Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Secretary Clinton's title

(moved here from the reference desk)

On Sen. Elizabeth Warren's page, Secretary Clinton's name is incorrectly listed without her title. I think that's misleading and biased. It should be corrected. Thanks for all your work! 2602:306:CC41:BFB0:F52C:C4AD:B1E:D3C9 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Secretary" is not a formal title, it's an office she no longer holds. It is confusing to foreign readers. Note that articles do not use "Mr.," "Miss," etc., which are actual titles. TFD (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

I noticed ZERO Controversies on the page at all. Oh, I don't know , the one about her claiming to be of Indigenous American (Cherokee) without a shred of evidence, and using it to advance her education, and career?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/genealogist-who-claimed-elizabeth-warren-was-132-cherokee-goes-silent-as-source-document-exposed-as-false/

Yes, maybe not the best link, but they do list, and show sources (unlike a lot of Wikipedia articles posted as "fact." Trentc (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Look closer: Elizabeth_Warren#2012_election --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right with your analysis here. This page reads like a fan page. Any attempts to put up anything remotely critical are immediately scrubbed off by a bunch of fans. See my post above.Boab (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want other editors to cooperate, you should not editorialize in your comments. (You made it pretty clear you do not like the subject.) Controversies are mentioned to the degree they are considered important in reliable sources, in this case mainstream media. The Indian ancestry story may or may not be true btw. TFD (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I know it's missing. She actually had the balls to call Trump a fraud whereas she was pretending to be an Indian for decades. Norum 12:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is included here. Meatsgains (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a scrubbed article taking all of the negative talking points out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7F10:300:C1DC:E0F3:A166:5580 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"It should say more bad stuff" is less helpful than proposing specific additions, including citations to reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would take "It should say more bad stuff" more seriously if it weren't a partisan ploy to put dirt in certain politicians articles. A sustained endeavor to include well-sourced controversies about politicians from all parts of the spectrum is acceptable. An attack on selected politicians (especially those who hold certain views) is highly suspect. In short, I would suggest editors concerned about 'controversies' to raise well-sourced controversies in several BLPs across the political spectrum, or be dismissed as a partisan troll. LK (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary + POV subheading

I have removed the proposed subheading for the section about Warren's disputed ancestry, returning the article to its prior consensus version. There does not appear to be any reason to give this paragraph the only third-level subheading in the entire article, given that it is of only minor interest to her biography. Giving it special prominence as the only third-level subheading places undue weight on this particular incident. Furthermore, the word "purported" in the proposed subheading is a word to avoid and so even if kept, it would need to be reworded. I suggest that the edit's proponents make their case here as to why this section should deserve a separate subheading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that you are removing three references that I provided to substantiate my claim that Native America groups were quite critical of Warren and her claims of Native American ancestry. Instead, you have an overly apologetic sentence that is buried in a place where no one can see it. We need to compromise here. Boab (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

