Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Recent reversions of Native American heritage controversy

I want to suggest improvements to the versions presently being reverted back and forth.

  • The AALS directory is not primarily a database for recruiting minority professors.
  • Steeletrap's "Warren, who is not enrolled in any Native American tribe,[70][71] defended her self-identification as a racial minority by asserting that she is Cherokee, and later, Delaware.[72]" is not supported by footnote 72. Also, the phrase describing Warren is POV.
  • Steeletrap's "Members of Warren's family issued conflicting statements on whether or not they believed their family has distant Native heritage.[74]" is vastly better than the gossipy she said, they said in the version she has reverted.
  • There are far too many footnotes! There only value is to alert veteran Wikipedia readers that the section has been contentious.

My alternative:

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995. Harvard Law School had publicized her minority status in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper during the 2012 election. Her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, speculated that she had fabricated a Native American ancestry to gain advantage in employment, but former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring. Warren, whose claim to Native American heritage is based on family lore, responded that she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry in order to meet others with a similar background. However, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Warren apparently did not attend Native events. Members of Warren's family issued conflicting statements on whether or not they believed their family has distant Native heritage. Some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren's claim to Cherokee identity, as well as the effect public acceptance of her claims could have on legal issues of tribal sovereignty and the Cherokee's legal rights to determine their own citizenship. Warren’s 2014 autobiography devoted a section to the allegations, describing them as untrue and hurtful.

Well, that's not a polished paragraph, but it's a start. YoPienso (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry bud but you don't know how to write. Your paragraph is atrociously organized (e.g. you transition from "minority" to "Native American" without explanation) and has no clear topic sentence. Incidentally, the AALS directories have may purposes; one of them was (in the pre-Internet days) to serve as a database for minority law professors. The WaPo source establishes that it was used as a database for hiring. Steeletrap (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Steeltrap: "topic sentences" are beloved of middle school and high school teachers, but they are not particularly a hallmark of good writing, much less encyclopedic writing. The role of the AALS directory for hiring is necessarily slight in the case of a professor of Warren’s prominence, especially when it comes to Harvard Law School, which hardly needs to scour directories to find potential candidates; in point of fact, it played no role. I'm not sure that YoPienso is your “bud;” are you? In any case, both versions are too long. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Every major manual of style that addresses the issue of topic sentences, including CMS and The Elements of Style, advocates using them. Steeletrap (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This alleged role of the AALS directory belongs in the AALS article, not the Elizabeth Warren article. I'm also getting real tired of the numerous sections being created about the same discussion, as if hoping that the old discussions will get archived and we can discount the arguments made in them. ― Padenton|✉   20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Steeletrap, yes, it's atrociously written, which I acknowledged less humbly as "Well, that's not a polished paragraph, but it's a start." I realized I didn't have time to finish what I'd started, but isn't that what crowd-sourcing is all about? That said, I did some purposeful reorganization to keep the timeline in order and like subjects contiguous.
Topic sentences are extremely important; academics "read" whole books by skipping everything else.
Padenton; imho the sections are unwieldy when they get too long, "too," of course, being subjective. But they're still right there for us to refer back to as needed. You are also free to ignore any section.
En fin, my main thoughts are in the bullet points above. YoPienso (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
About point number three, "Members of Warren's family issued conflicting statements". Let's phrase it so that it clearly reflects the sources: (i) Warren's immediate family all back her claim about native ancestry. (ii) Some of her distant cousins also recall hearing the same stories. (iii) Other distant cousins do not have any knowledge of native ancestry in her family. It's misleading (and untrue, given the common understanding of 'family') to state that some members of her family disagree with her. Frankly, I think (iii) above is too trivial to mention in her bio. Verify from the source here. LK (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Saying some of her cousins recall the stories is sufficient, unless some actually deny such heritage. HGilbert (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well and have, in the past, said the same thing - only to be ignored by Steeltrap. IMO Steeltrap's behavior has become extremely disruptive for this article. Typically once the warring is over s/he will be back in a few weeks to stir things up all over again. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Such behavior would be extremely inappropriate. I trust it will not recur. HGilbert (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Except it already has. Multiple times. ― Padenton|✉   14:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually on the verge of giving up. The current version--while still remarkably biased in its failure to note, for example, the nature of the directories, and the fact that Warren (conveniently) stopped listing herself in them right away she got tenure--is better than the preposterously biased/incompetently written previous version. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"conveniently" is WP:OR and speculation. This is not Infowars.com. ― Padenton|✉   16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: there is nothing illegitimate about leveraging one's advantages, and minority heritage is such an advantage in US academic contexts these days. The only thing that would make the situation even the slightest bit problematic would be if that heritage were falsified.
@Steeletrap: IMHO, gracefully acceding to a clear consensus of opinion would show some maturity of judgment and capacity to work within WP decision-making structures. We've all been there. HGilbert (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
So basically, anyone can go batshit on their applications to college/grad school, and they should face no consequences unless their minority claim is "falsified." That is to say: Someone who (like Warren) has white parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, can identify as "minority" based on an unproven theory that they are 1/32nd black. Basically, the only person who cannot identify as a racial minority is someone who has documentary proof that they have no minority ancestors going back thousands of years. Mind=blown. The Warren case is going to lead to a dramatic increase in racial fraud for affirmative action purposes. Steeletrap (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)This is getting to be a problem with you Steeletrap:
  1. "anyone can go batshit on their applications to college/grad school"It's really none of our business what anyone else puts on their applications, and the only reason you're here complaining is because Elizabeth Warren is now (20 years later) a prominent politician. Wikipedia is not your soapbox.
  2. "and they should face no consequences unless their minority claim is "falsified."" We live in the United States of America and our justice system is founded on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, so yes, I feel quite firmly that they should face no consequences if their minority claim isn't proven to be false, even for politicians I disagree with. Sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for the SJW crowd.
  3. It's also not our job as wikipedia editors to apply those consequences to her. It's our job to explain the controversy in neutral terms without undue weight.
  4. "The Warren case is going to lead to a dramatic increase in racial fraud for affirmative action purposes." This is nothing but speculation, and she is not at fault for anyone's actions but her own.
Understand yet? ― Padenton|✉   21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is still America, where all sorts of people have complicated and nuanced backgrounds, where everyone hears family stories around the dinner table, and where not all of those family stories are possible to verify. Whether or not one editor's mind is blown, and whether or not they anticipate “racial fraud” (whatever that is), has -- like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) -- nothing to do with the case, but is simply a WP:FORUM about WP:OR. What is pertinent here is the evident avidity that Warren should “face consequences” inflicted by Wikipedia; this is not Wikipedia's purpose and it's not a permissible use of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes; there are many people who are not raised within a minority culture, yet have some degree of minority heritage. They have the right to indicate, but not to forge, this descent. (If universities were interested in the mathematical proportion of the heredity or the extent of the cultural influence, they would ask these questions.) HGilbert (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that someone who is mixed or 'looks white' or was raised by white people cannot identify as a minority. Congratulations on defeating that straw man. What I am saying is that someone who has all-white parents, grandparents, great-grandparents--and no proof of any minority ancestry whatever--should identify as "white" rather than "racial minority."
Alas, the censors here have won. Congratulations. Steeletrap (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Except all your evidence for their ancestors being all-white is that they "look white", and you still have no evidence whatsoever suggesting that her listing as a minority was done in bad faith. ― Padenton|✉   22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No. My evidence is that they 1) look completely white and 2) identified as white on their census forms. Her claim to minority status is preposterous and offensive. Steeletrap (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Steeletrap: Identified as white on their census forms...in the early 20th century and late 19th? When to be Native American meant persecution? That's your evidence? It does not matter what you find offensive, again, this is wikipedia, not your soapbox. You are wearing on our patience. And I think many of the editors here will agree with me when I say I am tired of you going away for a few weeks and then making edits back to your POV-version against consensus, starting this same damn discussion all over again― Padenton|✉   23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Not true, Padenton. They're all listed as white on the census forms, including the exact ancestors she claimed were Cherokee. AND no tribe claims her. AND she kept up the claims after she was disproven. For a public figure, and elected representative and law professor, it's relevant. You can scream "OR" all you want, but that's documented fact and sourced. Your claiming this is personal is incivil. It's not personal at all. I don't know her. Your attacks on other editors are inappropriate and violations of wikiquette. You've been warned before, been redacted and apologized, yet you keep doing it.[1][2] - CorbieV☊☼ 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: As I said on my talk page: Funny...I don't see a warning anywhere, or an apology. Feel free to report me to ANI, and you can explain to other administrators your repeated attempts to inject negative unsourced POV into a BLP against consensus. See you there. This does look personal, judging from your repeated accusations and repeated attempts to go against consensus, hoping that those that disagreed with you before will have stopped watching the page. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. ― Padenton|✉   23:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Padenton, Corbie also made baseless accusations at me, and said he was warning me or would get me banned over this talk page. Popish Plot (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The Cherokee are the most documented of all Nations. If she had even distant ancestry something would have shown up. It didn't. She has no relatives listed on any of the roles. None of them. Clearly the dominant voices are the ones who will determine what is said, minority voices don't matter even when it effects their community directly. I get it. I may not like it but it's quite common. What is not okay is people who are not Cherokee or even indian culturally stating what is acceptable and making foolish claims about census records etc. Honestly, her ancestors living in Indian Territory listing themselves as white and not being listed on the roles is an enormous blinking indicator that these people were white. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is all WP:OR. If you don't have a reliable source verifying these claims, it does not matter. ― Padenton|✉   01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and WP:OR in its most offensive guise -- "Warren’s ancestors must be white because I think they look white!" Census reports are irrelevant: kids don’t look up antique census forms, nor do Wikipedians. Kids get told stories about their ancestors. End of story. However, the persistent POV pushing and now edit-warring by those openly seeking to punish Warren is unseemly and clearly against policy, and today is also getting very close (or well beyond) WP:3RR. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to this?

In an NPR article about who "Who Gets To Claim Status As A Person Of Color?", that talks about Warren, Camille Charles, a professor of sociology at University of Pennsylvania, is quoted arguing that "ethnic heritage should be determined by each individual, the way the Census allows."[3] Should I add this to the article? Darx9url (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is about racial identification in general, and it uses Warren's identification as a prominent example. In writing the article, the author cites Charles talking about racial identification in general; she does not appear to be referring to the Warren case in particular. Educating the reader on the issues and ideas pertaining to racial identification would be appropriate in the "race" article, but without explicit linkage to the Warren issue, inculding such opinions in the Warren article is inappropriate in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
She's just 1/32 native american which isn't much so of course she doesn't look native american. Why can't people use common sense to realize that and then drop it as a controversy? Popish Plot (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, Bill John Baker, chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee and looks white (at least to me). Darx9url (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah . . . could be Warren's brother. Just use common sense. Popish Plot (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry, just could not resist...[4] Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

I heard someone say that Warren earned a high salary as Harvard Law professor. I looked at the Wikipedia entry and I didn't find it mentioned. I looked around and found that the salary in question was $347,933 in 2009. Could someone please add this to the article. I know that there was some controversy about this being used as an election issue, but I think enough time has passed that it's now appropriate to mention it. The link is http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/04/27/us_sen_brown_warren_to_release_tax_returns/

73.25.235.169 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Harvard professors (and probably professors at most top universities) earn high salaries. How is this notable? There's no need to include trivia. Darx9url (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I believe that it's notable because a salary may reflect a person's status in society and the background that forms their opinions as a leader. As to the trivia, there seems to be a lot of superfluous stuff in there now. For example, that she worked for Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft as a summer intern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.25.235.169 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'd need a reliable source connecting Warren's opinions with her salary then. Otherwise this constitutes WP:Original research HGilbert (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection has expired, but please address the WP:OR issue mentioned above before making any edits to the article. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. More editors support version A than oppose it, but not by a sufficient majority to call the discussion settled. There seems to be room for compromise (perhaps something with the length of version A and some of the important points of versions B or C?). --GRuban (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is dispute over what, and how much coverage, about an election controversy there should be in this BLP article (rather than the article on the election itself.). See the ongoing discussion above (and in the archives) that has been carrying on for some months.

Please give your opinion and comments on: Which version if any should be on this page? How long should the section be? LK (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the above. (edit 19:11) This RfC is flawed and should be withdrawn and perhaps re-submitted with "yes" or "no" questions and not a flawed multiple choice question.(end edit) Expecting editors to select one of your three proposed static versions of an entire sub-section on this multi-faceted issue is inappropriate. Has this issue received additional coverage and attention here? Sure has. Has it gotten out of hand? I don't think it has, and things are working as per process and as intended. Furthermore, your rolling back the section to an arbitrary point of your choosing and expecting editors to not to change it (potentially for a month) as per your edit comment until the results of your RfC is also inappropriate and unwarranted. Marteau (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A - This makes the most sense given that it's a contentious section and we're dealing with a BLP. Any proposed changes to the stable version should be discussed here in order to see where the consensus lies. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Version A It's also the right length. I'm not saying that stuff from the other versions can't be included, but any speculation or synthesis should be thrown out, and the whole thing shouldn't be so long. Darx9url (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A - for length and focus. Move to 2012 campaign, where it belongs. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A, B, or C - I'm fine with any currently provided choices. @Marteau:If you have such a problem with it, I doubt anyone would have an issue if you added another version. @MarkBernstein: It's still probably appropriate to have a section on it here, though the interested editors here should go there and make sure someone hasn't attempted to screw up the NPOV there as well. ― Padenton|✉   14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version B or C - Version A is poorly written--lacking, for example, a clear topic sentence--and obscures the three essential facts of the controversy. The three essential facts are that Warren 1) listed herself as a minority 2) in a directory used to recruit minority professors 3) despite having no documented minority ancestry. Version A falsely implies that she 'was listed' (perhaps against her will) as a minority rather than listed herself, and does not describe the nature of the directory. This ongoing controversy--which, in just the last week, garnered coverage in dozens of mainstream sources--deserves 2 or 3 paragraphs rather than just 1. In addition, for the reasons I stated in the Poorly Written Native American Section section I created above, A is so poorly written that even those who want to limit and censor discussion of the controversy should support rewriting it.Steeletrap (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment on process - I have no issue with starting an RfC, this has been mostly the same handful of editors that were here in previous discussions, I think we could use some fresh eyes on this issue. I do think LK's revert was unneeded. I'd be happy to hear arguments against the section's length WRT to WP:UNDUE, but though I have seen serious pov issues added to the section throughout the last few days, I do not see any in the version right now (very slightly modified from the one before the revert, ver C). ― Padenton|✉   16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE: (edit conflict) So I don't forget and need to add the ref back in again, I have edited the link for Version C. I changed it to the latest revision, the only difference between the two is that one of the refs got lost during all the moving stuff around. You can verify the difference between the Version C now and Version C before here: [5] ― Padenton|✉   16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version B or C, per Steeletrap, plus the content in the cited clause about her not attending Native events or discussing it, as in this version (let's call it Version D[6]): "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus,[70][71] did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.[70][71][72][73][73]. - CorbieV☊ 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended discussion
@CorbieVreccan: Hi Corbie, could you maybe provide a better source for those? I see citation 72 has this quote from Warren:

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.

and citation 73 says she missed a Harvard Native American event in 2012, but I don't see anything else showing she didn't attend Native events. Right now, that line implies that she never attended them, I see her admitting to stopping and I see one event she wasn't at (after she had stopped). As for "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus", this is a direct quote from citation 70. I might've missed it because I'm in a rush, but I don't see anything more than speculation here, which is inappropriate in a BLP. ― Padenton|✉   17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: Hey Padenton, while there have been some improvements since then (such as Steeletrap's clarifications that the directory only listed "minority" status, and spelling out the relationship to svoereignty issues[7], this is how the sourcing was before it got all rearranged:[8].

She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background.<ref name=ChabotHerald>{{cite web|last=Chabot |first=Hillary |url=http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends |title=Warren: I used minority listing to share heritage |publisher=BostonHerald.com |date=2012-05-02|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120503200317/http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends|archivedate=2012-05-03 |accessdate=2015-04-06}}</ref> Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus,<ref name="csm"/><ref name=ICTM/> did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.<ref name="csm"/><ref name=ICTM/><ref name=ChabotHerald/><ref name=PowWowHerald>{{cite web|last=Fee |first=Gayle |url=http://www.bostonherald.com/inside_track/inside_track/2012/05/elizabeth_warren_claims_native_american_roots_skips_harvard_powwow |title=Elizabeth Warren claims Native American roots, skips Harvard Powwow |publisher=BostonHerald.com |date=2012-05-08|accessdate=2015-04-06}}</ref><ref name=PowWowHerald/>

So, we've got Christian Science Monitor and the Herald, in addition to ICT (though csm is quoting an ICT reporter in one part of it). - CorbieV☊ 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: Yes, but that version still doesn't say more than an unattributed statement in the CSMonitor article of "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus". According to who? When was this? How do they know? ― Padenton|✉   23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: I don't know what additional background the CSM did in addition to those they quoted. As I noted further up,[9], Breitbart (I know) seems to be the only non-blog report that bothered to contact the Harvard Native group: "by Joel B. Pollak 7 May 2012. Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard." I know that Breitbart is usually not reliable, but if the CSM isn't, what is? These quotes are all from the Christian Science Monitor: Jonsson, Patrick (June 2, 2012). "Cherokees hammer Elizabeth Warren on ancestry claim ahead of Mass. party convention". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 9, 2015.

This week, Indian reporters say they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign as they sought clarification on why Ms. Warren was listed as a minority Native faculty by Harvard in the 1990s, even though she has no evidence to back that claim and apparently never sought out other Native Americans on campus.

While familial associations and claims of Native ancestry are common, actual tribal membership entails making legitimate family links to government “rolls” that date back to the 19th century and taking part in tribal life. By all accounts, Warren didn’t participate in Native American activities in Cambridge, although she did contribute several recipes to a cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow.”

Many Indians have asked why, if she wanted to meet people like her, didn’t she continue to list herself in these directories … attend Native functions at Harvard [or] … reach out to hundreds of Native faculty around the country,” writes Indian Country reporter Rob Capriccioso. “Warren has now also failed to connect with American Indians through the Native media – which is sounding alarm bells for Native journalists.”

Warren’s campaign declined requests from Native reporters to interview the candidate this week even as Warren talked to the Globe and appeared on MSNBC.

- CorbieV☊ 00:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Version D but B or C would be tolerable per Steeletrap and CorbieVreccan.Indigenous girl (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A per MarkBernstein and Somedifferentstuff comments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue remains an factor in the current political environment, with many mainstream news and commentary sites citing it as it pertains to the upcoming presidential election and to speculations regarding her political future. Its affect on her political life is by no means limited to a previous election but extends to current events and is a currently relevent issue in an upcoming election. Removing coverage here and limiting it arbitrarily to a sub article on the history of a previous election history would be a tacit and unwarranted denial of its modern day relevance. Marteau (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me add WP:RECENTISM then too. Again, far too much weight on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased RFC question

The clear effect--and probably the purpose--of this straw vote is to split the votes of the anti-censorship contingent, who all oppose the censorship that would be imposed by alternative A but who (on largely stylistic grounds) have small differences of opinion as to what the section should look like. Since section A--the pro-censorship section--is so radically different than sections B-D, and since the proponents of the three alternative sections largely agree on what the section should look like, the question should instead be: Do you favor or oppose section A. Steeletrap (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC) An RfC is not needed to determine which of sections B-D should be adopted; proponents of each of these sections have worked with each other in a collegial and productive fashion. The RfC is only needed to settle the intractable and deeply polarized dipute between proponents and opponents of the 'stable' (i.e. pro-censorship) Section A.

RfC: Do you favor keeping Section A?

