Talk:Elizabeth Warren

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

• Yes Elizabeth Warren is a fraud, liar, and claimed to be Native American to get positions at various law schools.100.14.44.99 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The essay "Criticism" is just opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PolitiFact researched and reported the controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Native opinions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances

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

Native American heritage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewed discussion about Native American heritage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Warren herself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which fraction of her is Native American?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Executive Summary states:

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

The conclusion states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 - 1024

The inverse fraction of ancestors.

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

Sources

Response from the Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State

I feel this source should be included.[6]. Also, the Secretary of State's name is Chuck Hoskin Jr.2601:447:4101:41F9:59A7:F6EE:32C0:4CBC (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Display name 99: Re this edit, the material has already been removed here: [7]. Please consider self-reverting while the discussion is on-going. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Display name 99:, your edit summary is a non sequitur. The implication of the statement is that she sought tribal status, which of course she didn't, though your deceptive edit summary tries to find another reason for inclusion. BTW, who wrote this? "Condemned the results"--that's not in the statement, and it makes no logical sense anyway. The more I look at the statement ("Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong"--well, she didn't seek a connection to any nation, did she?) the more I am convinced that including this is akin to asking someone if they stopped beating their wife. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion for Split

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

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

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

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

References

"Racial slur"

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, Native Americans have called it a slur:

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

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

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

• “Racial taunt” and “mockery” [8] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

In fact "Muhammad" is listed in the the Racial Slur Database as an ephithet for Arabs based on it being a common name among Muslims.[9] Pocohontas is not a common Native and American name and is not listed.[10] If anything, it's similar to the slurs made against white people who pretend to be something else. Of course you could be right, I am just saying that we should not state as a fact it is a racial slur, without a reliable source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Many have called it a slur, or referred to it as a slur. I think that in doing that, they are being a little bit emotive, a little bit exaggerating, but not to the point of it being incorrect. I think "taunt", or "disparagement", is more on the mark. "Racial" is squarely correct. However, "slur" has been used more than enough to justify its mention in the article. Constructions such as "... labelled a slur" or "criticized for the racial slur" work well. The current text, "which Warren and others, including some Native Americans, consider a racial slur" is excellent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, there's reliable sources using it...Native Americans have condemned it as such...so if you want to talk neutrality and all that, and proper ascription, you can, and that's fine, but saying "a little bit emotive" is suggesting that Warren (a woman) and the Native Americans (not white people) are...well, you know. I mean I hope you know. Please don't infantilize them. I don't agree that the phrase you hail as excellent is indeed excellent, but it's better than before, which completely unjustly turned the Senator into a lonely whiner. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Drmies, are you criticizing my word choice, or something more serious. I would like to take more care to not be read as infantilizing anyone. If I may risk repeating the mistake, but trying to be better understood: when communicating, people can respectably appeal to emotion. "Slur" is an emotive word. I don't mean to argue that it is incorrect. Perhaps "slightly emotive" would have been better, but more likely I should better drop the subject and walk away from the hole. I read many sources that I googled. Yes, many use or repeat "slur". Is there a particular source you were thinking of? EW and many others have used it. Having read the many sources, I looked to the actual text, I found myself unable to further improve it. You think it is less than excellent? What are it's weak points? You labelled it an unqualified slur, but I am not sure that Wikipedia should, given that some deny it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Trump & Huckabee deny.[11] Not unanimous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Education Issues with the Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight in lede

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

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

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

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

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