'given that it is of only minor interest'??? People are of course interested in the issue as anyone who is following the political affairs of the season can confirm, and people will of course be coming here to learn about it. There have in fact been several instances in the talk page of people assuming the issue is not mentioned in the article at all, and they're being told 'oh contrare! look again! it's under the 2012 election section, you silly goose!'. Requiring that the not insignificant number users interested in the issue resort to using a web browser text search when the more encyclopedic and natural means of including it in the table of contents is available is strange... that's what tables of contents are for, aren't they? To direct the reader to topics of common interest with significant coverage in the article. So they don't have to go "CTRL-F native american ENTER" on their web browser. A sub-sub-sub heading for that issue is certainly not "undue" and your protestation that giving it the lowest of low level headings is actually giving it prominence is, to be honest, somewhat amusing given the fact that when it was given a higher level heading, the protests were that that was 'undue'. Regarding your issue with the word 'purported' I can see your point and I'll work on alternative verbiage. But the issue is one which readers have and will come here to learn about and it certainly deserves at least a sub-sub-sub heading given the not insignificant amount of material we have in the article pertaining to it. Marteau (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a quick look at recently-published reliable sources about Elizabeth Warren finds relatively little mention of the issue, and what reliable sources are saying generally focuses on negative reaction to Donald Trump's use of a racial stereotype to refer to Warren, not Warren's stated ancestry. This isn't really a controversy about Warren, it's a controversy about the perception that Trump's an insensitive clod when it comes to speaking about anyone except white men. But that doesn't really belong in Warren's biography, that should go in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is correct and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. Also, the statement that "people will of course be coming here to learn about it" is an implicit statement that the editor believes it has received insufficient coverage in mainstream sources and that we should re-balance that, but that is contrary to neutrality. TFD (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. People WILL want to learn from an unbiased source what the deal is about her heritage issue, and WILL come here looking for it. Are you seriously denying that? It's simply a statement of fact, not an "implicit statement" on my part about the mainstream media's balance, nor is it my attempt to "re-balance" anything. Reasonable minds can simply think the issue could use a sub-sub-sub heading without it being an attempt to violate neutrality as you accuse of me. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of things people might want to learn, but we don't have separate headings for every aspect of her life that has been in the news at one time or another. It's in the article, so readers can find out about it as easily as they can about specific positions she has, voting records, where she went to high school, her relationship with Hilary Clinton, her speeches about Donald Trump, etc. -- other things that don't demand separate headings despite being in the media and despite people coming to learn here about them. (FWIW, obviously I agree with NBSB on this). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. We include the content, but I see no reason for its own subheader. This was not really a major episode in her life. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Marteau, policy does not say that articles should cover aspects of a subject that "people" want to learn about but "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." (See WP:BALASPS.) If you think that policy is "ridiculous," then get it changed. Having said that, I doubt that most people have any interest in the subject, it's more an echo chamber story and readers can go to Snopes or Factcheck. TFD (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What I found "ridiculous" (I thought I was clear, but obviously was not) was your assertion that my words were "an implicit statement that the editor believes it has received insufficient coverage in mainstream sources and that we should re-balance that". That speculation is completely without foundation, is offensive and yes, is completely ridiculous. Thinking the issue deserves a sub-sub-sub heading so that interested readers can find out about her heritage is not an attempt to balance mainstream coverage but an attempt to serve the reader and improve the article. And furthermore, I am completely aware of what due and undue weight is. I simply believe that we have a significant amout of material pertaining to the issue, that material is difficult for readers to find (as evidenced by talk page complaints) that it deserves a sub-sub-sub heading, and that such a sub-sub-sub heading would in fact be of proper weight. It's as simple as that and is not some kind of attempt to game the system. Marteau (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If as you claim you believe it has received sufficient coverage in mainstream sources, then why would people want to learn about it here, when it has been amply covered and they can read it directly in the numerous articles that have provided extensive coverage to the story, rather than read a couple of sentences here written by amateurs? TFD (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I have "claimed" nothing of the sort. I have not said anything about the sufficiency or insufficiency of mainstream coverage, and have not invoked mainstream coverage at all except indirectly in my tacit assertion that the issue has weight in a Wikipedia way, so I'll go ahead and ignore your categorizing anything I've said as a "claim". Your casting aspersions on my motives (by categorizing things I say as "claims" and ascribing motivations towards my edits not substantiated by anything other than your hunches) is really becoming tiresome, and I suspect your are projecting the motives of others onto me, and I do wish you'd knock it off. Marteau (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

TFD, most of our articles have received mainstream coverage (we have a whole section called in the news!). Are you saying we should simply direct readers to particular mainstream news articles? I'm afraid I don't agree with that stance. Most of what I've heard about Elizabeth Warren is related to the Native American controversy, and I was very surprised when I arrived at this article to have to ctrl -f to find it. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with NBSB, but that probably became evident as soon as I reverted a recent attempt to give the content additional undue prominence with headers, etc. It already takes up too much article real estate, but I'm patient enough to wait for it to whither down to a more appropriate single sentence after partisans cease trying to inflate it into an actual issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, the issue is not whether Wikipedia articles are covered in the news, it is about the degree to which different aspects of Elizabeth Warren are covered in the news. News media have given little coverage to warren's claim that one of her great-great-great grandparents had American Indian ancestry. If most of what you have heard is related to the "Native American controversy," it is because you are not hearing mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The section should be reduced to a summary, following Wikipedia policy and practice

