Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.155.204.152 (talk) at 15:51, 18 August 2019 (Undid revision 911368919 by SmokeyJoe (talk)lol, obviously it is directed at improving the article, I just know it is impossible because of people like you doing things like this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleElizabeth Warren has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 4, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 22, 2017.
Current status: Good article

Template:Findnote

Warren's claim of being Cherokee and Indian

The article is getting whitewashed again. Warren now admits she was wrong to claim Cherokee ancestry. She called the Chief of the Cherokee Nation and apologized for using a DNA test and claiming she was Cherokee when she was not. Objective3000 has removed the reliably sourced information from the article. No editor of Wikipedia can ever claim that this issue should not be covered in this article. Even Warren herself by apologizing to the tribe admits fault, as the New York Times has pointed out. Please stop the whitewash. Wikipedia is better than that.CharlesShirley (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complex than that; and I don't think your edit matched the cite. It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry. But, she does not share the culture and her ancestry may not trace to the current definition of a tribal member. I think more care is required; and I'm not convinced that Rebecca Nagle's quote is a good start. In any case, your continued use of the word whitewash is a personal attack. Please assume good faith. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. And no. This is the type of reckless comments that take the discussion down a road that eventually leads to removal of significant facts about this significant aspect of Warren's life. Objective3000 falsely states, "It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry." There is ZERO reliable sources that support this claim by Objective3000. It is simply not true. If Objective3000 has a reliable source that makes that claim then Objective3000 needs to provide it on this talk page. This is false information. It is wrong. It is not supported by a reliable source. It is not supported by experts of any kind, type, or nature. Warren has not made that claim herself in over a decade. Now, Objective3000 is the editor that removed my edits, which is fine, but Objective3000 is spreading false information in the defense of Objective3000's edit. This is important. Warren does not have ANY proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. She can't name one ancestor who is a member. The Cherokee Nation has pointed that she has no ancestors in the tribe. There is nothing to support Objective3000's false claim. The spreading of false information on the talk page needs to stop. The ONLY thing that Warren has presented is a DNA test that apparently points to an Indian ancestor 8 generations before her, which would be her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent. She does not know who this person is 8 generations before her. She doesn't even know if that person is a man or a woman. And most importantly she does not know, in any way, of what tribe that person was a member. That ancestor from 8 generations before could have been a Cherokee, but also could have been an Osage or a Chickasaw, or any the other 530 or so tribes in the United States (he/she could have been a member of thousands of South American tribes also). It is a complete falsehood to state that Warren has "Cherokee ancestry" when there is zero evidence to support it and even Warren herself has stopped saying that over a decade ago. She has claimed being an Indian and she has claimed to be a "Woman of Color". But very recently she has even stopped making those two claims. That statement is false and indefensible. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a whitewash is a whitewash. It is not a personal attack. I did not point the word at any one specific editor. It is a descriptive term for the editing taking place on the article, not any one personal. So that is cleared up. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one last thing, Objective3000, the DNA test is provided a wide range of possibilities for Warren's unknown ancestor. It says 6 to 10 generations so her unknown ancestor could be her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, who she does not know and will probably will never know. I only picked 8 generations because it is the half way point in the 6 to 10 range. And this is most important part, NO ONE knows if that great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent was a Cherokee or a Choctaw, etc. Your statement ("It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry") is false in so many ways. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Warren's claims of being a Cherokee Indian have been whitewashed out of the article. For example, this Washington Post citation:
She signed her entries “Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee[1]
CharlesShirley's edit was quite appropriate. In any event, the article ought to spell out that the Senator for 34 years (1984-2018) fully claimed to be a Cherokee. XavierItzm (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That source is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It's absolutely not usable for negative material in a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you didn't like the The Washington Post as a WP:RS? Fine. How about The Atlantic:
she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."[2]
Dat good enuf for ya? XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely belongs. When I said that we have to wait for further coverage and analysis, especially in light of her 2020 campaign, this has reached the point and should absolutely be included. Of course, it does not belong to the lead, which does not even mention her two notable books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren does not have any proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren has never claimed to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. She states that according to family lore she has a Native American ancestor. The article makes that quite clear and nothing is being "whitewashed". Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when if you sign your name «Gandydancer - - Cherokee» in a book repeatedly, that's as strong a claim you can make that you are a Cherokee. Did you not miss the citations above from The Atlantic and from the Washington Post? XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed - please check the talk page. I'm not going to go over and over the same old same old. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This news from 2 Feb 2019 has not been discussed. You want to avoid discussion of it:
Warren was touting her claim of Cherokee heritage as early as 1984, according to a cookbook titled “Pow Wow Chow” edited by her cousin that includes Warren’s recipes for a savory crab omelet and spicy barbecued beans. Warren is identified as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee” under each of five recipes.[3]
XavierItzm (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this edit because it doesn't reflect the cited source - which says nothing about the call being "brief" or "private"; additionally, the source specifically says she apologized to the tribe, not just the "current Chief." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This looks pretty good, dropping the unneeded last bit of the rambly quote, and concisely (while still specifically, thanks to Corbie's edits) stating she apologized (and to whom) and the response (and from whom). I could see adding a few words to the start of the sentence to say something like "After calls by activists, Warren reached out..." (if there is consensus to do that), but including the long quote by one activist did seem excessive/undue. -sche (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as there is no opposition to citing the new Boston Globe article cited by Wumbolo, I'll be adding it. Thanks XavierItzm (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo is citing the Boston Herald, not the Boston Globe. Big difference. Fortunately, the story has advanced quite a bit since February 2 when it was new, so we can add the Texas law signature and the apology with better context.[4][5] HouseOfChange (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Josh Hicks (28 September 2012). "Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she 'applied' to Harvard and Penn?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Warren contributed recipes to a Native American cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow," published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Okla. She signed her entries "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
  2. ^ GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA (20 May 2012). "Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 October 2018. in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
  3. ^ JOE DWINELL (2 February 2019). "Timeline of Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee heritage claims". Boston Herald. Retrieved 3 February 2019. Warren was touting her claim of Cherokee heritage as early as 1984, according to a cookbook titled "Pow Wow Chow" edited by her cousin that includes Warren's recipes for a savory crab omelet and spicy barbecued beans. Warren is identified as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee" under each of five recipes.
  4. ^ Tarlo, Shira (December 7, 2018). "Elizabeth Warren receives standing ovation at surprise visit to Native American conference: report". Salon. Retrieved February 23, 2019. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) received a standing ovation when she made a surprise appearance Tuesday at a Native American conference….Warren apologized to the Cherokee Nation earlier this month for releasing a DNA test in an attempt to prove it. It was most recently revealed that Warren listed her race as "American Indian" when she filled out form for the Texas state bar in 1986.
  5. ^ Lee, MJ (February 12, 2019). "Elizabeth Warren makes unannounced appearance at Native American luncheon in Washington". CNN. Retrieved February 23, 2019. the Washington Post reported that Warren had listed her race as "American Indian" on a State Bar of Texas registration card in 1986. It marked the first time the claim had been documented in Warren's own handwriting, reignited a debate that had begun quiet down, and prompted yet another apology. "As Senator Warren has said she is not a citizen of any tribe and only tribes determine tribal citizenship," Kristen Orthman, Warren's spokeswoman, said in a statement. "She is sorry that she was not more mindful of this earlier in her career."

Surprise appearance

She was warmly welcomed at Tuesday’s event. She could barely make it through the crowd of about 150 people as she was trying to leave, with attendees swarming her for photos and hugs by the door. Before she left, NCAI President Jefferson Keel and National Indian Gaming Association Chairman Ernie Stevens Jr. greeted her and took several photos with her. Prior to the event, the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center also presented Warren with a Native American shawl to thank her for her work on the Violence Against Women Act.

“It’s important that we show our support for her. We’re not in the room yet,” said Brenda Toineeta Pipestem, a former NIWRC board member and currently a tribal Supreme Court justice. “We have to rely on our allies to fight for us behind closed doors and on the floor of the Senate to protect our Native American women and children.”

Haaland introduced Warren at the event, saying, “Indian Country needs strong allies like Elizabeth Warren, whose unwavering commitment to Native communities and Native American women and children is needed in this political era.”

Warren also spoke in a surprise appearance at the 2018 conference for the National Congress of American Indians and received a standing ovation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-native-american-conference_us_5c62ed73e4b00ba63e4ae657?fbclid=IwAR2LxrtjB6cPnPGqZmiRhpvLE9ASTSA-B_JhetlqMyaBDrYj_PdqdvLkmEM

PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for discussion

I have removed this information for discussion:

According to public financial disclosure forms filed with federal election officials in February 2019, Warren and her husband have a combined net worth between $4 million and $11 million, and her Cambridge home is assessed at $1.9 million.

Perhaps I need to do some research, but is this standard for our bios, to include their net worth and the cost of their home - unless for example they said, "oh I have very little wealth" while the facts proved otherwise? If this is standard I have no problem with including it, but is this the norm? Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton address their net worths. What's a "norm" that isn't covered by a guideline? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note about net worth is common -- the note about the assessed value of a home is not.Ebw343 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will add back the net worth, which if calculated correctly, should already included her $2mill primary home. XavierItzm (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding how to ascertain a norm that isn't spelled out in a guideline: well, putting "net worth of" into the site search turns up many articles that mention it, though paging through several pages of results, most seem to be on people who are notable partly for being the nth richest person in their country, which isn't the case here. Comparing other articles is similarly inconclusive: John McCain's lists his and his wife's erstwhile net worth, as does Hillary Clinton's, while e.g. Amy Klobucher's, Jeb Bush's and Jeff Flake's don't. 🤷. -sche (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine for elected officials where this information is publicly reported. Election officials consider it important enough to require the information and to publish it and news media consider it important enough to routinely report. TFD (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have a strong opinion on this. But, it seems that $4mm-$11mm is an awfully large range suggesting it’s more like a guesstimate, and I don’t think the federal disclosure forms accurately include net worth. The home makes no sense as we don’t know the mortgage, and, as said above, it should be included in net worth, unless she claims to live modestly and that contradiction is pointed out by RS to avoid WP:SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the "Personal Financial Disclosure" form required by law to be completed by members of Congress explicitly states that the value of a member's "primary residence" is not required to be disclosed. See [[2]] Ebw343 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the assessed value of the home, which is a matter of public record and has been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If assessed value is the tax assessment, it is a strange term. The assessed value of Trump’s golf courses are far below their actual value. In some states, it’s just a relative value having little to do with actual value. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the assessments are lower than what Trump says they are worth. But Trump has consistently exaggerated his wealth. In the past, some assessments used valuations that were decades out of date, but today most including Massachusetts use some sort of current market value. The assessed value of Warren's house is the best guess for what it would have fetched had it been sold on the assessment date. TFD (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(restart indent) Just for some context, I looked at some other politicians' articles.
  • Kamala Harris: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
  • Cory Booker: "Since 2013, Booker has lived in a townhouse he owns in the Lincoln Park section of Newark's Central Ward, also known as "the Coast" for its arts, jazz, and nightlife history.[200]"
  • Joe Biden: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
  • Bernie Sanders: "In 2016 and again in 2017, Sanders reported earnings of just over $1 million, mostly royalties and advances for his recently published books.[367][368] He and his wife own three homes, two in Vermont and one in Washington.[369][370][371]"
Perhaps Sanders and Warren are singled out for special scrutiny because of their political/economic policy ideas. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 programs and plans

This article direly needs updating for her 2020 plans. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian ancestry again

There is a disagreement about including the text which is bolded in the following line: "Warren also identified herself in 1986 as "American Indian" on a State Bar of Texas form which she filled out and signed, for which she has also apologized.[3] I think including the words makes the writing sound partisan. TFD (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the added words are unnecessary and can be left out. -sche (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Information included in Ancestry

I am concerned that the following paragraph: "In mid-February 2019 she received a standing ovation during a surprise visit to a Native American conference, where she was introduced by freshman Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), one of the first two Native American women elected to the US Congress.[38][39] Haaland stated, “Indian Country needs strong allies like Elizabeth Warren, whose unwavering commitment to Native communities and Native American women and children is needed in this political era.”[40]" found under "Ancestry" has nothing to do with Warren's claim of or actual Ancestry and thus should be removed or placed somewhere else. Also, it sounds politically motivated and not based on what the section heading claims all statements under should be about, and is, thus, not fit for this section. Suggestions would be helpful, but I know that this just doesn't fit with the section wherein it currently sits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firesondiego (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the ancestry section down and retitle it "Native American ancestry controversy"? Maybe place it at a new section 3, considering: "The subject of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry came to national attention in April 2012, when she was a candidate trying to unseat then-Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican incumbent."[4]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its current placement below "Early life" does not seem consistent with the consensus from the above straw poll.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much detail. It is also misleading because other sources say Warren has not shown support for Native Americans in particular in Standing Rock. TFD (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

I understand that issues surrounding Sen. Warren's ancestry have been debated ad nauseam on this page. However, the section on Sen. Warren's ancestry is disjointed and is missing crucial information. After one sentence on her ancestry, the text leaps forward into how her ancestry may or may not have affected her career without first explaining why this question is significant. In addition to being poorly written, the section appears to minimize the issue and to sanitize the serious impact it has had on the Senator's public image. Supporters of Sen. Warren may believe that the public attention to her ancestry has been unfair. Even if that is true, however, it can't be whitewashed out of the article.

Because of the inflammatory nature of the issue, I have not edited the section at all, but am instead proposing some edits here. I have drawn some (not all) of this material from 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts, which does a much more comprehensive job of discussing Warren's ancestry than this article does. I propose that the following be added:

During Warren’s 2012 campaign for U.S. Senate, her ancestry became the subject of public controversy. A report in the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as a minority professor.[1] Warren stated that she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry in order to meet others with a similar background.[2] Harvard Law School had listed her as a minority professor in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper.[1][3][4]
According to the New England Historical Genealogical Society, several members of Warren's maternal family claim Cherokee heritage.[5] The society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of Warren's Native American heritage.[6][7] Some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren’s claim to Native American ancestry and questioned whether she benefitted from it.[8][9]

:In February 2019, following reports that she had self-identified as "American Indian" on a 1986 Texas State Bar card, Warren apologized for "'not having been more sensitive'" about "'tribal citizenship'".[10][11][12]

SunCrow (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While this makes sense in an article related to politics, hard to see that it requires this much detail in a bio as we haven't actually seen any effect on her career as yet. Also, please be careful with words like "whitewashed" in a WP:BLP as that assumes she did something that needs whitewashing. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
O3000, I did not propose to add the word "whitewashed" to the article. And frankly, I find myself dumbfounded by your assertion about the lack of impact on the Senator's career. SunCrow (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What impact? O3000 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, her statements about her ancestry were a major issue in her first Senate campaign and are now a major issue in her presidential campaign. SunCrow (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be true. And it is in an article about those subjects. But, if there is yet no effect on her career or life; why does it belong in her bio article? O3000 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no effect on her career or life, it would not belong in the article. But that would be a very different situation. SunCrow (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. And you have provided no WP:RS that indicate an effect on her career or life. Which is why it belongs in the political article -- not the bio article. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. See links below, all of which come from reliable sources. SunCrow (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the sources that show an effect on her career or life. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Objective3000, your perspective seems skewed. This is odd, given that you call yourself "objective" in your username. SunCrow (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is supposed to be an argument, I fail to understand your point. It certainly does not convince that this had an effect on her career or life. O3000 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you understand my point quite well. Controversy surrounding Sen. Warren's ancestry has been national news for the better part of a decade. For a significant portion of Americans, that controversy is the main thing Sen. Warren is known for. You are an intelligent person. You know perfectly well that this controversy has affected the Senator's career and life in a huge way. It is dishonest of you or anyone else to pretend that it hasn't. You must have an ulterior motive. That means you're not being objective. SunCrow (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SunCrow, talk pages of BLPs are also subject to BLP rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments. SunCrow (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current text in the article is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a long way from fine. SunCrow (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current three paragraphs in the article is sufficient. warren's claim that her ggg grandparent had some Native American ancestry turned out to be probably true, and she never received any benefit from claiming to be a Native American. Nor does it seem to have damaged her career. I would point out that different people will see different aspects of her biography as more important than others, but articles have to provide weight based on coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles have to provide weight based on coverage in reliable sources. Based on that, Sen. Warren's ancestry should be accorded significant weight in the article given the immense amount of media coverage regarding her ancestry over the past decade. SunCrow (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not immense compared with her overall coverage. Of course in right-wing media, that may be true, but that does not affect weight. TFD (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage IS immense, even given her overall coverage. Please see links below, none of which come from right-wing media. SunCrow (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial to note that all of those links you provided are dated 2012; that's seven full years ago at this point. Your desire to place undue weight on sources discussing something that happened seven years ago, and then receded into background noise, is noted, but not agreed to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, your comment is inaccurate on multiple counts. First, you said that all of the links I provided were dated 2012. Not so. The three sources provided regarding Sen. Warren's 2019 apology were not (obviously) dated 2012. Second, your comment that Warren's ancestry controversy happened seven years ago and then "receded into background noise" is obviously not true and not in line with reliable sources. The DNA test and the public reaction to it were far from background noise; in fact, they were national news. Third, your comment about my desire to place "undue weight" is a falsehood. I am attempting to make the article accurate and balanced, which I believe it currently is not. There is no need to impugn my motives, and it is not appreciated (although it is unsurprising). SunCrow (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a Wikipedia policy and guideline is not a personal attack nor a falsehood. You certainly believe that you are attempting to make the article accurate and balanced, but this article and particularly its discussion of Warren's ancestry is the result of literal years of talk page discussion, argument, consensus-building and compromise. Believing that all of those people who have worked on this article are wrong and that "I alone can fix it" is, well, not on. Your proposed changes, in my opinion, both put undue weight on the issue and introduce pointless redundancy. For example, why would you include basically the exact same text about the State Bar of Texas thing in two different places? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that all of the people who worked on this article were wrong, or that I alone could fix it. On the contrary, I proposed some changes for discussion on this page and led off by acknowledging that there has been intensive discussion already on this question. As to the State Bar of Texas issue, you are right; I forgot that there was an existing sentence on that topic. I will retract that suggestion above. As to undue weight, we are going to have to agree to disagree. SunCrow (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three sentences to the article for balance and clarity. SunCrow (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reverted; the existing version is the result of extensive discussion, debate, compromise and consensus-building on the talk page - you will note the pages and pages and pages of archives. You will need to establish a new consensus before materially altering it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content on her ancestry can be changed, but only with consensus. Wording like "became the subject of public controversy" is problematic by nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with TFD's comment (of 19:59, 10 July 2019). I've been struck by how, when this was the topic de jour/news-cycle a while ago, it seemed more important even to me even as I tried to be mindful that RECENTISM makes things seem more important, whereas ever since, with the spotlight off, it's been easier to see how little weight RS actually give it relative to everything else in her extensive life. I think we could probably even trim and condense the section a bit. -sche (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Suncrow that this section is disjoint and hard to follow. It sort of assumes that readers are already familiar with the topic. Senator Warren has repeatedly said that due to the racism of her paternal grandparents against the Native American ancestry of her mother that her mother and father needed to elope. This is a very specific claim and was an important part of one of her 2012 campaign ads. It should be mentioned to help people understand the intersection of this topic with her political ads. --LondonYoung (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement as well. The section is a total wreck IMO. I've been with this article since I helped to make it a GA many years ago and this section has gone from bad to worse. Trump continues to bring it up at his rally speeches saying her false claims not only got her jobs but now even saying they got her into school in the first place, so the interest in her heritage will not be going away anytime soon. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LondonYoung and Gandydancer. I suppose I should be happy that the entire controversy hasn't been whitewashed out of the article. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sche, Moboshgu, TFD, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans, and O3000. There is no consensus to smear the Senator's good name with information that is intended to be oppositional and damaging.
@SunCrow, that is certainly not my concern at all. IMO when one has to deal with a very difficult issue such as this the section needs to be either very long or very short. Since adding even more copy to an already bloated section is not acceptable it should be very short but well sourced. One compact paragraph is what we should shoot for. Gandydancer (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PunxtawneyPickle - I agree there should never be a reason to smear anyone. But this section needs help! Firstly, the information that I think is needed is information that the senator herself has presented in her ads, it is not a smear, but it is important to understanding her own position in her own words. Secondly, this section is disjoint and hard to understand. Even if no information changes, it badly needs some writing help. --LondonYoung (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". BostonHerald.com. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  2. ^ Chabot, Hillary (May 2, 2012). "Warren: I used minority listing to share heritage". BostonHerald.com. Archived from the original on May 3, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Carmichael, Mary (May 25, 2012). "Filings raise more questions on Warren's ethnic claims". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on May 25, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  5. ^ Killough, Ashley; Liptak, Kevin (May 8, 2012). "Brown continues offense on Warren over Native American claims". The Political Ticker. CNN. Retrieved June 28, 2016. The New England Historic Genealogical Society provided CNN with initial research last week, showing several members of Warren's maternal family claiming Cherokee heritage. The Native American link extends to Warren's great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, who is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. NEHGS gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter, and says the original application cannot be located.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wash Post was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Chabot, Hillary (May 15, 2012). "Genealogical society: No proof of Warren's Cherokee heritage found". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on May 18, 2012. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
  8. ^ Cassidy, Chris (June 19, 2012). "Cherokee women to Elizabeth Warren: Stop ducking us!". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on June 27, 2012.
  9. ^ Jonsson, Patrick (June 2, 2012). "Cherokees hammer Elizabeth Warren on ancestry claim ahead of Mass. party convention". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 27, 2014.
  10. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/07/elizabeth-warren-apology-native-american-identification/2799395002/
  11. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-faces-fallout-native-american-ancestry/story?id=60885211
  12. ^ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/02/trump-tweet-trail-of-tears-elizabeth-warren/

References

It seems that references 12, 52 and 61 are the same. The same holds true for references 16 and 44. In addition to that, I think that since references 55, 114, 115, 116 and 158 contain more than one source they should be split in as many references as sources they have. Thank you --Arnaurs (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump never promised to pay if Warren took a test

He said if she ever got on the debate stage with him then he'd challenge her to take a DNA test right then if she claimed to be Native American. He said in that situation he'd promise her. And, of course, it was obviously a joke.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/trump-dared-elizabeth-warren-take-dna-test-prove-her-native-american-ancestry-now-what/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA9OAM9coS4 (full speech - obvious joke)

“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage … ‚” Trump said. “And we WILL say, ‘I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ "

Plus, the test she did take didn't "show she was an Indian." The article says "Native ancestry," so even if you severely lack comprehension, and thought it was a promise, the condition wouldn't have been met.

So three factors: 1. He said he *would* promise her that if they debated on stage, which they never did. 2. The test she took didn't "show she was an Indian" 3. It was a joke and it was an obvious joke.

So I assume this will be quickly corrected right? I mean, I'm sure the fine editors of wikipedia aren't simply lying to try to make Trump look like he broke a promise. 63.155.107.98 (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=911394939"