject, if somebody wrote one..E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm from Australia and came to this page today purely to find out about the Pocahontas nickname and the basis of it, but had to read heaps of boring, extraneous information before finally finding the details of her biggest claim to fame buried in the wrong section of the article. It should be expanded and moved to the "Early life, education, and family" section. As it stands, it seems wildly contradictory; first claiming that Warren didn't know she was calling herself native, then saying she did it to meet natives, then the brothers saying they really are native. Which one is it? (149.171.146.202 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC))

• "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" I couldn't find it at all. Which was when I googled and read about it at CNN Here's the deal with Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage. It needs to be on her page and it needs be in it's own subhead so that users can find it. Like Meghan Markle#Ancestry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that if Trump says something derogatory about someone it should be prominent in their biographies? Funny when I can't find anything about Trump's hand or penis size, although they made the 24 hr news cycle too. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The status quo can still be cleaned up and moved to the correct section without including the president's insults. (149.171.146.202 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC))

Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree... it needs a subheading. People will in come to this article to learn about her heritage and currently readers will be unable to find what they are looking for without doing a search. It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent... it's an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and it needs to be remedied. Marteau (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The current version is about as credible as Warren's claims to Native American ancestry. I just polished it up a bit, removing one outright falsehood (the retracted claim by the amateur genealogist--who later admitted she was mistaken--that the genealogist had found evidence of Warrens ancestry). I also removed the outrageous implication about Warren's "tribal roots" (which are the same as my tribal roots--nonexistent). It still needs a subsection.

Gandy and TFD: I know you despise Trump. Me too as a matter of fact. But we go off of RS coverage in assessing notability on Wikipedia. By WP standards, this is clearly notable enough for a subsection. The story has gotten loads of coverage in RS over the course of many years. At this point, it's a trope of Warren's political opponents. There is no justification, in terms of WP policy, for burying this story halfway through the article. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, if people come here to learn about the issue and can't find what they're looking for, they are just going to go someplace else where they CAN find what they are looking for. And guess which sites are going to float to the top of the list on a search for this issue? Very likely not a site which uses reliable sources and at least tries to give balance, and very possibly a hate site. Marteau (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I am committed to being balanced on the issue. In her defense, the claims from her former colleagues that she did not benefit need to be included. (And her brothers, saying they heard that she was Native American.) But we cannot obscure the fact that she listed herself as a racial minority in a directory that did not even specify what minority one was. Her claim--though this is for RS to say, not me--to have listed herself there to "meet people like her" is absolutely bogus. A convention of "minority law professors" would include Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, African Americans, etc. It wouldn't be a Native American thing (or a 1/32nd Native American thing, although she'd probably meet plenty of fellow 0/32nd Natives there). Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best with controversies to raise them when the underlying events ocurred or then they came to attention. In this case, it should be mentioned in her Senate run, when her opponent made it an issue and during the last presidential campaign when Trump raised it. Steeletrap, I find it incredible that a highly qualified law professor would list herself as part Indian without any attempt to verify it, or think that if true it made her part of a minority. And as an educated person, she should have known that many families romanticize their past, connecting family. But there is no evidence she obtained any personal advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 02:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no evidence she achieved an advantage, and in fact evidence to the contrary. But the claim is that she sought it: i.e. that she committed attempted fraud. That is a plausible charge. Regardless, RS are covering the issue enough to warrant a sub-section.Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Four deuces. It is more accurate to say that this first surfaced during that Senate campaign. But it has now resurfaced many times. NO ONE is likely to look for it in the campaign section, because people - like me - who are hear it have no way of knowing when it first came up. This topic needs to be a subhead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I just created a sub-section under career. It is balanced and provides adequate weight to the story. The old version had a lie (that a native ancestor had been found: the amateur genealogist who concluded this admitted it was a mistake) and a dishonest implication (that Warren has "tribal roots"). It was also incompetently written.

More evidence that this is a genuine controversy, and not just a conspiracy theory (like many of the other issues Trump raises). A Cherokee woman who describes herself as a liberal just wrote an op-ed criticizing Warren's claims. A leading liberal think tank published it. https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/ Steeletrap (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow one liberal wrote an op ed. That makes it bipartisan. Where's the :rolleyes: emoji when I need it? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Some people think that whenever one American Indian says something, they are speaking for all of them. It's not that surprising that the Center for American Progress should publish an article against Warren, considering all their efforts against Sanders. TFD (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted Steeletrap's edits which show absolute disregard for WP's consensus building which is required for our pages, and especially our political pages where strong differences of opinion are certain to make editing difficult. I hope that s/he will show more consideration for his/her fellow editors as we continue here. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Will you at least concede the need for a subheading? Marteau (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I am open to discussion on everything though I may be off-line for a few days. Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been open to "discussion" on this issue for years, and it has been nothing but stonewalling. This is becoming ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well at least the old version--which was incompetently written (perhaps intentionally, to obscure the issue), and contained multiple pro-Warren falsehoods (that she was in a tribe, that proof of her genealogy had been identified)--is gone. If we can agree on the substance of the current version, then we can debate whether this deserves a sub-section. Someone please create an RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This new article from Politifact is not kind to Warren. I think we should cite this latest fact-checking in the article. There is no proof of her genealogy at all, and she listed herself as a racial minority, not Native American. (The basis of the claim to be a racial minority was NA, but no employers or law profs. would've known she was NA from the directories. Therefore her excuse, to "meet people like me," is bogus.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/ 64.208.131.10 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization of that article, which make is harder for me to believe good faith about other arguments made here. The article is essentially a neutral documentation of a tempest in a teacup. I quote the article "The main takeaway from the Globe’s reporting was that many who had Native American ties hid them, and documentation at the turn of the last century was spotty. In any event, any ties were so distant that they would not qualify her as minority by any official yardstick. Warren herself didn’t trumpet this side of her family story. When applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status." LK (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the IP has made only this one comment, which/whose other arguments do you now distrust?

You also mischaracterize the article: it does seem quite unbiased, but wrt to the controversy, it says, "Elizabeth Warren might never live down the charge of falsely claiming Native American roots. The controversy emerged during the Democrat’s successful Senate run in Massachusetts in 2012, and it continues to dog her." Written five years later, that hardly describes a tempest in a teapot.

Your quote is how Politifact summarized the Globe, story; it doesn't summarize the Politifact article. YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF violation aside, it's impossible for a single editor to "stonewall" anything; they simply lose to consensus. So form a consensus. Editing during a discussion is particularly out of line (and risky) at an article under discretionary sanctions. I've seen far less significant things go to RfC without an outcry about misuse of the RfC process. There is no good reason we couldn't wait the usual 30 days to resolve this question in RfC, and that's what I would suggest as a disinterested observer. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Steeltrap, I don't think your assumption should go unanswered. No, I do not despise Trump, or any of the other subjects of biographical articles I edit. It's not a good approach. TFD (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor grammatical correction

"In August the political director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claimed that 'no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren.'" - no need for a comma between the subject and verb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4100:5C00:7C36:43F6:FA2A:7FCC (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done [1] Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• Yes. The issue needs a subsection. This is a huge part of Warren's public image. The criticism of her claim to be a racial minority/Native is persistently newsworthy. Almost everyone on the Right (not just Trump) criticizes her for it, but criticism is not limited to them. Trevor Noah, Think Progress and a liberal commentator at USA Today have also offered critical commentary lately. The discussion of the issue goes well beyond the 2012 campaign and belongs in a sub-section under "career" or "early life, education, and family." Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The essay "Criticism" is just opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PolitiFact researched and reported the controversy.

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

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

• Yes I have to think that a lot of readers come to this article looking for information regarding this issue (as I just did 5 minutes ago). Having the information hidden throughout the article rather than in its own section that is easily identifiable in the table of contents makes this article less usable for the reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• No. Already in article and she hasn't claimed it in years. Cher and Loretta Lynn have claimed to be Cherokee numerous times, yet their pages don't have a separate section for their claims.Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and should not join the smear campaign. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown
• No. Strong 'NO' because of policy on WP:WEIGHT and how to organize material between parent and child articles, as detailed in Wikipedia:Summary style. Material in that section is already overweight. It should be trimmed as the material is already treated in the daughter article United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. Per policy, only a short summary should be left here. --LK (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• No. The discussion is already in the article; it's well cited. She hasn't reiterated the claim. For this to be news, new developments would have to occur (like her claiming Delaware/Cherokee heritage again or for new research to emerge), not her political detractors bringing it up at every possible moment. I'm Native American and can clearly see this is a non-issue because she has stopped making her claims. Yuchitown (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

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

• No - It's not a significant current issue or part of her life, beyond a small fringe right-wing echo chamber that we're not obligated to give more space just because they're noisy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• No Actually this section needs to be trimmed to a couple of sentences with further information included in the 2012 election article. As it is the Native American episode is almost as long or longer than any section discussing her career or accomplishments. I'd suggest an RfC to discuss removing most of the information to the election article if it's not there already. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances Please read the arguments presented by the involved editors to find how logical they may be. Please also see above, "Revisiting Native American section" Please add to these lists as they develop. YoPienso (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC) I'm attempting to add a brief summary of each argument. Please AGF and edit your argument if you feel I've misrepresented it. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Opposing a subsection on the Native American controversy Muboshgu--1. It's just a campaign issue. 2. "Wikipedia is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed." TFD--"Controversy sections are inherently bad style." Mark Bernstein--"Just another right-wing effort to score partisan points through WikiControversy(tm)." Neutrality-- already included in article; subsection is unnecessary and poor style Yuchitown — No. Read the archives: this has been hashed over and over. Lawrencekhoo--against policy: WP:WEIGHT. NorthBySouthBaranof--not a significant current issue I don't care for this summation of opinions and I've removed my name. Perhaps I've missed them, but isn't this an unusual addition to a RfC? Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Supporting a subsection on the Native American controversy Steeletrap--It's "newsworthy--as measured by RS." It's "a genuine controversy." SunCrow--It's "a huge part of Warren's public image and notability." E.M.Gregory--1. "Massive . . . news coverage" 2. We need to provide the info for readers. 3. It's not just a campaign issue, but "has now resurfaced many times." IP 149.171.146.202--an Australian seeks/requests more info--Notes that it's OK to omit POTUS's insults while reporting on the issue. Marteau--"It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent." YoPienso--I said for all those reasons, and reiterated that it's notable. Added Dec. 4: The controversy long predates Trump's insults. CorbieVreccan--refuting Mark Bernstein's assertion that the issue is "right wing". Issue is not partisan. It concerns issues of Native American rights to self-representation and the broader issue of Indigenous Sovereignty, as explained in Rebecca Nagle's "I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not." and the background pieces linked therein. Rreagan007--like the IP, he came here to find info, and argues that "information hidden throughout the article . . . makes this article less usable for the reader."

Related move discussion

Please review my proposed move of the article about Warren's husband Bruce Mann by clicking the link below:

Link

Thanks. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Error regarding source

There is an error in this sentence which I feel is a significant error: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy by reporting that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories, called the AALS Directory of Law Teachers.[64]"

Reference 64 is "Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". Boston Herald. Retrieved June 9, 2012." This reference is accessible here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2012/04/harvard_trips_on_roots_of_elizabeth_warren_s_family_tree

The error is that the source does not list the information cited, that is, the sentence says, "the Boston Herald ... report[ed] that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories ...." However, the source makes no mention of any of that at all: none. In other words, while the sentence is listed as having a source really there is no current source for that statement.

I would appreciate feedback on fixing this error. At the very least, Reference 64 cannot be cited as saying something it does not say.

It is my hope that I am contributing on this Talk page in the correct fashion.

Ron Foster 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Ronny8, December 6, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did it correctly, and thanks for your concern. There are three citations after that sentence; the third--Ebbert, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Directories identified Warren as minority". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on September 3, 2013.--has that information. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. That sentence has only one citation after it. Ron Foster 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs)

How does it look now? YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The source is definitely better, I think. Could we change "Herald" to "Globe" in the sentence so the text matches the source please? Ron Foster 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017234601/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&pos=10&sid=a.DEiDrOr.ms to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&pos=10&sid=a.DEiDrOr.ms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)