This whole argument is moot. Since the section's topic United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 has it's own article, policy states that most of the material in the section should be removed, and only a brief summary left behind and a hatnote pointing to the sub-article (see WP:SPLITTING). There is no policy based reason for the section on the 2012 election to be the length that it is. LK (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. What you call 'policy' is not even a guideline... it's an essay. It even says as much in the first banner: "(this) is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines..." Marteau (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not an essay, as it states at the top of the page, WP:SPLITTING is "an information page that describes a communal consensus" (emphasis added). The procedure is also described in WP:SUMMARY and WP:CONTENTFORKING, which are guidelines. Therefore, I reiterate, Wikipedia policy is that the section should be a brief summary with a hatnote. There is no policy based reason to have such a long section in this article, when the topic has it's own article. LK (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It is, in fact and explicitly, an essay as per the following quote: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this essay, please defer to those." Marteau (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, because there is some overlap of the heritage issue between the campaigns (it does go beyond just the 2012 election and into the current presidential election, despite the fervent wishes of some) it cannot be treated as if it were just material to be delegated to the 2012 Election article. It requires special consideration ("common sense", as the guidline banners advocate) and we cannot refer to guidelines in complicated cases such as this as if they were recipes, but as the name suggests, as "guidelines" for which exceptions may apply and for which common sense may dictate. Marteau (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the infopage template is obviously wrong, as an information page reflects community consensus, is obviously not an WP:ESSAY. I'm going to change it on the template, thanks for pointing that out. Note that WP:SUMMARY and WP:CONTENTFORKING are guidelines. They state clearly the procedure to follow when splitting, which is to move most of the content to the new article and leave a summary (similar to the lead of the new article) and a hatnote behind (pointing to the main article). Again, there is no policy based reason to have such a long section in this article, when the topic has it's own article. LK (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to go ahead and change the template, or what? Marteau (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been pointed it to me that essays are of many types, some of them reflect community consensus on how to edit. Note again that WP:SUMMARY and WP:CONTENTFORKING are guidelines (which should generally be followed), and they state clearly that the section should be summarized. LK (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The basis of this proposed summarizing and removal of information pertaining to her Native American heritage from this page is the assertion that her Native American heritage has encyclopedic relevance only to the 2012 election. I dispute that assertion and therefore implicitly deny the applicability and invocation of WP:SUMMARY or WP:CONTENTFORKING. The majority, here, obviously does not agree with my assertion and will do what their consensus indicates. Marteau (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Usually, when a politician is notable for multiple elections (and has pages on each of them), we don't go over all the controversies that came up for each of those. Look at eg. Barack Obama or George W. Bush, for instance, and you'll find few controversies specific to their elections (we don't talk about eg. the controversy over Obama's pastor on his main page, or the accusations that George W. Bush went AWOL, because those have almost no mainstream coverage outside the context of the one election where they came up.) The few cases where an election controversy makes it to a candidate's main page, it's usually because it's something that came to be viewed as absolutely decisive in a particular election and essential to understanding it (eg. John Kerry's swift boat controversy, or Romney's 47% controversy, though even those get less text devoted to them than this is getting here... which I think shows how this topic is clearly getting WP:UNDUE weight when you realize that those controversies are often described in coverage as possibly having cost them their elections.) I think that to include this here in any depth (rather than on the election subpage) we would need sources indicating its notability outside the context of that particular election, eg. mainstream sources discussing it directly or at length; or mainstream sources indicating that it's absolutely essential to understanding that chapter in her history (eg. saying that it had a significant impact on the election.) I don't think we have those sources right now; the sources we have now mostly just satisfy the bare minimum of "this is a controversy that happened during the election", not "this was an absolutely central event that defined the election and the candidate going forward." --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I think the best thing to do is to hold an RfC about exactly this issue. Once the broader community is involved, it should become clear that this case is not special, and that we should follow standard Wikipedia policy. LK (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

An RfC would be for the best, and would draw a more diverse spectrum of editors beyond Elizabeth Warren page watchers. The RfC should, of course, address the coverage in general here, and should include the viewpoint that the issue deserves greater visibility here, e.g. my sub-sub-sub heading proposal, and the view that the topic of her heritage extends encyclopedically beyond just the 2012 election. Marteau (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, have another RfC. I strongly believe that you will again be disappointed. About the same time last year poor Steeptrap said, "Alright, I'm at the point where I have to conclude that it isn't primarily incompetence (though that, to be sure, is playing a role) but deliberate bias, and a commitment to misrepresenting evidence to promote a political agenda, that is motivating the inept editing here. I'm done with this page. I am saddened that you are so glib in the face of censorship and systematic biased." I just wish I had a nickle for every hour I've spent on this heritage thing. Aquillion gave the best rationale I've ever read about keeping/deleting article information (I've been here for ten years). Note, for example that Scott Walker had a totally made-up "what he was raised up to believe" piece on his web page when in fact it was copied from the Elizabeth Dole page. Pretty darn scandalous, I'd say, but not a word of it on his page. There are plenty more examples, and we are all aware of a lot of them. Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Things have changed since last year then, haven't they? Our placement of it under the "2012 Election" subheading is clearly inadequate, seeing as her heritage is in play in the current election as well. New stories today about Trump going off about it yet again as well as Scott Walker . You may be fine with such a demonstrably unsatisfactory placement within the article. However, neutral observers will find the placement of discussion of her heritage at the end of the "2012 Election section" peculiar and will rightly question either the competence or the neutrality of Wikipedia's editors. Marteau (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't address the issue of whether we should follow standard Wikipedia practice to have leave only a summary and hatnote pointing to the main article, when a main article on the topic exists. I take it then, that you agree that we should follow the standard practice on this question? LK (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Born to middle-class parents"?

It says she was from a middle-class family ... Then it says her father was a janitor. Since when are janitors middle-class? Or is this like how David Cameron is part of the "sharp-elbowed middle-classes" (whatever that is)? Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1. In the U.S. at least, the middle class is often divided into at least two strata, sometimes three. They could easily have been in the lower-middle class, and they certainly lived in what would be classified as a middle-class neighborhood during her childhood in Norman. Her mother was apparently working too. This is admittedly original research, but 2. The third source cited uses the term middle class. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what Cameron's father did or why that would matter here, but some people in the janitorial services work as the heads of their department, supervising a crew, or could have held the position for long enough to receive numerous salary increases. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Americans use the term middle class where English would use working class and upper class where English would use upper middle class. TFD (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and as such should use terminology appropriately. Any academic social scientist will tell you that "middle-class," at the very least, constitutes people who have have some sort of post-secondary education, or work in a position that pays a salary. Working with your hands in manual labor is rarely a middle-class life. Class is based on social standing/education, not income.

As per Cameron, I was just mocking how all politicians call themselves middle-class. He is from the aristocracy. Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia ... should use terminology appropriately. Yeah, we can make a big pedantic issue of this. Or, we could just use what the Boston Globe source says, per WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOTTRUTH: middle class. BTW, that source also says her father was a salesman at Montgomery Ward (a department store) at the time she was born. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Biased article

As a registered Democrat myself, I find this article to be biased. Let's face it, it was pretty bad when Native American groups pointed out that Warren ((Redacted)) has no genealogical evidence to support this claim. In fact, Cherokee lines are very well documented. Please do not remove the two final references that I included that document complaints by Native American groups.

The Native American section not only is buried away in a place where no one can see it, but it is full of unnecessary apologetic language in favor of Warren. This is not a fan page. If you want to include awards and honors, then you also need to include criticism Boab (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not that it is buried in the article but that it is buried in reliable sources about Warren. The article merely reflects coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Being or not being, or claiming to be, a registered democrat has no standing on Wikipedia. What matters are policies such as Due and Undue Weight, and Reliable Sources. Rumors and innuendos hold no weight. LK (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been removed from this article over time. Here's a recent one that should be added. Warren was protested by members of all three Cherokee Nations, and this received major news coverage. "Mistaken identity: Elizabeth Warren's chance to do right by American Indians" By April Youpee-Roll in The Missoula Independent, June 23, 2016. The point as I see it is not which party protested her (she was protested by Democrats, Independents and Republicans) but that she was protested by Native Americans, specifically by Cherokees, which was the tribe she tried to claim membership in - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) No reliable source indicates that Warren "tried to claim membership" in a Cherokee tribe. Warren said that she had Cherokee ancestors. That is very different from claiming or seeking enrollment/citizenship/membership in a tribe. