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
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

Progressive? American Left seems to reject her use of this title.[edit]

A number of sources reject Elizabeth Warren's use of the identifier "progressive" and instead identify her more closely with the centrist (neo)liberal factions of the Democratic Party, and she is not a member of the Progressive Caucus.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The article should be updated to reflect that "progressive" is at best a disputed self-identification with her being repudiated by a number of American progressives. Meow the Kitty (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You've cited several opinion pieces, generally from (at best) minor sources (The Grayzone does not appear to be a reliable source?) From these sources, we could add that some progressives challenge Warren's "street cred" there - they don't appear to justify calling it a "disputed self-identification." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Which progressives? Saying "some progressives challenge her street cred" is a WP:WEASEL problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Robinson, Nathan (24 Nov 2019). "Progressives, trust your gut: Elizabeth Warren is not one of us". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 Nov 2019.
  2. ^ "Opinion: Elizabeth Warren is not a progressive". The Eastern Echo. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  3. ^ Toback, Jeremy (2019-09-12). "THE LEGITIMIZATION MACHINE: ELIZABETH WARREN". Medium. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  4. ^ "Elizabeth Warren's Foreign Policy is Not Progressive". Splice Today. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  5. ^ French, Lauren. "Warren won't speak at Progressive Caucus retreat". POLITICO. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  6. ^ Norton, Ben (2019-11-20). "Elizabeth Warren endorses Trump's economic war on Venezuela, then soft-pedals far-right Bolivia coup". The Grayzone. Retrieved 2019-11-26.

Can you use a wiki as a reference?;e.g DOOMfan163 (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No section for Warren's long list of lies?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a Controversy section, given the large amount of scandals she has had involving statements she has made that range from extremely questionable to outright lies? And why do we not say what percent Native American she is? This information is super hard to find...almost like there's a PR campaign to hide the figure. There is mention the cookbook where she called herself Cherokee, but not the fact that she plagiarized recipes from NYT??? What's going on here??? Can anyone else see how suspicious this is? Mbsyl (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reliable external source detailing her “list of lies”, and has someone else discussed this list in a reliable source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC) how about this SmokeyJoe? its not perfect, but its a good start. Mbsyl (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not a list. Wikipedia must not be the first to compile the criticisms as a list; if it did Wikipedia would become the leading source for it, and Wikipedia must follow, not lead. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That's an opinion piece, so we could at best portray it as the opinion of the author; we can't cite an opinion piece for statements of fact. And obviously we can't devote a section to an opinion piece, either. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Mbsyl, I don't see the need for a "controversy" section and I agree with SmokeyJoe's point. (See also WP:CRIT.) The article contains an entire section on the Native American issue, and its coverage of that issue has been substantially improved over the past year. The fact that Sen. Warren's DNA test found a high likelihood of a Native American ancestor is mentioned; I don't think a specific percentage is needed, and readers can do the math if they want to. You are right that the article doesn't say that she plagiarized the recipes in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook. The controversy surrounding Sen. Warren's claim that she has been a victim of discrimination based on pregnancy is mentioned in the article on her 2020 presidential campaign, and I don't believe it's significant enough to be worth mentioning here. Regarding the fuzzy math surrounding her health care proposal, that has been a major issue in her presidential campaign and ought to be mentioned in the article on that topic. I am not sure what other material you have in mind, but if it is significant and it is reliably sourced, you can certainly add it and see what other editors think. SunCrow (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Mbsyl, WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS are discouraged because, as SmokeyJoe says, they become catch-all COATRACKS of POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In case this hasn't been decided, I STRONGLY object to a "Warren's long list of lies" section. You Russians have to be a good deal more subtle if you want to throw the American election again. I don't like her, BTW, I support Biden. VerdanaBold 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pow Wow recipe[edit]

Closing per Acroterion's comment below, as the OP should have expected from "an extremely corrupt, largely left wing, elitist propaganda network". ―Mandruss  00:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My edit regarding Warren's plagiarism of a recipe was removed with no explanation given. Anyone want to explain? Mbsyl (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Do you have anyone citing a copyright violation of a recipe? Did the book claim that any of the contributors invented the recipes instead of having them handed down or hearing about them? Think about it. Why would anyone use a term like "plagiarism" related to a recipe? What is your point in including such an accusation? O3000 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No, it was explained. What source says it was plagiarized? None of the currently-cited sources say that. Your edit was a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
O3000 - please AGF. i don't understand your logic behind thinking that a recipe can't be plagiarized. you are asking the wrong questions. the real question is, does an RS say she did it. I provided a link that says she did it. If you are saying its not RS, that's another issue. Northbysouth - perhaps none of the sources say it because my source was deleted???????? it seems you might be new to this, so i suggest you hang back and learn a little more before getting involved with BLP. you already broke the 2 reverts in 1 day rule, so you should be temporarily suspended soon, unless that rule is selectively enforced. i was suspended the very first time i did it... Mbsyl (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier to assume good faith if your edit history doesn't make it look as if you were hired to insert dirt into left-wing BLPs, and if it didn't include things like this[1]. My suggestion, if you want to continue to edit BLPs on Wikipedia, is to carefully read WP:BLP, and hold it's provisions to heart. LK (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Neither The Federalist nor an opinion column by a conservative columnist in the NY Post are reliable sources for factual claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof how many large publications must implicate themselves in a libel conspiracy before we think that maybe there's a reason that Warren never refuted these claims? the plagiarism and the source of the plagiarized material are both published. this isn't controversial IMO. i don't like Breitbart, but there's no way an established media company would be dumb enough to say she wrote a "word-for-word" copy of someone's recipe without there being proof of that. how about this...can we say that she has been accused and has not denied it?Mbsyl (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
i just typed out a really long response to you LK but it didn't go through because the other person had posted. is there any way to get back what i said? i can't find it. Mbsyl (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
i am guessing it is gone..that sucks. suffice to say, if you don't want to AGF, then give me a chance to prove you wrong and don't just say you don't really care enough to verify your claims after you have made them. lets talk on skype or something sometime if you really believe i am a paid conservative shill. here's something i think you can use to see i'm not conservative. go to the end of ralph nader's most recent noam chomsky interview and see that he mentions buying 10 books in exchange for him doing 20 minutes of video call for the book group. i can send you a picture of me with 8 of that book. and then i want an apology from you and i want an admin to warn you about AGF like always happens to me any time i don't AGF. i guess because its beyond imagination that someone can be very critical of antifa and not be a russian trollbot. even though the biggest anarchist intellectual in the world (the aforementioned Noam Chomsky) says antifa are the greatest gift the far right could ask for. Mbsyl (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Federalist is plainly a WP:BIASED source, which means their opinion that something related to one of their ideological opponents is a major scandal has less weight, at least in the absence of more mainstream secondary coverage. And the New York Post is both a low-quality source in general, and that cite is an opinion piece, so it certainly doesn't qualify. This is not WP:BLP-quality sourcing for something so negative and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
i agree they aren't good sources, but that doesn't mean you can't trust them about something like this. i think they are reliable in that they won't commit blatant libel with something that is so easy to verify as being false. imagine if they made this up...these are 2 published pieces we are talking about it - the cook book and the original recipe. it would take no effort to prove that they were reckless and libelous in reporting this if this was somehow made up. it is honestly beyond my understanding how you think this could not be real, despite the subpar sources. Mbsyl (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kinda funny. Both the sources say that she plagiarized the recipe from Pierre Franey. Only the 1979 article by Franey says he would make it at the behest of Henri Soulé, who died 13 years earlier. And we don’t know whether Soulé developed it. That’s how it goes with recipes. I often look up recipes and find many identical versions. (And these weren't identical.) She never claimed to have developed the recipe. Indeed, she said it was handed down. Who knows how she got it or who developed it. Ahh, Breitbart knows.:) Seriously, this is not the kind of stuff we put in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
okay that is fair enough. i hadn't considered that extremely remote possibility that someone else perhaps plagiarized the recipe and gave it to her word for word. Mbsyl (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(restart indent) Ask your mom to show you her old recipe file cards some day. Lots of different handwriting. Asking your hostess or host for recipes was a typical compliment to pre-computer group dinners. Warren wasn't trying to pass herself off as a gourmet cook and recipe inventor; she was just sharing some recipes she had learned to cook as a way to help her cousin expand a cookbook. You have found a couple of partisan oped sources that call Warren's sharing these recipes "plagiarism." Per 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." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Or ask your mom if she has any old cookbooks compiled and sold by church groups as money making projects. I cherish my vintage Minnesota Ely Women's Cookbook and still use it from time to time. Or, ask Garrison Keillor about Minnesota Lutheran ladies use of Campbell's Soup in the recipes that they passed around and entered in their church cookbook, where a can of soup, especially mushroom, was used as the "universal binder", in Minnesota hot dish recipes. Nobody cared then (or now) where they got those recipes from. Face-smile.svg Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sources are fairly easy to come by.[2][3][4][5] It is widely accepted she did plagiarize the recipes in that Pow Wow Chow cook book. It comes down to a weight issue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, crappy refs are easy to come by, such as those that you are providing. And please, keep in mind that this is a BLP where we need to be extra careful about what we use, not less. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Politifact, The Hill, and Washington Post are not crappy refs. It is honestly concerning that you would say that. Wow. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not WaPo, it is an opinion column in WaPo. Politifact said nothing about "plagiarism". The Hill article was about an accusation by Trump, Jr. based on something from The Daily Mail. "Wow" did you say? O3000 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Opinion column still a RS obviously, you are right politifact did not say plagiarism it said appear to have been copied lets not be pedantic here, and the hill says appear to be similar, word-for-word, to recipes published by a French cook in The New York Times and other publications around the same time. So yeah, all RS and all pointing to the same thing. Wow indeed. Again as I said before it is not a question if they were plagiarized, it is a question of weight for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you have completely missed the gist of these articles. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree to disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This has been discussed again and again and fortunately editors have used good judgement and agreed that the so-called recipe plagiarism is not appropriate for this or any other BLP as far as that goes. So it is good to know that the Lutheran Ladies Cook Book recipe submitters, or in this case the Friends of the Museum Cook Book recipe submitters, can sleep without fear of lawsuits...of which I've never heard of despite the thousands of recipes in these sorts of recipe books. Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Not a BLP issue, it is a due weight issue. I am not even saying it needs to be in there. But let's not kid ourselves and say it did not happen or get coverage by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't see where anyone said that it did not happen. However, you are not correct to say that the links you gave were RS for this issue. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

When you said so-called recipe plagiarism it seems like you are saying it did not happen. Apologies if I am reading that incorrectly. If you feel they are not RS, would you rather I take it to RSN? PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sources are saying Trump, Jr., The Daily Mail, an opinion column, etc. call it plagiarism. It certainly fits no definition I've ever heard. She may have copied and added (there were five additional ingredients), or her grandma may have copied and altered. But, when did she claim this as her own work? Quite the opposite, she claimed they were passed down. What did she gain from this nefarious incident? And the claim is interesting as it states she copied it from Franey. But, Franey copied it from Soulé. So, is Franey a plagiarist? This is all so trivial. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not saying it might not be trivial that she plagiarized the recipes. Just that it happened. Also when she submitted them and signed her name to them is when she claimed them as her own work. The gain part is not relevant to what plagiarism is. None of the sources talk about the grandmother so that is not relevant here either. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps none of YOUR sources claim she got them from kin. And no, submitting them in no way is a claim that it his her own work. Cookbooks nearly always include recipes that are not the work of the book's author. I cooked from a NYTimes cookbook this weekend. By and large, the author did not create the recipes, and almost none included any original source. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, add the sources then. More sources the better, otherwise it is just WP:OR. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not adding more sources to something that is trivia. And, I'm not adding the word plagiarism to the article on Julia Child although much of what she put in her cookbooks was from recipes she picked up. O3000 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
putting your name on a book of recipes that you acknowledge are not all your original work, which i believe Childs does, is different from putting your name on a recipe and not saying that it is not your creation. i don't see why the creation of a food recipe is any less plagiarizable than any other creative work, so long as it is not an extremely simple or obvious recipe. if anything, the fact that all she added was her name, including zero creativity, puts this at the peak of plagiarism. songs are passed down by families too. if my dad taught me to play Smells Like Teen Spirit, I get to put my name on it in a compilation book of local songs in my community? if someone in her family did "pass this down" to her, she should have put that person's name on the recipe, but instead she took the credit for herself. Mbsyl (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
No recipes are entirely the work of any author. Your claim that there was "zero creativity" ignores the fact that the recipe had nine ingredients as opposed to the supposed plagiarized article that had five. Your claim that she took credit for the recipe herself is (how can I say this politely) imaginative. Your comparison to a Nirvana grunge breakout song that made millions is absurd beyond... O3000 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
the articles i read say it was taken 'word for word' from the original recipe. i didn't see that she had added things. my mistake. i still think i would get in trouble if i turned something like that in with my name on it in grade school, much less as an adult. what about her other recipe, which Daily Mail said "A third recipe for Herbed Tomatoes appears to be lifted directly from a recipe in a 1959 Better Homes and Gardens magazine, down to Mrs Warren's instructions for how to enjoy the dish." Mbsyl (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This obviously doesn't belong in the article. The intent is to try to smear Warren. Warren submitted a recipe that was in her family. That recipe happened to originate elsewhere. This isn't intentional plagiarism, obviously. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Obviously you are completely wrong on all accounts. The question is if there is weight for it's inclusion. Not if it happened or if it was plagiarism, those are both established by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What happened? She submitted to a kin's book a recipe that she got from another kin. She made no money from it. She did not submit it for a grade or as a thesis. RS do not establish this as plagiarism. A mountain out of a thought that a mole once had about a hill. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What happened? She submitted text someone else wrote and had it published under her name. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she never claimed she wrote the recipe. And nearly all recipes in nearly all recipe books originated with someone other than the author. O3000 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Great get a RS to say that, your personal original research is not enough. Also she submitted it under her name. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:SKYISBLUE O3000 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLUE PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
what is it about adding food to food that is so difficult that apparently recipes are being plagiarized en masse? what is up with all of these recipes that are being copied "word for word" and only having the author's name changed? in my experience, people like to play around with food recipes and add their own flair. i would really like to see a link explaining this phenomenon of widescale word-for-word plagiarism of entire recipes. i can understand adding a few things and calling it your own, as she did with the Crab Omelet apparently, but a total copy? i guess recipes are cut out of books and pasted into scrapbooks sometimes, and then you forget where they came from and they become yours? i'm trying to understand your thinking here. Mbsyl (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1.) She never claimed she created the recipe. That is false. Indeed, she claimed the opposite -- that it was passed down to her.
2.) The word "plagiarism" that you keep repeating in violation of WP:BLP is based on Trump Jr. repeating a deprecated source, The Daily Mail and other seriously flawed sources.
3.) No one knows the authorship of the original recipe.
4.) This was a charity book for a museum.
5.) Can you name one injured party or complainant for this Earth-shaking crime documented in reliable sources? O3000 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
it was my understanding that she put her name on the recipes, indicating ownership. my use of the word plagiarism is based on my understanding of plagiarism. plagiarism detection was my specialty in journalism school. i understand what it is. i have gotten at least 1 person fired for it. the original authorship for Warren's recipe is shown clearly in the Daily Mail article...."'Heat about one-half teaspoon butter in the pan. Add about one-third cup of the egg mixture. Let cook until firm and lightly brown on the bottom, stirring quickly with a fork until the omelet starts to set. When set slip a large pancake turner under the omelet starts to set. When set, slip a large pancake turner under the omelet and turn it quickly to the other side. Let cook about five seconds. Remember, you want to produce a flat omelet, not a typical folded omelet. Turn the omelets out flat onto a sheet of was paper. Continue making omelets until all the egg mixture is used,' Mrs Warren wrote.

The only difference in the recipes is that Mr Franey said the egg mixture should be 'lightly browned.'" - Daily Mail. i am still curious to hear how you imagine this all playing out in a way that was not plagiarism. warren's family member tears the recipe out of a publication or copies it down onto their own paper, and then warren changes a couple of words from that and calls it her own? Mbsyl (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note: is there any consensus of reliable references that uses the word "plagiarism" here, and does it involve appropriate weight in a BLP? If not, this discussion needs to be closed as an inappropriate BLP-violating forum. Personal analysis is not admissible. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Everyone I know who cooks shares recipes they've been given or that they found. This woman is running for President! I don't think I've ever seen so many words expressed over such a trivial matter. This thread should be archived. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Do they have it published under their name as their recipes and then have RS talk about it? I mean probably not right? Not saying it's not trivial but certainly a different ballpark than you talking with your friends. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pocahontas as a slur[edit]

@Usernameunique: has removed the recently removed word "slur" as a description of the name Pocahontas. This is widely regarded as a racist slur, as are many such "nicknames". I cannot revert due to 1RR. We are an encyclopedia and should be better than that. (BTW, I just tried to read the "reviews" to the book on Amazon and had to stop because of the gross racism.) O3000 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What book is that? Sounds interesting. VerdanaBold 03:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a slur, it's a nickname. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral. Calling it a slur is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020[edit]

There is no source for "Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only candidates using only grassroots funding." I would like to see a "citation needed" or have a source for this statement. 2604:3D08:2C80:EE00:74C8:7A10:216B:10A0 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done It's sourced to the LATimes. You can try to find sources that contradict. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation[edit]

Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Consumer Czar" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Consumer Czar. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Warren's public education teaching[edit] (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)I feel like the statement that "Warren taught children with disabilities for a year in a public school" is somewhat inaccurate as reporting has shown that she was a part time speech pathologist at Riverdale for 74 days for one school year. The original board meeting notes have been reported at this website And there is reporting of the information in several locations including \

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020[edit]

Change this sentence to include Tulsi Gabbard - otherwise, it is a lie: "Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only leading 2020 candidates who are running their campaigns entirely on grassroots cash." Wigbate (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Also, you will also need to cite at least one source to support your requested edit. - MrX 🖋 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Wigbate, Tulsi is not a "leading" candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. There's always a good way to erase Tulsi. You all are no better than corporate news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigbate (talkcontribs) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)