  • I oppose Section A for the reasons stated above: It is incompetently written (it lacks a topic sentence and has no discernible structure or organization), and fails to clearly present the three main points of the controversy: namely, that Warren 1) listed herself as a racial minority in 2) a database used by law schools to recruit minorities despite 3) having no documented ancestry. Steeletrap (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose section A for Steeltraps reason. These RfC options were developed out-of-process with no input from any other editors. And I agree with Steeltrap that the questions would tend to split the vote in ways which are not neutral. Concensus should be whether given text should or should not be included, not whether one of three options should be included. This RfC subverts, for whatever reason, the usual concensus achieving procedures for no good reason other than one editor's whim and is completely inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose section A as insufficient coverage of the issue. The section, both here and in the campaign article, needs to cover the three main points outlined by Steeletrap, as well as at least touch on the minority (but sourced), Native concern about tribal sovereignty. Also agree with process concerns voiced by Marteau. - CorbieV☊ 22:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose user:Steeletrap disrupting this RfC --- I also find it inappropriate for you to post an edit summary such as this [10] --- Lastly, not long after receiving an edit warring warning [11] you go ahead and revert [12] user:LK while there is an ongoing RfC; not a wise move since you recently came off of a block [13] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not "disruption" but is, instead becoming specific. The multiple-choice question for this RfC is flawed and should never have been submitted. We should be deciding whether or not a certain given text should be included on a case-by-case basis, NOT which of three choices, each flawed in their own certain ways, one editor figures are reasonable options. This RfC should deal in binary "yes" or "nos" not a multiple choice exercise. Marteau (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You've made your point. And whatever your opinion is of how this RfC was started, it is irrelevant to the content discussion. As I said above, no one will care if you add your own versions to the list above. ― Padenton|✉   23:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The RfC asks us to choose "which version" (in the singular). It does not ask for us to select more than one, some have, but some have adhered to the question of the RfC and selected only one. This RfC is inadequate, sloppy, inappropriate and should be withdrawn and started over. Marteau (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Marteau, you're missing the point. The reason editors are choosing Version A is not necessarily because they think it's great, it's because that was the stable version of the article before various editors came along and started changing things. In order to determine consensus for those changes, we need to start from the stable version and work our way up, deciding what should be changed and what shouldn't, via discussion; there is no way around that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Section A is hardly "stable" when it has only been put in place by edit warring, and half of editors on this page think it amounts to censorship. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I must say I don't agree with this section. We shouldn't be narrowing it down based on yes or no answers. This would work better as a discussion with everyone choosing 1 or 2 of their favorite revisions and putting it in the list for discussion. ― Padenton|✉   23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - These two subsections are ridiculous. Calling one version "censorship" and disrupting an RfC like this is completely inappropriate. Deserves a serious trouting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Disrupting an RfC like this is indeed inappropriate, and in view of the record deserves (and will doubtless require) more than a trout. I observe that encyclopedia articles need not carry even one paragraph covering every single failed argument that an opponent raised in a futile campaign, now half-forgotten. The Checkers Speech merits only part of a paragraph in Nixon’s biography, and that scandal nearly ended his career; the Jeremiah Wright controversy isn't even mention in Obama's biography; the “McCain has a black child” canard -- probably the most analogous to this issue -- seems not to be mentioned at all in his article. Since we're discussing all options, I propose Option E: reduce this to no more than two sentences, run into the campaign section. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So you think criticizing someone for claiming she is a minority, in a form for minority recruitment, despite the fact that everyone in her family looks completely white and she has no documented minority ancestors, is akin to mocking McCain's child for being Bangladeshi? Mind=blown. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? The idea that someone can be 95% European and 5% Native American while looking "completely white" tells me you have no idea how genetics work. Get a clue already. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Genetics actually have nothing to do with it. It has to do with enrollment status http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=415&Itemid=626 You can't simply say you're from such and such Nation. That's not how it works. Senator Warren does not have status in any (Native American)Nation. She does not posses a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood. Both of those statements are fact. As others have stated this is a sovereignty issue. It is also a legal issue.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Where did she say she was from such and such nation? I want to see a WP:RS now. ― Padenton|✉   13:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Option E: reduce this to no more than two sentences, run into the campaign section (per Mark Bernstein, above) This is not the place to duke it out about Warren's heritage issues. The only place that this has become a major concern is right here in Wikipedia. We're supposed to reflect the majority outlook, not make it up on our own. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That this issue has recieved substantial coverage recently in the mainstream media as it pertains to the upcoming presidential election and discussions about her potential participation in it is an objective, demonstrable, undeniable fact. It is an issue of interest, and we make nothing "up on our own" by addressing that interest and by covering the issue appropriatly here, in her article. Giving it a scant two scant two sentences as you and Mark Bernstein advocate would be completely inappropriate; there is no way this issue can be properly handled here, as it should, in two sentences. Marteau (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're editing wikipedia because you want to affect a presidential election, you're in the wrong place. Issues of 'interest' are not notable, this is not a newspaper nor a tabloid. ― Padenton|✉   13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton:The editor to whom I replied, and others here, have advocated that this issue should be limited to two sentences and "run into" 2012 Campaign article. I bring up the fact that this is pertinent to the current presidential election, here and previous in this talk page, in order to make the point that this is a current issue, a factor in the current campaign, and extends beyond the 2012 campaign to the present day. Implying that there is something partisan about that is uncalled for and out of hand. Marteau (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Marteau: To be clear, I never said partisan. As I said above, most of the people here arguing for the longer (and more critical) version are liberals. The "right-wing" sources covering it recently appear limited to tabloids and pundits. But the problem is that it remains a minor issue, I find few if any reliable sources even briefly mentioning it in the last year. [14]. In fact, it's arguable that its only mentions are due to Jeb Bush accidentally checking off hispanic on a voter form once that's been in the news recently. Also, standard coverage from pundits and tabloids, which are not WP:RS ― Padenton|✉   15:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
She's claimed Cherokee. Over and over and over again. She doesn't have that right. "IV. Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens
Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native?
As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native.
There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe." http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ Indigenous girl (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's ridiculous we're debating whether the native american controversy should be 2/3 of the length of the full campaign section or fully as long as the full campaign section. Just because all the details are verifiable doesn't mean that they should be included. While I don't agree necessarily that the native american controversy should be only mentioned in two sentences, even option A is too long given it's minor significance. This is an encyclopedia entry: a controversy like this only plays a very, very minor role in Warren's life work, and option E (or something like it) is the way to go. BurritoSlayer (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is. Once editors pointed out valid concerns regarding the nature of the questions it should have been withdrawn and re-crafted. That it was not, but instead allowed to fester, is unfortunate. Marteau (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Strawpoll

It seems that, like before, discussion has died down without a clear outcome. So I propose a quick straw poll to judge consensus on this issue. I'ld like people to indicate via a short comment, whether they prefer something like the current version[15] (similar to A in the original RfC), something longer and more critical (similar to B or C above), or something much shorter (including perhaps nothing at all). Please keep your comment short, and restrict any discussion to the discussion section. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

!Votes

Something like the current version or A, or something shorter, is appropriate for this article. LK (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The 'stalled' RfC was inititated during a period of heated debate with the intention of addresing serious differences. Since then, things have calmed down, and editing has returned to some semblance of normalcy, and it seems to me any remaining differences of opinion can and should be handled in their usual way. I see no need to take any polls on this issue. Marteau (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2015 (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.

Birthplace

The question of birthplace was raised briefly in 2011, here. Oklahoma City is given in multiple sources that would seem to qualify as reliable. But one source already used in the article, this Boston Globe piece, clearly says her family was living in Norman at the time of her birth, and that they moved to OKC around the early 1960s, when she would have been roughly 11 to 13 years old (three years after James Garner's visit to Norman in "the late 1950s"). This is why she attended Northwest Classen High School in OKC.

So we have contradictory reliable sources, which isn't uncommon. The Globe piece has the advantage that it contains a lot of information from Warren herself, obviously obtained through one or more interviews with her. Surely the information about her birthplace came from her, and is she not a reliable primary source for her own birthplace?

It's possible they went to a hospital in OKC for her birth, but there's no reason to believe they did, and Norman had a perfectly good hospital in 1949 (est. 1946). The hospital is about a mile from where they lived in Norman, versus at least 20 miles to OKC. It's also possible her mother went into labor while they happened to be in OKC, but there's no reason to believe that happened either.

Even if the birthplace is left alone, the article completely omits her childhood in Norman, and that should be corrected using the Globe source.

Any comments on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please ping me if you reply, or drop me a note on my talk page. I have this watchlisted, but could easily miss it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed issues in this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Warren waiting tables

Gandydancer added "..and when she was 13 Warren started waiting tables at her Aunt's restaurant." immediately prior to a citation for 'The Unwinding'. In the context you have instantiated, the implication is that she did so in order to help her family's finances and are using "The Unwinding" for a source. Gandydancer, do you have a page number, or am I going to be required to peruse the entire book for it (my local library has a copy available)? The implication provided by the context is clear and unmistakable and it needs a proper citation. Marteau (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's from the Huff Post ref where it says:
Elizabeth learned first-hand about the economic pressures facing middle class families. When she was twelve, her dad suffered a heart attack. The store where he worked changed his job and cut his pay, and the medical bills piled up. The family lost their car, and her mom went to work answering phones at Sears to pay the mortgage. Elizabeth got her first job at nine, babysitting for a family across the street from her house. She started waiting tables at 13 at her Aunt Alice’s Mexican restaurant. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Gandydancer you added this: "To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears and when she was 13 Warren started waiting tables at her Aunt's restaurant". Having her waiting tables job mentioned in the same sentence which begins "To help the family finances..." clearly implies she took the job to help the family finances, which the citation does not support; in particular, because the source includes her babysitting job, which she took before her dad's medical problems. Could you please modify your edit to remove the unsourced implication? And also, if it does not appear in the source (in this case, "The Unwinding"), you should not place text immediately before that source. Thanks. Marteau (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not use her bio or The Two Income Trap for sourcing if you think there's any question at all? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not help a brother out and do it yourself. Marteau (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the source was HuffPost, and the way it has been cited here mangles the meaning into purporting something not intended by the source. It is my assertion that that purport is without foundation, and the onus is not on me to prove a negative. Marteau (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I partly agree - and partly disagree - with Marteau. I agree that sources do not explicitly say that Warren sought employment as a 13-year-old "to help the family finances", but then neither does the text reinstated by Gandydancer. Does the text "imply" that she waited tables to help with the family finances? It could certainly be read that way; but the sources also "imply" that very same thing (every source that mentions her waitressing does so immediately after explaining that the family fell on hard times). I disagree that the text, as it appears in our article, "mangles the meaning into purporting something not intended"; to the contrary, it captures rather well the implication conveyed by reliable sources, without being explicit. From a paragraph in her autobiography (page 10):

Like a zillion other families, we got by. My family had been through plenty of ups and downs over the years, and after Daddy's heart attack, it took both my parents paychecks to manage. But things steadied out over time and we regained our footing. They kept the house and I got to stay in the same public school. I took on babysitting jobs, waitressed in my aunt Alice's restaurant, and made money by sewing dresses for my aunts. I even sold puppies: Daddy borrowed the neighbor's little black poodle and introduced him to Missy, and the result was a littler of adorable puppies that I sold in a single weekend.

Now does that explicitly explain why a 13-year-old would be worried about making money by waitressing, babysitting, tailoring and dog-breeding? Of course not, but in the context given by the paragraph as a whole, I think it's fairly clear. Your mileage may vary. This edit, however, is completely unjustified, and this edit isn't much better. You are basically asking for an opinion on whether the word "and" should be replaced with a period (full stop), thereby breaking the sentence in two. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how you edit. Well done, Xenophrenic. The quote from her bio makes the case for her working to help out the family much more plausible than the Huff Post's paraphrases which included mentioning her working as a babysitter before her dad's medical issues etc. I don't reckon Gandydancer's going to do a damn thing I point out no matter what it's merits, so I'll go ahead and fix his misattribution of his addition to the "The Unwinding" source once my 3RR re-sets. Marteau (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording and moved the ref. Gandydancer (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism wars coming in from Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and Facebook today

A screenshot showing an edit to her name went viral on social media outlets today. a Vandalism PP is now in effect. Only autoconfirmed users can edit the page.

Wikinium (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You're just trying to protect her from criticism. You use one bad edit as an excuse to lock down the page because she is in the news. It is being widely reported that Elizabeth Warren took advantage of foreclosures to enrich herself. It is also being widely reported that she gave out high interest-rate loans to enrich herself. The reason these stories are being widely reported is that they directly contradict her work in the Senate to prevent these "abuses" (her words). If you're going to lock the page then please add the information and appropriate citations yourself. Otherwise, unlock the page and allow someone else to do it. 2601:42:C101:1BBC:A85E:CE52:468A:BF42 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The last semi-protection of this article expired on 14 May. All article content is subject to Wikipedia policy. Not everything that is reported somewhere gets included, and that is per policy, not the result of editor bias. If you can produce reliable sources supporting proposed additions, they will be evaluated and possibly used for such additions. Wild accusations of bias will get you exactly nowhere, except perhaps blocked if they persist to the point of being disruptive. That is also per policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I note that your initial post cited the absence of content about the Native American controversy as "proof" of bias. Then, apparently, you noticed that the article already devotes an entire section to that controversy. So, rather than allowing that to alter your thinking about bias here, you removed that "proof" and replaced it with other "proof" of bias. This tells me your mind is closed on this question and you're here only to "prove" bias one way or another. I think the bias is yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I reviewed the article and updated the comment accordingly. I was looking for that content under Personal Life as it has little to do with her US Senate career. I never claimed to be unbiased nor do I have anything to prove. Can you point me to the policy where it says no POV on the talk page? Personally, I think Pocahontas deserves all the criticism she gets. 2601:42:C101:1BBC:A85E:CE52:468A:BF42 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
"Wild accusations of bias will get you exactly nowhere, except perhaps blocked if they persist to the point of being disruptive. That is also per policy." I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy but wasn't your entire second comment nothing but an accusation that I am biased? It doesn't appear to contain any other content. If that is the policy how aren't you equally in violation of it by accusing me of bias? 2601:42:C101:1BBC:A85E:CE52:468A:BF42 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
For the policy against using article talk pages for criticism (or praise) of the article subject, see WP:NOTFORUM, item 4. If you want to expend the effort to learn about Wikipedia content policy and become a contributing editor, you will be welcome, we need all the help we can get. If you want to make constructive suggestions for additions, with supporting reliable sources, and are willing to accept the judgment of the editors who evaluate the suggestions in good faith, you will be welcome. If you come to snipe at articles from outside while demonstrating a lack of understanding of the policies that govern article content, you will not be welcome. I have seen this dozens of times in the 3 years I have been editing Wikipedia, and I have yet to witness one positive thing come of it. Please understand that it becomes more than a little tiresome after about time number 20. I've spent about as much of my time as I care to on this discussion; maybe someone else will debate this with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the policy. I'm not sure how questioning a content lock and suggesting material that could be added is a violation of said policy. If you believe it is then you are free to take it to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. As to the rest of your comment... I could give a damn if you welcome me to Wikipedia or not. There is no need for your patronizing comments. 2601:42:C101:1BBC:A85E:CE52:468A:BF42 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Retaining her surname

Re: [16]

As far as I can see, {{u|Marteau]]'s sole rationale for inclusion is that it has been reported in a couple of places. I direct them to WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. Is this information significant or relevant enough to include? If so, how? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Retry botched ping for Marteau. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

At least two major media sources, Politico and USA Today, felt it was significant enough to cover her statement, and I have no doubt they're not alone. Saying that the rationale for her surname being, today, "Warren", in the "Elizabeth Warren" article, is completely justified, relevant and deserving of the fragment of a sentence... nine words... that mention of it takes. Perhaps you could say why you don't think it belongs in the article? And do you really think we should start culling the article of such humanizing and interesting information? Because there's plenty. Marteau (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It's just editing philosophy, and I'm aware that there is wide disagreement. I always feel that, in general, less is more, so I tend to set a fairly high bar for inclusion of anything. This doesn't clear that bar in my opinion. (Don't ask me why I'm not objecting likewise to this or that other relatively insignificant factoid. One has to balance their editorial judgment against the need to play well with others.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Very well. You are on record for not wanting the reason she gave for wanting to be referred to as "Elizabeth Warren" to be in the "Elizabeth Warren" article. We are all entitled to our opinion. Marteau (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason what the particular factoid in question needs to be omitted. If this were going to be a GA nom, my bet is a reviewer would want to have it included, as those unfamiliar with her would want to know why she uses her maiden, rather than married, name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, "Warren" is not her maiden name, but her first husband's name, which makes her surname situation more complicated than most married women's. This adds credence to my position that the reason for her using it absolutely is relevant in the article and deserving of one frickin' sentence. Marteau (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to include her reason for keeping the name Warren. We only cover the major items in this short bio and keeping the name Warren "to make it easier for her children" is certainly not of any great importance. BTW, not that it matters, but Winkelvi this actually was one of my GAs. Gandydancer (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No, actually, we DON'T just "cover major items". There's plenty of non-"major" items in this article. Plenty. I don't see anyone griping about those, though. Yeah yeah yeah, the "just because other stuff exists" clause... I'm well aware of it. But still, cut me a break with this "only major items" business... it's demonstrably untrue. And you seriously "can't see any reason" to include her statement as to why she wished to retain the "Warren" surname in the "Elizabeth Warren" article. Really? No reason at all? Marteau (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Because typically, if there are words in the title of the article (in this case "Warren") and there is an explanation of how those words came to be... isn't the genesis of that title completely relevant? Don't most articles give an explanation of how the title of the article came to be, if it is available? How is that not completely encyclopedic and part of the mission of an encyclopedia article? Marteau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, some readers may question why she does not have the same last name as her current husband. By adding the content in question, we are clarifying the ambiguity. The information is related directly to the page name, is of significant importance, covered in RS, and should be added. The only valid argument I'm seeing against its inclusion is WP:TRIVIA, which is hardy applicable. Meatsgains (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to suspect that if Warren had chosen to retain her birth name, and gave as her reason "... to serve as an example for my daughter that today's women have choices" that editors (particularly, her admirers) would be tripping over themselves to get it included, and would fight to the end to allow it to remain in the article. The difference in the current case is, her reason does not put her in the kind of light some might desire. This is passing judgement on her reason, and is advocating exclusion not for objective reasons, but because WP:IDONTLIKEIT (feel free to haul me before a Wikicourt for not assuming good faith... I have been around long enough to know what goes on with political articles and am not going to refrain from calling "bullshit" when I see it) Marteau (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a classic WP:AGF failure. Yes, this bullshit goes on all the time with political articles and all kinds of other articles, but it is a major and destructive logic error to generalize/extrapolate that to every disagreement in any political article. There is ZERO evidence to support your suspicions in this particular disagreement. I for one happen to admire Warren, but I'm not here to help protect her reputation or image; I don't care THAT much about ANY politician or other public figure. This just happens to be something I have watchlisted because I made some forgotten edit(s) a long time ago, and I haven't bothhered to unwatch it (and I'm also still holding out hope for some feedback to my #Birthplace comments, above).
Try to avoid suspecting bad faith without concrete evidence. If you can't avoid suspecting it without concrete evidence, at least keep it to yourself. And if bad faith does actually occur, the place to address it is WP:ANI, not article talk. It is worse than useless to accuse someone of bad faith in article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We have editors here advocating the exclusion of cited information, spoken by the subject of the article, pertaining to how her name, and the title of the article, came about. I have to assume non-objective motivations, because there IS no objective reason for not including the genesis of the title of an article in an encyclopedia, when that genesis is not obvious and when it has an explanation; an explanation some readers may naturally be interested in and may actually be actively seeking. Marteau (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been multiple reasoned and articulate arguments against inclusion (more so than mine, by the way). It's a difference of editorial judgment, not one of good faith. Your reasoning is seriously flawed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to suspect that this is silly. Married and formerly-married women in the contemporary US have a variety of conventional choices for their name, and of course they may choose as they wish. No explanation is necessary or expected. Our article for Marylin Monroe does not discuss the actress’s reasons for adopting that name, nor do our articles for John Wayne and Rock Hudson. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment — I don't have strong feelings either way, but if I were writing this Wikipedia article I would not see any reason to include the information. In my opinion, it ranks right up there with "which shoe does she put on first" or "does she prefer coffee or tea?" Those kind of light-weight, "humanizing" factoids are fine for a book-length biography, but are not significant enough for a properly concise encyclopedia entry — and, in fact, it's Warren's biographical book (page 26) that is the source of that factoid. If you'll look closer at the Politico & USA Today (and other) sources, you'll see that they don't mention the tidbit because they "felt it was significant enough to cover", but because they were summarizing the excerpts in the 2-page press-briefer the publisher provided to them in April 2014, just before the release of her book. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of published biographic profile sources (and full reviews of her book) do not find the factoid significant enough to mention. For the record, her maiden name is Herring. When she married, she took the name Warren. This is not unusual or significant. When she remarried, with children old enough to be cognizant of their own name, she maintained the Warren name for simplicity. This is also not unusual or significant (despite a mistaken assertion above to the contrary). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is "silly" - thanks for that and thanks for the great post from Zeno. I have read many, many hours of bio-related info for this article and it did not include the reason that she kept the name Warren. Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't include I am not seeing any evidence that this is a talking point in any reliable sources. AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a poorly written RFC, and I am not even sure what the question is. Is the question whether to call her "Elizabeth Warren", the married name that she has always used, or is the question whether to include some discussion about her use of her husband's name in place of her maiden name? Since this is an RFC and not a request for a Third Opinion, I can't request a clarification. My sympathies to the closer, who will probably have to close as No Consensus if experienced editors can't figure out what the question is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that a different editor had slapped an rfc template on my discussion. I am removing the template and that editor is free to create an actual correctly formatted RfC if they wish, in a separate section. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably just as well. In an environment where editors insist on retaining the fact that her Mom worked at Sears, but remove her motivations for remaining a "Warren" this wasn't going anywhere anyway. Marteau (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:RFC and refrain from doing that again. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You betcha! Learning the ins and outs of properly initiating them will come in handy! Marteau (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant to this issue, but there are lots of examples of women keeping the name of their first husband if they achieved some reputation, esp. some publications, under that name. I can think of 2 examples off the top of my head: German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who first got published as a physicist), the linguist Barbara Partee.Bostoner (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Time for another RfC

WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, as it is obvious the status quo will stand and I'll not require another editor to waste his time formally closing this. That interested readers will continue to assume we do not cover this issue and will therefore go elsewhere to potentially biased sources to learn about the issue disappoints me, but them's the breaks. Marteau (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2016 (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.

How should Wikipedia cover the issue of Elizabeth Warren's native American heritage? Currently, information pertaining to Warren's native American heritage is placed under the "2012 Election" heading in this article. Options which have been put forth before in this talk page include:

1. Leave the issue under the "2012 election"
2. Move the majority of coverage to the "2012 election" article, and leave a summary here
3. Create a new heading for the issue
4. Remove all coverage of the issue from Wikipedia

Marteau (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant policy and guideline pages include: WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY, WP:CONTENTFORKING, & WP:SPLITTING. The question posed concerns the implementation of those policies and guidelines. --LK (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Leave the issue under the "2012 election" Just because Trump says something doesn't mean that makes it any more important than it was before. No need to change how it's been handled. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Having it remain under "2012 election" ignores the fact it is currently being cited by reliable sources as it pertains to the current election. Also, it is not because "Trump says something" that makes its placement under "2012 election" a miscategorization, but because reliable sources are referring to it in the context of the current election that makes such a placement inadequate. Marteau (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the scant RS places where the topic has been mentioned, it is usually raised as something that happened during the 2012 campaign. Given this, discussion of the issue under "2012 election" remains appropriate. LK (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Create a new heading for the issue The issue clearly has gone beyond just the 2012 election, and has become an issue in the current election, as evidenced by a Google news search of "elizabeth warren native american". Placement under "2012 election" makes it difficult for interested readers to find information on this subject, and ignores the fact it is now not limited to just the 2012 election. Marteau (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends - If what Marteau says about current coverage "as it pertains to the current election" is true, and I'm not feeling motivated to research that myself, I wouldn't object to a level-3 subsection under Career—simply because there would be no better place to include it without a heading—but with dramatic trimming. By rough online word count, the current content would be over 23% of the entire Career section, and there is no way that would be WP:DUE.
    If what Marteau says is not true or is significantly overstated, I support dramatic trimming in place. Y'all can argue about what's true. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 2 (first choice) or Weak Support 1 (second choice), as these discussions repeatedly point back to. (updated after rereading the current material, which takes up about a third of the whole section on the election) Obviously Oppose 3, which is clearly WP:UNDUE. Weak oppose 4 as there's enough for a mention somewhere. This has been pretty thoroughly argued already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support for 2 as the only choice that is consistent with the guidelines on how to handle content between parent and child articles (or 'sub-articles'), per Wikipedia policy and practice described by WP:SUMMARY, WP:CONTENTFORKING, & WP:SPLITTING. LK (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 (or 2, if absolutely needed). Perhaps a comment on Trump's rehashing of an old topic, if he continues to do so. WP isn't the news, after all, and should therefore take the long view. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2, with an added note that the coverage needs to be significantly reduced to satisfy WP:DUE. As I said above, it currently has far more text devoted to it than comparable controversies from similar articles. (Again, I'd rank it roughly on par with the George W. Bush AWOL controversy or with the controversy over Obama's pastor, which don't even make it to their main pages at all.) It's simply not a major part of her biography. It belongs on the 2012 article, and possibly on the 2016 article if Trump's decision to focus on it becomes a major factor in that (though one news cycle isn't really enough to say that.) It absolutely does not deserve more than a sentence on her main article at most, and probably not even that. The level of coverage we're giving it here is more comparable to controversies that destroyed entire political careers, which is clearly WP:UNDUE compared to what reliable sources say about it (at least at the moment.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, leaving it under the "2012 Election" section, or moving it to the "2012 Election" article, completely ignores the fact that this issue transcends the 2012 Election. And your assertion that this is not a "major part" of her biography is pure POV. The view that this issue is an important part of her political life is not uncommon, despite your implications. Marteau (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said, if it also turns out to be relevant to the 2016 election, we could cover it there as well. But when I say that it's not a major part of her biography, I'm basing it on the sources; every election has its own scandals and controversies that dominate the news for a cycle, but it's extremely rare for them to be worth including in the main articles of the people involved, and I'm not really seeing enough coverage of it outside of the brief news cycles here that cover it. Again, there are people who would passionately argue that the accusations about Obama's pastor or about George W. Bush going AWOL are core parts of their story (and they get mentioned in biographies in the context of "here's another ugly episode from the election" or "here's something the media didn't press hard enough because they're biased" or whatever, depending on who's doing the writing); but (like here) the sources don't back up the idea that it's relevant outside that context. What you'd need to produce to argue otherwise would be mainstream, credible sources discussing it outside the contexts of the 2012 or 2016 elections - that is, mainstream sources that mention it without it being in the context of "this is an accusation someone made about her during the 2012 election" or "this is the latest thing Trump said." (Or, alternatively, mainstream sources arguing that it was a decisive factor in those elections.) Election-year articles or retrospectives discussing those elections are fine if you want to put it in the articles on those elections; but they don't support your argument that it is an important part of her biography as opposed to one of the numerous election-year controversies that we normally put on election pages. If you go over the sources, the ones that mention it are all in the context of "here's another controversy from the 2012 election" or "here's another controversy from the 2016 election", very similar to the ones for the controversies for other candidates I mentioned above - lots of coverage, but only in that specific context. That usually supports putting it on the pages for those elections, not on the candidates'. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 and reduce, with the possible addition of a single sentence noting that Trump has rehashed it. At this point in time, there's not enough to support any more than that here. The reliable sources Marteau points to are generally in the vein of this one, which basically note that there is no true way to either prove or disprove Warren's statement, or this one which basically focuses on Trump's history of racist comments about Native Americans. Most of the reliable-sourced coverage is of Trump's attacks, which belongs in the article about Donald Trump's presidential campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 3 in a sub heading - possibly under career or as a "Controversies" subsection under awards. The Native American claim has been a subject of conversation and controversy in the press since the 2012 election, so putting it in the 2012 section doesn't seem right. It's been more than Trump bringing it up and was analyzed and researched by major news and other publications including the Atlantic, WAPO, and Native American press. She even wrote about it in her autobiography [17]. It's not a small deal but undue needs to be considered, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 1 It has received little coverage relative to the coverage of Warren in the news. The echo chamber narrative was that Warren took advantage of affirmative action to pursue an acadmeic career for which she was otherwise unqualified and lied about her ancestry. In fact she received no benefit from it and may in fact have Indian ancestry, which is why mainstream media have largely ignored the story. TFD (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You keep saying it has received little coverage and is being ignored, but just today, we have the Huffington Post, The Washington Post, New York Magazine, CNN, the New York Post, Time magazine, NBC, CBS, The Telegraph, the LA Times... I could go on... these are just articles put on line within the past 24 hours! So your constantly saying it's being 'ignored' and has received 'little coverage' is becoming, at this point, increasingly bizarre and is seeming more and more like a wish or a desire than a statement based in reality. This issue is clearly and unequivocally not limited to the 2012 election, and the insistence that it remain under that rubric, and that to put it anywhere else is "undue" is astounding. Marteau (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that most of the coverage focuses on Trump, not on Warren. There is substantial coverage looking at the impact on Trump; for example, this Salon article noting Joe Scarborough's on-air criticism of Trump's attacks as ill-founded and undisciplined, or this Commentary article which says Trump "allowed himself to be baited into a trap set by Senator Elizabeth Warren," or this PBS NewsHour segment saying that Warren "got under Donald Trump's skin." This is much more of an issue for Trump's presidential campaign than it is for Warren's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that, when people want to learn about a person's heritage, going to their biography is a perfectly natural expectation. Including information about a person's heritage, and their genealogy, and their statements about their genealogy... that is completely worthy of a sub-sub-sub heading and is not in any way undue. Expecting people to go to Trump pages to learn about Warren's genealogy is twisted. The howls in protest over the issue getting a frickin' sub-sub-SUB heading... over her genealogy being covered in her biography... are really something. Marteau (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to put one line in the "Early life, education and family" section which simply states "According to Warren, she has some Native American ancestry," I would not be opposed to that. That would satisfy your demand here, because readers would learn about her heritage. The by-all-accounts unprovable debate over who it was or what level it is or whatever, belongs in the 2012 election section, because that's when it became a public issue. There is no evidence that she does not have some level of Native American ancestry and it would be undue to include politically-motivated attacks from her partisan opponents in the "Early life, education and family" section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh for Pete's sake, I am not asking to 'include politically-motivated attacks from her partisan opponents'. I am only asking that the current information that we have in the article be properly categorized so that interested readers can find it without having to resort to a page search on their web browser. It makes the encyclopedia look at best, amateurish and inept and at worst, partisan and biased. Marteau (talk)
So you would be okay with removing the present paragraph, and instead adding to the "Early life, education and family" section the sentences: "According to Warren, she has some Native American ancestry. This became an issue during the (Wikilink to the 2012 election article)."? Just floating some ideas to help me better understand your position. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NBSB, you can't be serious. Only mentioning in the early life section that she has (what she claims to be, without evidence) Native American ancestry? This is has been a real issue and a controversial one, to boot. It's been so much of an issue that she addressed it in her own book and has been hashed over in an unbiased manner by traditionally Liberal and Conservative news sources alike. Native American publications have addressed it as well and they weren't completely kind when they did. One example is here where the following was noted: "While she was a professor, she had no genealogical record of the sort that Child has since uncovered, and she was not an enrolled member of any tribe, yet she listed herself as “minority” in the directories of the Association of American Law Schools from 1986 to 1995. There's way more to this story than you seem to want to admit or advocate into the article. It was (and has remained) a legitimate controversy, directly related to her political aspirations, past employment, and education. It needs to be noted as such in the article, not swept under the rug by burying it via a snippet of a mention in a section not likely to be read beyond her birth date and names of her parents. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
...she has (what she claims to be, without evidence) Native American ancestry...
The sources I've read convey that she does have evidence; enough that she is comfortable enough mentioning her heritage, at least. It may not be enough to get her officially enrolled with certain tribes, but then she has never tried to do that. Perhaps you misspoke? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I did not misspeak. The sources I've read say that the evidence is inconclusive. There are sources that say, at best, she possibly has 1/32 of Cherokee blood in her. That's not enough to enroll in a tribe or legitimately "check the box" for NA ancestry. Whatever the case, the sources conflict, however, I tend to believe the sources that come from Native writers the most. And as far as they are concerned, the jury is still definitely out and the controversy/question is still very much alive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant, as she never attempted to enroll in a tribe or claimed tribal membership. Neutralitytalk 00:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Uh... "the jury is still definitely out"? You do realize that there is no jury, right? The only trial going on was the one in the imaginations of political detractors who tried to make an issue out of some sort of alleged impropriety. And no, the evidence is not inconclusive. In fact, it is conclusive enough that she mentions her native American heritage in her distant lineage in her biography. Is it enough to enroll in some tribes? Is there a reason why we should care? And as for "checking a box for NA ancestry", did you misspeak again? Did you mean "minority"? And do you know where that check-box was, and what it was for? I'm afraid I'm not following as to what controversy you say is "alive". I'm just not seeing the jaw-drop moment you seem to imply is there. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no conclusive "proof" of Warren's heritage, because, as numerous reliable sources note, "proving" ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt is notoriously difficult, particularly given longtime stigmas against interracial marriage (and yes, that included Native Americans). Meanwhile, there is zero evidence that Warren has done anything other than tell the truth - that, according to her family, she has some Native American ancestry. The wild accusations and claims that she is lying are, quite simply, entirely evidence-free political attacks, coming from one notorious racist and one sore loser. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Most people, however, who claim a certain heritage can point to verifiable, objective facts outside of family folklore which affirm their claims. And I'm not saying she's lying... she probably does believe she had native American blood. I'm just saying it was unwise to list onesself in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory as a "minority" based solely on family oral history. Marteau (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support for #1 or #2 (more or less the status quo) - for the reasons explained ably above. This has already been extensively discussed. This is the epitome of a manufactured controversy. Neutralitytalk 00:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    This is the epitome of a manufactured controversy. I think our current content is WP:UNDUE, but I don't think it's within our purview to make judgments as to whether a controversy is manufactured or not. I note that you linked to mainspace, not WP space. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'll elaborate/clarify: this controversy, while deserving of a short and well-sourced mention at United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 and on this bio page, is a very small part of Warren's overall life and career, and we ought not to give it more space than it warrants. Neutralitytalk 00:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed with that clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as a particularly "live" controversy, at least not outside of right-wing blogs and websites. The actual facts haven't changed much since 2012, when, as reliable sources documented, Warren was unable to prove Native American ancestry but also did not appear to have benefited from such claims in any way. The amount of space we currently dedicate to the topic seems, if anything, somewhat disproportionate, so the idea that we need a stand-alone section is extreme and not supported by sources or policy. Contrast Marco Rubio, who fudged aspects of his family history in more documented, more definitive, and more self-serving ways than Warren has. In Rubio's article, we cover this with a few sentences in the Background section. There's no talk of a standalone section highlighting his embellishments, nor should there be. The Rubio article probably has the balance about right, whereas this one seems to give the family-background issue undue weight. I'd support option #2 on that basis, with option #1 as a weaker second choice. MastCell Talk 00:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support #2 - trim the content down to an encyclopedic minimum, then move it to the 2012 Election article, leaving at most a sentence and a pointer to that article here. If Trump and Walker suddenly regurgitate the "Obama is a Kenyan who is ineligible to be President!" meme, we aren't going to rush to the Obama article to add more content (complete with sub-headers!) because "the controversy is alive again". Nor should we do that with this article just because they dug up ancient news-cycle fodder from 2012. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

*I support #2 except that I do not believe that a "summary" should be included here because it's just not possible to create a shorter and yet unbiased "summary". What we've already got is a "summary". This article should include only one sentence, two at the most, and a direction to the election article where it can be covered fully - as it already is. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

As someone who has worked on my family's genealogy for quite a while, I can assure you that there are always family myths passed down through the generations. One of the most common is the Native American ancestor, usually a woman, even the "Cherokee Princess" scenario. In my family, it was descendency from Joseph Brant's sister, Molly Brant. However, upon researching the matter, I could find no such link. Senator Warren and her siblings believed her family's mythology. She didn't "lie" about it because she thought it was true. It's possible that it may still be true and one day proved if documentation is ever discovered. The unproved information was discovered and corrected in the press some years ago. It seems like much ado about very little.
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You are right. What makes Warren's claim exceptional is that she would have put this information into her biography when she had no connection with American Indians and did not know whether or not the story was true. Even if she had Indian ancestry, there would be no reason for her to add it to her biography unless she had some involvement with her relatives. TFD (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That actually doesn't make her situation exceptional at all. Most people's understanding of their family heritage is based on family lore, not on hard documentary evidence. As the genealogist quoted by The Atlantic said: "I can't confirm or refute Cherokee heritage without extensive research... All I can say is that Ms. Warren's scenario is a wildly common one—minus the public scrutiny, of course." MastCell Talk 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
TFD's point about the biography involves the level of care a well known figure would be expected to use about information in her biography. It is one thing for a public figure to have a haphazard notion of her ancestry; it is another thing not to check it out before having it placed in a bio. Motsebboh (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
She wasn't a "well-known figure" at the time in question—she was a private citizen and a law professor—so your premise seems faulty. Let's suppose I am (for the sake of argument, and purely hypothetically) also a faculty member at a large, well-known university. I think the bio of me that appears on university resources is accurate—it reflects my understanding of my personal and family history—but would it stand up to dedicated opposition research from the GOP? Could I produce documentary evidence for every word in it? The answers are no, and no. MastCell Talk 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A law professor should know better than to assert information that she has not corroborated. And even if she had corroborated the ethnicity of her great-great-great grandparent, it is too trivial to refer to herself as a member of a minority when she had no connection with any American Indian community. Warren's university biography was a short paragraph and one would hope one could prove everything. What kind of family info is in your biography that you cannot corroborate? TFD (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm a university professor myself, and I don't consider it my duty to verify and find evidence for what I might write in a blurb about my family background for the school directory. For example, my family lore includes various incidents that occurred during WWI, the Depression and WWII, and supposedly, my great-great-grandmother was a Siamese princess. I have told these stories at various gatherings, and may include such details if asked to write about my family background. I certainly don't have any evidence, nor would I even know how to start looking, if asked to find corroborating evidence. Further, ethnicity is a self-identification – a mental framework – more than a racial bloodline. As has been noted in various news articles, some of Warren's relatives (with no more proof of bloodline) identify with, and are active in, various Native American organizations. LK (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It is the biography section of the main entry for the faculty member and most mention only degrees and employment. Certainly most schools - I don't know about Trump University - would frown on faculty members listing degrees and jobs they never held. TFD (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Err, TFD, she wrote about it in her 2014 autobiography, a 400-page book. AFAIK, she didn't put it in her university webpage. Did I miss something? It's not on her Harvard webpage (at least, not now). What she did do was tick the Native American checkbox in one of those forms they give you to fill out (presumably she also ticked white), and this got picked up by the law school directory. LK (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/Archive_9&oldid=1090556737"