Talk:Elizabeth Warren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

High Cheekbones vis-a-vis someone is a Cherokee Indian[edit]

Her claim that if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian is a significant comment, has aspects of racism to it, and should be included in the article. This claim by EW should not be censored or whitewashed from the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Please proceed with the edit. XavierItzm (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I also totally agree, this is explicitly racist and should be included. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nor should it be cherry picked from the numerous reasons that she has stated that she believes point to her native american ancestry, and especially so if it has an aspect of racism as you suggest. It's one thing for someone's family to point out grandma's high cheek bones but quite another to put it in their Wikipedia article as if to prove a point. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not what she said and making that claim here is a BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) RS cites her as quoting her aunt using the phrase : "And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do."[1] This sounds like a quote from Aunt Bea, in a conversation explaining that Warren had often been told by Aunt Bea that she had Indian heritage. Reading "aspects of racism" into this is quite a stretch. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

First it does not matter one flying flip if she said it originally or her Aunt Bea said it originally or if the Grand Wizard of KKK said it first. The important point is that she repeated the sentiment in her defense of her claims that she is: (1) Native American, and (2) Cherokee, both which claims are either flat out false or highly suspect. If Trump had made the claim that he was a Cherokee because he had high cheekbones there would be a ten page article in Wikipedia quoting every living source to their opinion on the ignorance of the claim and the absurdity of the claim. Second, it is not trivia. You only believe that her absurd claim is "trivia" because EW said it. If was Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro then the it would not be "trivia" but the most important aspect of those individual's particular lives ever. Calling her comment, which is "ignorant", "backward", "unscientific", "hillbilly", etc.", trivia is one of the few things it is not. She has spent her almost of her adult life claiming to be: (1) Native American and (2) Cherokee and her very first defense of those questionable claims is her she has high cheekbones and yet you think it is "trivia". Horse hockey. Hog wash. This is epitome of whitewashing the article. It is the very epitome of censorship. It is moronic claim that calls into question her understanding of racial issues and calls attention to her huge misunderstanding of her own claimed heritage. Calling it "trivia" is a laughable defense. Her justifying her claims of being Indian and Cherokee by pointing to her "high cheekbones" is a significant embarrassing event for her and it is not trivia. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to characterize the comments: it would be sufficient with just citing them and letting the reader be judge. Now, as to your whitewashing of the Senator's statements: what do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In order to include it, it must have significant coverage, which it does not. There is no point arguing that it is important or racist, because those are not criteria for inclusion. And including something and asking the reader to judge is tendentious, implied original research because it leads readers to a conclusion without providing the arguments for and against. TFD (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Significant coverage of the "high cheekbones" "like all the Indians do" statement.
CBS 2012.[1]
CBS 2017 [2].
CNN 2018.[3]
Washington Post 2012.[4]
The New York Times 2012.[5]
The Atlantic 2012.[6]
USA Today 2018.[7]
NBC 2018.[8]
The Boston Herald 2018.[9]
The Los Angeles Times 2012.[10]
The New Yorker 2012.[11]
The Boston Globe 2012.[12]
The Wall Street Journal 2018.[13]
There's lotsa more where that came from. XavierItzm (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, your claim that this is racist sounds racist. O3000 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not claim anything was racist and ask you remove your personal attack. Also, I did not say one had to show it had coverage in the press, but that it had significant coverage, which in this case means relative to coverage of Elizabeth Warren. Bear in mind the subject has received extensive ongoing media coverage since she first ran for senator. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was responding to the claim in the edit summary by the OP that this is racist, the section heading (which is false and I’ll correct) and the further comment by XavierItzm that this is a “racist story” which are all BLP violations IMO. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I just read your claim that me calling her "high cheekbones" comment somewhat racist or mildly racist is racist in and of itself to be the first Orwellian type of comment of 2019. As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma I have to wonder if you have any idea of what you are talking about. Based upon the very little that I have read from you I currently believe that you do not. However this page is about making the article better and not debating (or actually educating you about racism) you about EW's racist comment about "all" "Indians" "have high cheekbones". So try to keep it to yourself and focus on the article. Her comment is significant. It was the first attempt by her to justify telling school administrators that she was "Cherokee" and "Indian". It is also significant because it points out how she has basic misunderstandings about the two cultures that she has spent her adult life claiming. It is (obviously) significant because not all "Indians" have "high cheekbones", which is just flat out scientifically incorrect comment. Also, it is significant because claiming that the way to find an "Indian" is to look for "high cheekbones" is a racist statement, regardless of the fact that you simply do not like me calling it racist. It is racist whether you like me calling it racist or not. --CharlesShirley (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a separate article about the Indian ancestry controversy, where all these issues could be explored in greater detail beyond what is warranted in this article. However, the big divide among editors on this issue makes me wonder whether a neutral article should be achieved. Some editors for example argue against evidence that she was hired by Harvard because of her ancestry or that the DNA tests do not support her claims. But there is mainstream consensus that her handling of the matter reflects poorly on her. TFD (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
CharlesShirley, please stop calling people racist based upon your own opinions. This is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Objective3000, it is not just me that calls her originally justification racist. There are many member of my tribe that call her comments racist. You might not like that tons of people, people that are directly affected by her racist comments, are calling out her racist comment, but that does not make the comment any less racist. Please review the words of one of the members of my tribe:

In defending her supposed Native identity, Warren has drawn from both racist stereotypes and easily refutable stories about her family. At a 2012 press conference Warren stated that her family knew her grandfather was “part” Cherokee because “he had high cheekbones like all of the Indians.” Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

Rebecca Nagle from Op-Ed: I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not. in ThinkProgress, November 30, 2017.
(restart indenting) Warren, in a 2012 rambling interview with multiple reporters, used the phrase "high cheekbones" while directly quoting her Aunt Bea:

I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she though this was the bad deal she had gotten in life.

Warren is clearly not "claiming that the way to find an Indian is too look for high cheekbones" or "if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian." In that interview, she is giving examples of the ways she was told, growing up, that her mother's family had Native American ancestry. She is not, as an adult, claiming that these stories from childhood prove anything except that, during her childhood, she heard these stories. To include the full context of this two-word quote would require giving it much more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the article includes a citation that includes (in the reference {{cite news}} template) a part of the CBS News quote about "high cheekbones", but it has ellipsis ("...") instead of the sentences that say "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life." In my opinion, the part that was removed from the quote is important and should also be included in the quote for context (if the quote of the sentence before it is kept in the citation), because that part helps clarify that she was discussing what someone else said and thought, not her own thoughts, and is saying that the other person thought the described characteristic was desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @BarrelProof: that a simple improvement would be to replace the ellipsis in that quote with Warren's omitted words: "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She thought that was the bad deal she had gotten in life." They make it clear that EW is reporting her Aunt Bea's words based on Aunt Bea's admiring thoughts about Aunt Bea's father. If somebody who is an admin could make that change, I think it would be an improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The protection expired, so I made that edit myself. We can continue to discuss, of course, but I think that quoting the first sentence while omitting the second and third sentences would not be appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Although this ("cheekbones" issue) is mentioned by a relatively few sources (mentioned above), it does not seem to be given enough weight, looking at the totality of reliable sources about Warren, for it to merit space here, given the current (relatively, and AFAICT reasonably, short) amount of space devoted to the issue overall. The slant some editors above have tried to add it with in the past, as compared to what Warren said (as HouseOfChange points out), is also an issue. -sche (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, Native Americans on average have higher cheekbones than European Americans just as on average African Americans have darker skins than European Americans. African Americans, European Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Australian Aborigines do have different appearances on average. TFD (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, assuming that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is racist because there are many Native Americans that do not have those physical characteristics. It is a racist sentiment. It is as simple at that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
She didn’t say it. A relative said it. And, I don’t see how it could be taken as racist in context anyhow. It’s an offhand compliment. It’s like saying all Swedish women are blond and I ended up brunette. Of course all Swede’s are not blond and it’s just an envious statement, in no way racist. You are trivializing the actual, massive, daily harm caused by real racism by insisting that this is racist. You want real racism, look at President Jackson and the Trail of Tears. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't lecture me about the history of my tribe. You are no expert. Also, you are attempting to change the subject from her use of racial stereotypes. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
What's troublesome here is not that CharlesShirley arrived at this page upset by a very slanted version of what Warren said, why she said it, how often she said it, etc. What's troublesome is that, even after having the opportunity to learn the truth from actual RS describing the TWO WORDS that upset him, he continues to promote the inaccurate beliefs that he arrived with. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you have that opinion. But it is just your opinion. It is not fact. She assumes, incorrectly, that all "Indians" have "high cheekbones" that is a false assumption that is based upon racial stereotypes, as many reliable sources have pointed out over and over again. Just hoping and wishing and pounding your feet doesn't change the fact that she was engaging in racial stereotypes all "Indian" while claiming to be "Cherokee" when it is clear that she is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. She used a racial stereotype to justify calling herself one. That fact does not change because a few Wikipedia editors want to believe it is not true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody's lecturing you about the history of your tribe. They're just contextualizing Warren's comment. The idea that high cheekbones are an indication of Native American ancestry was widespread until quite recently. Beware presentism. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you please stop exaggerating. It doesn’t help. She did not assume that all Indians have high cheekbones. None of your sources include a claim by her that she is a member of the Cherokee tribe. She merely claimed to have Cherokee blood. One of your sources says the current principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee. So what? Most people are quite confused about their ancestry. Further, what right does the Cherokee Nation have to say you can't call yourself Cherokee because you aren’t a direct lineal ancestor to someone on the Dawson or Baker roles, created centuries after the origin of Cherokee tribes? There are Christian sects that claim you aren’t Christian if you aren’t reborn. There are Jewish sects that claim you aren’t Jewish if you don’t subscribe to their level of orthodoxy. But, they don’t have that right either. Frankly, arguments about what part she is or is not Indian and what she is allowed to call herself reminds me of the Wannsee Conference. Forgive me Godwin. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No one is exaggerating. I am pointing exactly what she said. She quoted her Aunt who said that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". There are reliable sources that have said exactly what I said. I quoted one above, Rebecca Nagel. The long list of comments you stated above are all true and they are all beside the point. She tried to use the comments of her Aunt to justify calling herself an "Indian" and she flat out stated that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". This is a racial stereotype and Rebecca Nagel and others have pointed this out. Now, you don't like this fact, but it is true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
OpEds are not, typically, considered RS for matters of fact and this one certainly is not. We know what Warren said about high cheekbones. Many reporters quoted it verbatim, and it is on tape. Rebecca Nagle in that article is misrepresenting what Warren said. The fact that other people before you have misrepresented what Warren said should make you dubious about believing other things they say, considering that it is easily proven that they are lying about the "high cheekbones" quote. The fact that Nagle gets upset when people talk about Native American heritage in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY people talk about Irish heritage or Polish heritage, is not the fault of Elizabeth Warren. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope. YoPienso (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Yopienso for your response. Your comment is an example of the lack of intelligent dialog happening on this page as it concerns Warren's false claims. YoPienso does not provide an intelligent response to XavierItzm's excellent and insightful question, just a negative. It is a pathetic response. Warren tried to say she is Indian because she has "high cheekbones" (yes, her Aunt said it first, but she repeated it to justify her false claim) and that cheekbones comment is a stereotype based upon a what non-Native folks think Indians look like. It is Warren's BS argument and many editors are choosing to ignore it. If Trump has made such a ignorant, backwards, stereotypical statement then it would be worked into the Trump article and every article that even mentions Trump in even a obscure way. Thanks, YoPienso for showing the world what a lack of intelligent discussion has been happening on this page and lack of rationale behind leaving out her false Indian justification which was based upon an ignorant, backwards stereotype. There are tons of reliable sources that criticize her backward-looking justification but they have been whitewashed from the article. -CharlesShirley (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

2012 democratic primary[edit]

Warren did not run unopposed in 2012; she beat Marisa DeFranco (which is correctly stated in the article for the 2012 senate election in MA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.112.142 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Warren's claim of being Cherokee and Indian[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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[14]
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)
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)
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."[15]
Dat good enuf for ya? XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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.[16]
XavierItzm (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's a timeline by Boston Herald: [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)

References

  1. ^ Madison, Lucy (May 3, 2012). "Warren explains minority listing, talks of grandfather's 'high cheekbones'". CBS News. Retrieved October 18, 2018. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he – her father, my Papaw – had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do.
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-explains-minority-listing-talks-of-grandfathers-high-cheekbones/
  3. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/elizabeth-warren-struggles-with-response-to-native-american-questions-again/2012/05/03/gIQAz8pLzT_blog.html?utm_term=.e25fc23dfc45
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-a-little-bit-indian.html
  6. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/
  7. ^ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/18/native-american-elizabeth-warren-cherokee-ancestry-column/1668763002/
  8. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/warren-makes-case-she-can-go-toe-toe-trump-n920281
  9. ^ https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/07/09/editorial-donald-trump-is-right-to-call-out-liz-warren-on-indian-claims/
  10. ^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCpandKkoD8J:articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/opinion/la-oe-allen-warren-indian-20120527+&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es
  11. ^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCpandKkoD8J:articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/opinion/la-oe-allen-warren-indian-20120527+&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es
  12. ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/31/what-warren-has-said/4qqoTK6mq4KLiamO79fBtM/story.html
  13. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-lectures-native-americans-about-pocahontas-1519168877
  14. ^ 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.”
  15. ^ 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."
  16. ^ 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.

1984 - the date when Warren first claimed to be Cherokee[edit]

HouseOfChange deleted the following which is well supported by a February 2nd, 2019 WP:RS:
«[Warren,] who first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984,[1]».
The rationale for deletion was that this is trivia. Now, if it were trivia, why would the Boston Herald include it in an article entitled "Timeline of Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee heritage claims"? The Wikipedia entry goes to great pains to explain that the end point of Warren disavowing her Native American heritage is 2019; such an endpoint calls for an opening point. I restored the material. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 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.
The edit made by XavierItzm that adds the words "who first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984" is not trivia -- it's an important fact, well-documented in the proposed edit, and should be included in the article. Ebw343 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Citing WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The subject of this article is Elizabeth Warren, a US Senator and legal scholar. The content of a 1984 recipe book published by her cousin is trivia. As for the motivation of the Boston Herald, once a great paper, in promoting this story as Warren "touting her claim of Cherokee heritage," their online front page today lists three different negative opinion pieces about Elizabeth Warren, also an op-ed by Howie Carr "Northam provides latest shame for sanctimonious Dems."[3] It doesn't belong in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It has been covered by a lot of source as one of the first listings of her calling herself Cherokee.[4][5][6][7] PackMecEng (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
HouseOfChange - the edit is not about a 1984 recipe book. The edit is an important and relevant fact that should be in the page.Ebw343 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd hesitate before using any source that repeatedly uses the characterization: "touted". O3000 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If there is consensus to include the 1984 date, the link and quote should go to a source of better quality and less POV than the Herald. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with HoC that this shouldn't be included. For one thing, the claim that was added was inaccurate, and a more accurate summary of the information shows how trivial and excessive the detail is: if she was raised being told she had Cherokee ancestry, it's unlikely she "first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984"; what seems to be in the case is that that's merely when the earliest still-extant printed instance which has been found so far dates from, hence even the Herald is saying things like "touted ... as early as". (Would anyone add the earliest still-extant printed instance of her signing her name as some variation of Elizabeth and spin it similarly as the first time she claimed to have that name? Let's not.) -sche (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
HoC didn't say the edit shouldn't be included. He said: "if there is a consensus to include the 1984 date, the link and quote should go to a source of better quality and less POV than the Herald." This fact, i.e., the first time Senator Warren claimed to be Cherokee is a critical fact -- certainly not one that is "trivial." I also agree with HoC that the proper citation should be to sources less POV than the Herald. In fact, that's precisely what E.M. Gregory did -- he provided three sources (The Atlantic, Politifact, and the Weekly Standard) that specifically confirm that Senator Warren first publicly and in writing stated that she was Cherokee in 1984 ("Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee.") I don't understand why this edit is contentious: it's an important, well-documented fact that is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. Ebw343 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems that some editors are hell-bent to PROVE that YES she did too say she has Cherokee ancestry and we've got it in print as early as 1984 to prove it. And then in the end, according to Wikipedia, disavowed it in 2019. The fact is, Warren believed she had Cherokee ancestry prior to 1984 and she still believes it today. There is no need to bring trivia into the article to PROVE that she believes she has Cherokee heritage. BTW, anyone reading the Herald article should note what 0300 said about their use of the word "touted". Unbiased reporting does not use that word. Gandydancer (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No one is "hell-bent to PROVE" that she said she was Cherokee in 1984 -- she said it in writing, as documented by three different non-POV sources. It's a simple and relevant fact. The argument that the first date of her claim is "trivia" has no merit. Obviously it's relevant to know when she first stated that she was Cherokee. This simple, relevant, well-documented fact is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. BTW, the article does not say that Warren "disavowed it [her claim] in 2019." Ebw343 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm quoting from the editor that opened this discussion: " The Wikipedia entry goes to great pains to explain that the end point of Warren disavowing her Native American heritage is 2019; such an endpoint calls for an opening point. I restored the material. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)" Ebw, if the name of this article were "Elizabeth Warren's claim of Cherokee heritage" it would be expected that this information would be included and discussed. However, this article covers her entire life up to this point and the cookbook information, for an encyclopedia article, is quite trivial. That it can be found in several news outlet's articles does not suggest that it is worthy of entering it in an encyclopedia article about Warren. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's the quote from The Atlantic Magazine (a non-POV source): "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." " So this is not a question of "cookbook information." Senator Warren signed her name "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee" in 1984. That fact is relevant and well-documented in a non-POV source. Again, this simple fact is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. Ebw343 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude – She’s not claiming to be a member of any tribe in this cookbook. It’s just five recipes in a book that she didn’t author listing her as Cherokee – and she may very well have Cherokee ancestry. We don’t add everything that is in the media, and I ‘m not seeing a convincing argument that this is WP:DUE. We have plenty of material on the subject without this bit of trivia. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
See my response above. Ebw343 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Already been said before. Exclude. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
When you sign an article or a recipe for publication - you are affirming that you authored or approved it for publication. Unless you have a RS in which Sen. Warren formally disavows signng those recipes, they are a published statement of her claim to Cherokee heritage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We know she claimed Cherokee heritage -- or at least Amerind. And she may very well be. What does this add? O3000 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude. First, this isn't an accurate description of the sources as-written (they're clear that that's just the earliest indicator they could find, which doesn't mean she "first claimed" it then. "First claimed" clearly implies she never claimed it before, which which we have no sources whatsoever supporting and which has a negative connotation in the context of the rest of the paragraph describing the oral family history going back much further.) Second, the exact date is still trivia - even those sources, while they mention it, do not give it any particular weight. In context, stating it as "first claimed..." gives the impression that there is something sinister, unusual, or telling about her "first claiming" it in 1984, which isn't backed by the sources and seems to essentially be WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the words "first claimed" should be removed. I suggest that after the first sentence of the paragraph a new sentence is added: "In 1984, Warren publicly noted her Native American ancestry, signing her name in a book 'Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee.'" The source would be the Atlantic Magazine article noted by E.M. Gregory, which contains that exact quote. This sentence would state a non-trivial fact: a specific date upon which Warren publicly noted her Native American ancestry. This sentence would in no way be prejudicial to Warren.Ebw343 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is more information in this direct quote from Politifact: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984."[8] HouseOfChange (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. So, alternatively, the new second sentence could read: "As noted by Politifact: 'Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984.' " The cite would be to Politifact, perhaps with a second cite to The Atlantic Magazine which specifically states that Warren signed her name "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee." What do you think? Ebw343 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A claim published in a book is a public claim. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You would have to take that up with Politifact, which seems to see a distinction between mentioning it in a cookbook and "publicly claiming" it. I'd tend to agree with them - for a politician "publicly claiming" implies something a lot more significant than adding "Cherokee" after your name in a cookbook. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
We don’t know that she “claimed” or “signed” anything in particular in this book. It was a cookbook of various recipes handed down by various tribes. Perhaps the book’s author labeled each recipe with his/her understanding of an associated tribe as that is the theme of the book. I think you’re attaching significance that likely doesn’t exist. It’s not a history text book. It appears to be a self-published cookbook. As for the general subject, yes it belongs, and it is already in the article, although I don’t see how it “enhanced her career”. And please, let's not think of adding presumptions to an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
1.) As to your argument about Pow Wow Chow, nonsense. It was published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum and to the best of my knowledge (I searched,) Warren has never denied submitting five recipes for publication over her signature "Elizabeth Warren," Cherokee.
2.) Take a look at the context of her self-listing as a minority, Washington Post: "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School. - Elizabeth Warren AALS Listing - The former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, David Bernstein, told the Herald that the group’s directory once served as a tip sheet for administrators. “In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people,” he said. “There are schools that, if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority.’” .
3.) there is no indication that Warren ever got a job because she was listed as a member of a minority group. The sole validated claim is that she did indeed claim to be native American, and she began making this claim in a public manner in a 1984 cookbook.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Never denying something is not validating something. Yes, we already know she claimed to be a minority. This is already in the article. O3000 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the proposed sentence. The date of her public announcement is noteworthy. Ebw343 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with the proposed sentence, and here's one more reference to add, from The Boston Globe. [1] XavierItzm (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Added sentence as suggested by @Ebw343: to included 1984 date cited to RS and using neutral language. People who want to know more about early history of Warren's claims can get a fuller explanation by following link to Politifact article.HouseOfChange (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this sentence for further discussion. The sentence "As noted by Politifact: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984." suggests that Warren was remiss to not have publicly disclosed her Native roots prior to her Senate run. At present the for/against inclusion is pretty much evenly divided. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the general idea of it should be included somewhere. I am just not married any of the wording. You mentioned an issue with how it was presented, what would you suggest to improve that? PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Are well still debating this? GMGtalk 17:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The section can't be that old. There are no images of cute kittens and Hitler hasn't been mentioned once. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Good lord. It's worse than I thought. We've been debating this since 2012. GMGtalk 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am honestly a little surprised it is not farther back. Found one it the first archive though April 2012. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that you mention it... can it really be unrelated that Hitler claimed Indian ancestry too? </bad joke> -sche (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude See my reasoning above. BTW, please don't keep adding this while the discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ^ Annie Linskey (January 19, 2018). "Elizabeth Warren's Native American problem goes beyond politics". Boston Gllobe. Retrieved 22 October 2018. In the book, which was edited by her cousin and unearthed during her 2012 campaign by the Boston Herald, her name is listed as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.”

Subhead for ancestry[edit]

Proposing a subhead for "Ancestry" in the "Early life, education, and family" section. Reason is that Warren's ancestry claims have gotten a massive amount of coverage. But readers coming to this page will have a hard time finding them. I did. I scanned the Table of Contents and couldn't find it. Making this hard to find is not User Friendly. The fact that much of the motivation for coverage of this issue is partisan is irrelevant. When the coverage of a thing is massive, readers will turn to Wikipedia to get the facts, and we are making it hard to find them. We can keep the content NPOV. But we have a duty to enable users to locate it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So, GMG points out that this debate goes back to 2012; and your response is to start yet another section? Which site is it, ancestry.com, that has commercials showing that people commonly mistake their ancestry? O3000 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory started this section at 11:39 (diff) and GreenMeansGo's "2012" comment came about 2 hours later (diff.) So unless time travel exists, EMG wasn't responding to GMG, just saying. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Also, per WP:DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree, the subhead is needed. In fact, it is overdue, as the coverage has been massive and ongoing. XavierItzm (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Ebw343 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE. Adding a subhead to the Early life, education, and family section would would basically mean that this is a more important part of the section than her early life, education, and family. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There was a recent discussion here on this very subject. It found that there should be it's own section. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree that it is time for a sub-heading to centralize and summarize the issue. The newly discovered Bar card with Warren's stated race as American Indian will give this fresh legs. There's been many months of coverage now on this topic, and it is no longer UNDUE. A concise couple of paragraphs documenting the instances Warren claimed Native American heritage, her responses and apologies, and the DNA test and resulting feud with Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone agrees that this needs its own sub-section somewhere, but this has to do with her career just as much as with her early life. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't use the word "everyone" when it doesn't apply. O3000 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All the cool people then? But anyhow the last consensus was for it to be placed in early life. I can understand the rational for both though, it is something she grew up with as a family story and then later it affected her career. I do not have a good answer on where it should be. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
How has it affected her career? O3000 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
When a politician has to apologize several times for something I think it can reasonably be said it has an effect on their career. For example voters being angry with her about the whole situation.[13] It also did have an affect on her polls, with her unpopularity spiking because of it.[14] PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you're making assumptions here. She's still a US Senator. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I mean I gave sources... Even one showing a spike in unpopularity. Are you taking the position that this controversy has not affected her career in any meaningful way? What do you have to back that up? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Polls go up and down. I don't think it makes sense to say this has affected her career. She's still a US Senator, and I don't see any rational people saying she should be removed from office. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe she would be removed from office over this. But I do think it has had an affect for the 7 years it has been on going. PackMecEng (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The "Career" section isn't mainly about how incidents have affected her career. It's about what's happened during her career: what she has said and done. This issue actually has to do with her public image. YoPienso (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding what section it should be in: if someone does something in the past, but it only gets coverage much later on in relation to something else, I think other articles mostly discuss it at the later point (I see Ralph Northam's article discusses his yearbook in the section about his governorship, not the section about his education), but I see coherent arguments for sorting chronologically in this case—it's not like any (or at least, much) of her early life got coverage or was notable before she became well-known, and this came up during both the senate campaign and the (proto-)presidential one so it would be hard to sort non-repetitively into only one of those sections. I abstain on whether these needs its own header, and would favor keeping it under early life (as OP proposed) if it is included, but another possibility to consider if necessary is making it a top-level section; articles not infrequently have sections that cover events from multiple chronological sections (e.g., this article's Honors section). -sche (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree that a subheading is needed. Right now we have the whole story under "Early life, education, and family," where it clearly doesn't belong. We could actually go two ways here: 1. Put the last two paragraphs of "Early life, education, and family" as they stand into a new subheading, "Native American ancestry issue," or 2. Leave the family lore in "Early life, education, and family," put the eruption of controversy during the 2012 election into that subsection, and the ongoing drama with Trump's mockery, her DNA test, pushback from the Native community, in its own sub-subheading under "Tenure" or in the "2020 presidential election" section.
Bottom line: The info needs either its own subsection or should be spread chronologically throughout appropriate sections. The whole story does NOT belong in the "Early life, education, and family," section. YoPienso (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A better idea: Open a new subsection, "Public image," under the "Career" section and put those two paragraphs from "Early life, education, and family" there. YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. Ebw343 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"Public image" seems like a poor header for content about ancestry. For one thing, it would seem to include quite a few other things (indeed, mostly other things), and for another, the early aspects of ancestry don't seem to be "public image". -sche (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Native American ancestry claims or Ancestry claims or Claims of Amerindian ancestry are appropriate headers. Not the obfuscating "Public image." The point of a subhead is to enable users to locate information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with YoPienso. This all started when she was running against Brown for the Senate. Brown and his supporters all used it in his campaign, mocking her for her claim. It resurfaced when there seemed to be possibilities of a run for president a few years back and now again that she is running. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons stated above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. Senator Warren's ancestry has been the subject of national attention for years. SunCrow (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

Please vote in one of the two sections below. Should the sub heading be in the Early life, education, and family section or the Career section? PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I'm adding the other two options discussed above, namely making it its own section on the same level as "Career"/"Early life" etc, or continuing to not have a (sub)section. -sche (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Early life, education, and family[edit]

2nd preference, yes. XavierItzm (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Prefer. This is the subhead where we discuss ancestry on bio pages. (This is not on a top-level topic.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Career[edit]

Its own top-level section[edit]

1st preference, yes. XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1st choice it is likely this issue will not go away, especially as the election and her campaign gears up. We may as well provide readers with an accurate summary of what it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm wary of Crystal Ball arguments that this will be so important in the future that it needs a section (and of arguments that it's so important now): I recall how discussion both here and in the news died down to near nothing for months after all the heat (and light?) of last October, which made it easier (for me, at least) to see how relatively unimportant the whole thing was in the grand scheme of things, when the heat of the moment wasn't on. But iff there is consensus to put this in a subsection, then it probably needs to be a top-level section: in other articles where someone did something in the past and it only came up later, the thing is generally handled at the later time (for example, Northam's med-school blackface is discussed in the section on governorship, not the section on education), but in this case it came up in the congressional and presidential campaigns (besides the family stories being an "early life" thing), so a top-level (L2) section may be the best way to cover it in one place. -sche (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. SunCrow (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No subsection[edit]

Other[edit]

  • "U.S. Senate" and potentially "2020 presidential election" as per Boston Herald timeline and other political biographies. If this eventually gets its own article, I support its own top-level section per above !votes. I'd really like this biography with so many sections and sub-sections to be chronologically ordered as much as possible, so that it is easy to make cross-references in the article. I oppose a new personal life or family section with this on the bottom of the article because it will force readers to scroll down every time a related incident is mentioned in a career-related section. At least I believe that personal life or current family sections always have to be on the bottom of the article. I am also not comfortable with putting these recent events including the DNA test into the very first section in the article which also contains information her early life. wumbolo ^^^ 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren claimed 'American Indian' race on State Bar of Texas registration card[edit]

documented proof she was misreprenting her heritage. #NOT MY PRESIDENT EVER https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/5/elizabeth-warren-claimed-american-indian-race-stat/ 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You will find that if you use reliable sources, that you will be a more informed individual and of more value here. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The news was also broadcast tonight on Fox News during martha maccallum TV show. Just found the cited, which includes a scan image of the document. News outlets?! Is it real news? or Fake News? 72.43.251.134 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Found some, looks like its still breaking news.[15][16][17] PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand how this is news. It seems no different from the previous instances with the Harvard faculty listing or the recipe book. She thought she had some Native American heritage (which is probably true), and when she was asked about it, she responded accordingly. What's new? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo article seems to have the best summary. Warren used "Native American" as her racial identity registering for the Bar in Texas, was listed as "minority" by the Association of American Law Schools, had her ethnicity listed as "Native American" while working for the University of Pennsylvannia, and listed her ethnicity as "Native American" while working for Harvard University. She has recently apologized for using that identity. According to the Post article, identifying herself as Native American had no impact on her career. So for a decent chunk of her professional life she identified as a Native American. It's past time our article had a decent summary of this. It is actually UNDUE to NOT describe that, as it occurred throughout such a long timeline in her life. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it's undue to exclude this info. YoPienso (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Near as I can tell, she was told she had Indian heritage and therefore checked the required marks exactly as she should have. Are we actually going to list every form she correctly filed in her life? I think this is reeling out of control. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 HouseOfChange (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • A person’s race or gender are generally included in some fashion in encyclopedic entries. We should not rob Warren of her ethnic heritage that she claimed for large portions of her life. As this article is biographic in nature, it should include relevant biographical information. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say there should be no mention. I said every form she ever checked a box on doesn't belong here. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This was added by BigJake54, challenged by me, and restored by BigJake54 in violation of discretionary sanctions: Enforced BRD. I have suggested a self-rvt which was either ignored or not seen. I would suggest someone else rvt before sanctions are applied. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000: There's no danger of sanctions against an editor who violated 7 minutes before they received the DS alert. Not responding to your request for self-revert won't be sanctionable when they haven't edited since then—even if admins strictly enforced the restrictions, which they don't. The issue now seems to be under discussion, which is the goal of Enforced BRD, so I can't see reverting on those grounds. But I have removed the content on WP:ONUS grounds: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," and there is no consensus to include here as of yet. ―Mandruss  03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I think a sentence relating the substance of the WaPo article should be in the page because the WaPo article demonstrates that Warren's 1986 Texas State Bar registration card, which lists her race as "American Indian," was filled out and signed by her. The fact of her signature is important. Also, note that several editors objected to the earlier reference to the PolitiFact article on the grounds that it didn't prove Warren signed the cookbook. Ebw343 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't add this information to the article while it is in discussion. This is a BLP and especially for a bio we should keep WP:Recent in mind. Gandydancer (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It almost seems to be a BLP violation to not accurately include Warren's identified race for many years of her career. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. ―Mandruss  14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this story the definition of narcissism exposed? 108.12.52.29 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Ernie, again, no one has said don’t mention it at all. The article subject believed she had Native American ancestry and filled out forms as per her knowledge. The number of forms these days that ask this question is rather large. She has indicated that there are more such forms. Are we going to add a paragraph, link, and some sort of “proof” for every form? What is the purpose? O3000 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
"What is the purpose?" The purpose to the proposed edit (i.e., a sentence relating the substance of the WaPo article) is that the WaPo article demonstrates that Warren's 1986 Texas State Bar registration card, which lists her race as "American Indian," was filled out and signed by her. The fact of her signature is important. Also, note that several editors objected to the earlier reference to the PolitiFact article on the grounds that it didn't prove Warren signed the cookbook.Ebw343 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Texas bar card[edit]

Should the article mention the fact that Warren listed her race as Native American on her Texas State Bar card? Instaurare (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes It is being widely covered by reliable sources and is an important aspect of the controversy over Warren's ancestry. Instaurare (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Ebw343 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Too soon for RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. The discussion was started only 28 hours ago, and the starter of this RfC hasn't even participated in it. ―Mandruss  05:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include, you can't hold the dike anymore. The news are now on CBS and NBC.[1][2][3][4] XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include as notable and relevant and DUE, with excellent sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP guidelines: " Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. This RfC should be closed. Gandydancer (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, it's too soon for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, but please continue discussing in the normal manner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Include. Per reports: Elizabeth Warren claimed to be an “American Indian” when registering for the State Bar of Texas in 1986, the first example of her personally using her "dubious accounts to further her career" own handwriting to officially indicate heritage. BarrelProof, this is "What's new?"!! 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a WP:BLP. Please keep your own opinions about motivations out of here. O3000 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Understand your concern... This is not my opinion, I copy/pasted that sentence from the article mentioned above. This is the first example, in her very own hand-writing. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
What article? I can't find that, and can't imagine an RS would say such. O3000 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/5/elizabeth-warren-claimed-american-indian-race-stat/ , but I guess this is not considered RS by Wikipedia. But is meant to just share the significance of document as the "first example" reported by news media. I've also heard much discussion on radio/TV about her "accounts to further her career" over a minority class. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
If you know that the source (founded by the Moonies) is not RS, why would you quote it? And, what you "heard much discussion on radio/TV" without providing sources should never be included, even on a talk page. Please consider that this is a BLP and redact your unfounded accusation. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
redaction done. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Moonies? huh? 72.43.251.134 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Times was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon who claimed to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ. A claim that I would say is less likely than Warren having Amerind ancestry. O3000 (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how the handwriting makes a difference. AFAIK, there was never a dispute about whether it was her that reported that she had Native American heritage, so why would the handwriting matter? Did she ever deny that she had filled out forms saying that? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Linskey, Annie; Gardner, Amy (February 5, 2019). "Elizabeth Warren apologizes for calling herself Native American". The Washington Post.
  2. ^ Jack Crowe (6 February 2019). "Warren Apologizes for Identifying as 'American Indian' on Texas Bar Application". National Review. Retrieved 7 February 2019. Warren also expressed regret for her history of leveraging her Native American identity for professional gain in a Tuesday interview with the Washington Post.
  3. ^ GRACE SEGERS (6 February 2019). "Elizabeth Warren apologizes for claiming Native American heritage". CBS News. Retrieved 7 February 2019. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, apologized Wednesday afternoon for claiming she was of "American Indian" origin in a Texas Bar registration card from 1986.
  4. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna968576
  • Exclude for now / too soon per the people above. We already devote two massive paragraphs to the subject, which edges towards WP:UNDUE on a biography; we should wait and see if this aspect has sustained coverage before adding it. Otherwise the section risks becoming a random collection of news cycles rather than a coherent summary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Once she announces candidacy for presidency, your concerns will be deemed over-protective and lacking real open reporting of facts. #EXPOSE_ELIZABETH_WARREN , #Expose Elizabeth Warren, #Expose_HER,72.43.251.134 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include a brief, sourced mention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude for now. She filled out a form. There is no reason to believe she did anything wrong. Tens of millions of forms are filled out a day. This is not WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The gauge of what is DUE is coverage in WP:RS; multiple leading national publications wrote detailed stories on this. So we add a brief mention, sourced to the Washington Post, which broke the story, and one other source, like CNN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hardly detailed stories on this. They mentioned that WaPo found this and then repeated stuff already covered by them and this article. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include It has now received widespread media attention. This is the first real evidence that Warren every claimed to be a Native American. Regarding the previous section, the Washington Times is such an obviously garbage publication that I would never use it as a source and the only reason I would read it is to understand how misinformed people see the world. TFD (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposal based on comments above: refactor the section as follows: 1) Warren was told she had Native American ancestry 2) On multiple occasions she reported herself as having Native American ancestry (e.g. cookbook, Texas bar, forms filled out at Harvard, etc.) 3) Starting in 2012 she was accused of lying about her ancestry to advance career 4) Investigation of claims showed zero evidence this advanced her career 5) Challenged to take DNA test, she took one, results showed some Native American ancestry 6) Attacked for DNA test, she apologizes and her apology was accepted. 7) Opponents continue efforts to focus on these claims as a way to "expose Elizabeth Warren." That is the story and that is the context. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
That's it, bounded in a nutshell. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup, sure is. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Excellent overview. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that it is all true. However, we now know that Warren claimed to be a Native American, which is different from saying her gg grandmother had some Native American ancestry. It was clearly a false statement. TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
How is this a false statement and what RS says this? O3000 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If her genetic great-great grandmother had Native American ancestry, then she has Native American ancestry too (albeit probably less). She never claimed a high percentage or a precise measurement or a perfect state of knowledge, and AFAIK there is no specified percentage threshold at which people are supposed to stop reporting themselves as having Native American ancestry. The current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee by blood, and that's generally considered OK. If I understand correctly, the objection expressed by the Cherokee Nation was not a matter of whether her DNA percentage was too low – it was that they don't think DNA is the appropriate way to measure heritage. And that's OK too. Anyhow, she never asked them for recognition and they have no widely recognized authority to govern how people in the general public are supposed to fill out forms that contain questions about heritage. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Beside the word "Race," Warren wrote "American Indian." In fact, Warren is at least 63/64ths Caucasian and at most 1/64th Native American. She is at most mixed race. Whether or not a member of the Cherokee tribe should put down American Indian when their ancestry is only 1/32nd Cherokee is another issue. At least the chief is member of the tribe. TFD (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The current chief of the Cherokee nation is 1/32 Cherokee. What's your point? Look, we are all mutts. The entire concept is foolish. But, you have to fill out the forms to your best knowledge. O3000 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
To the best of her knowledge at the time, Warren was at most 1/64 Native American ancestry. Her grandmother never told her that she was a Native American, merely that she had some Indian ancestry. Warren herself has said that she never claimed to be Native American, but only claimed to have some Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So how the Hell does one fill out these forms? Does the chief of the Cherokee Nation say Caucasian because he's only 1/32nd Cherokee? Just how large do we make this molehill? This is why I am disgusted at the entire human invented concept of race. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering that the dominant theory of paleoanthropology for the origin of Homo sapiens involves a diaspora of anatomically modern humans emigrating from Africa (about 200,000 years ago), and that questionnaires are not generally accompanied by any clear guidance, perhaps we should all be identifying ourselves as primarily African. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It's quite clear what these forms require and what it means to overplay a minor aspect of your racial identity. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] It's sad that you are disgusted by one of the most beautiful things in the world. wumbolo ^^^ 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Support the proposed accurate overview by HouseOfChange. (It might need some clarification about what she apologized for and to whom, and who accepted it.) Actually, that doesn't seem very far from what the article already says at this time. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Do not support the HouseOfChange proposal, because it oversimplifies the situation and omits key facts. XavierItzm (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't notice any "key facts" that are omitted – what are they? – perhaps a need for clarifying that "some" refers to a relatively low percentage? (which is something she basically has in common with Mr. Baker) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For example, the Senator says she was told this as a child. The defective proposal skips over the "she says" part. For example, the weak proposal she was "attacked" for the DNA test. This is highly biased against the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation did not "attack" the Senator. Rather, the Cherokee Nation rightly complained that the Senator cheapened tribal membership and sovereignty. For example, the Senator apologized to the Cherokee a few weeks ago for the DNA thing, but did not apologize for the 1986 Bar association signed form. In February 2019, the Senator apologized for claiming to be "American Indian." The flawed and Cherokee Nation-prejudiced proposal is a non-starter. XavierItzm (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll grant you the "attack" question – perhaps that word shouldn't be used (although there wasn't any identification of who was said to be doing the attacking). But there is no cheapening of tribal membership and sovereignty if there is no claim of official tribal membership and not even a mention of sovereignty. These were not questionnaires about membership – they were only about some vague notion of heritage. Certainly there is a difference between being a recognized member of the Cherokee Nation and having some degree of vaguely Cherokee lineage. There was no clear need to apologize for any particular questionnaire that she may or may not have remembered filling out, and there was no clear prejudice; prejudice against a group usually involves wanting to not be associated with the group in any way. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include with more detail. By 1986 Warren was nearly 37 years old. At this point in her life she'd have surely would have known about tribal membership and active participation within one. There seems to be a total lacking of anything American Indian to her except for the claim to be one. She used this label simply to gain advantage. White people trying to steal others heritage... Bought the farm (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, none of these self-reportings contained any claim of formal tribal membership or active tribal participation (and no gain of advantage appears evident; indeed, her heritage claim seems to have been a disadvantage, despite being an accurate description of her personal understanding and her factual genetic background). If anything, she seems to have run afoul of the lack of any clear guidance provided regarding what criteria and thresholds should be used for self-reported ethnic categorization. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude as such, overdetailed; I think we need to avoid wp:Recentism and trying to be the news: is it of historical / encyclopedic significance to her overall biography to detail every form on which she gave what she had been told was correct information about her ancestry? No. There are indeed news stories mentioning this card ... like there are reliable sources about how she's voted on myriad bills, but we don't need to catalogue every form in her biography any more than every single vote. I would suggest the information about about the cookbook and the bar card (and apology for the bar card) be covered in one or two sentences saying she listed herself as Native American on some forms in the past, and later apologized. (In general, HoC's points 1-6 summarize things pretty well, IMO.) -sche (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
but we don't need to catalogue every form in her biography. So, Not even one document then? btw, she is now a Presidential Candidate and oh! wait, there is no proof that her Aunt Bea ever said anything about high-cheekbones. could all be a carefully crafted story. Bought the farm (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, all of the stories about her having a family might just be the product of a propaganda conspiracy from a secret cabal of the political elite. I've heard she has refused to provide her original long-form birth certificate too. She has even claimed that her parents weren't wealthy and that her mom worked at a low-wage job! Why hasn't she produced any recordings of her so-called Aunt Bea's stories? </irony> —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reminder - The following edits have been made to this page:

    "write about her fraud as a native american", "claims to be Native American - in ways that enhanced her career", "Is this story the definition of narcissism exposed?", "example of her personally using her dubious accounts to further her career", "She used this label simply to gain advantage. White people trying to steal others heritage", "this is certainly an element of this Presidential candidates fake fraudulent past", " misrepresentations of herself to gain advantage over others. She knowingly perpetuated the falisy", " let's document the truth here, not cover up her purposeful narcissism.", "#EXPOSE_ELIZABETH_WARREN , #Expose Elizabeth Warren, #Expose_HER".

Please remember that this is a BLP and that BLP restrictions apply to talk pages. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not support the HouseOfChange proposal either. It is an over simplification and somewhat evasive account of the subject. Just read O3000's post above. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You might want to read O3000's comments again, just in case. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If insistence on suggesting some sort of nefarious motives continues to the point of adding such to this article; I should think this should be balanced by articles like this: [23]. Or, we can stop the efforts to flood this article with such. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edit on reliability of DNA tests in informing of ancestry[edit]

The edit I just completed on the subject of the unreliability of DNA tests in completely and accurately revealing ancestry have immediately been reverted. I intend to repost them as I believe the comments to be very important to the question of Warren's indigenous ancestry, given the public's fixation on the percentage of that ancestry, and the unfortunately widespread misconception that all ancestry is faithfully recorded in an individual's genome. The reverted (removed) text:

In fact, DNA tests are unreliable in documenting ancestry completely and accurately as only a part of a parent's genome is handed down to a child (with a child inheriting 50% of its genome from each parent), and (other than those genes tied to maternal or paternal lineages) the selection is random. This accounts for discrepancies between the DNA test results of two children of the same parents. It also accounts for ancestry being erased in successive generations. Due to this Genetic drift, if Warren's paternal grandmother was genetically 100% Native American and her other three grandparents were entirely of European stock, then Warren's DNA test could have been expected to show she had between 0% and 34% Native American ancestry (had she stated that she had black African ancestry, rather than Native American, many who currently ridicule her for claiming Native American ancestry might apply the One-drop rule instead; a result of blacks having no treaty rights or ancestral claims to the land of the United States). Consequently, while it might be accurate to say that between 0.098 percent and 3 percent of Elizabeth Warren's genome is Native American, this cannot be assumed for her ancestry. Genetic drift generally works to erase the smaller part genetic heritage, so that it can be assumed that Warren's Native American ancestry is higher than the DNA test revealed, and possibly substantially larger. Most Native American tribes, however, do not rely on a biological definition of tribal identity.

It is not clear why this was reverted. As instructed, I will wait 24 hours before re-instating the text. Aodhdubh (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no 24 hour rule. You inserted a completely unsourced addition that appeared to be original research. The edit summary undoing you ,explained this by pointing you to WP:OR. If you had read the link you should have understood why you were undone. Your edit has been challenged. Unless there is consensus to include it, it stays out, and I agree with its removal. Meters (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Meters, I think the "24 hour rule" the user is referring to is WP:1RR. If the user is going to merely wait 24 hours to reinsert the material to just barely skirt around 1RR, that's still a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition to WP:OR, it appears to be a WP:COATRACK because it's focusing on DNA testing, not Warren. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The material is actually interesting, and could be included if an RS stated it specifically about this situation. Otherwise, it's WP:SYNTH even if sourced. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the poster's statement that the DNA percentage does not necessarily accurately reflect the ancestry percentage, but the article never makes that claim, and I have absolutely no idea how the poster came up with a maximum of 34% Native American DNA if one grandparent were Native American.
OK, 1RR would explain that comment. This is unsourced, WP:OR, and contested. WP:BRD is in play. Meters (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Aodhdubh, you have three editors in this section who object to you reinserting that material. Unless you can develop a consensus that supports its inclusion, do not reinsert, even after 24 hours have passed. That's a manipulation of WP:1RR that will not be tolerated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, if you ever intend to wait 24hr to get around 1RR, don’t announce it in advance as you’re admitting to gaming the restriction.Face-smile.svg In any case, this article is also under Enforced BRD. O3000 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The test showed she had Native American ancestry between 6 and 10 generations ago. That reflects the uncertainty that you mention. It is however consistent with her claim that she has Native American ancestry between 6 and 7 generations ago. TFD (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019[edit]

Fix typo (minor) in the introduction: Change "Some commentators describe her poisition as left-wing populism" to "Some commentators describe her position as left-wing populism" Patounia (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by User:Jspiegler. DannyS712 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Political info removed[edit]

The following was deleted with the note that it is not appropriate for this article:

A long critic of President Trump, at her opening rally Warren called Trump a "symptom of a larger problem [that has resulted in] a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."

I re-added it since it is quite appropriate and normal. See for example Bernie Sanders or many other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you feel free to overrule deletions of your edits, but you delete essentially every edit having to do with Warren's ancestry. BTW, it's not "A long critic," unless you think Warren is "long." It's "A longtime critic." Ebw343 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to be so snarky re my "long" mistake. It obviously should have read longtime and you could have fixed it as done by another editor rather than to try to belittle me. Also, actually I've only made a total of two edits re her ancestry since last October. Gandydancer (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Also, actually I've only made a total of two edits re her ancestry since last October." But on the talk page you have played the "consensus" card many times to prevent proposed edits, supported by a majority of editors, from being made.Ebw343 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
But on the talk page you have played the "consensus" card many times to prevent proposed edits, supported by a majority of editors, from being made. I don't know what that means but LOL, you are very funny. Gandydancer (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Surprise appearance[edit]

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)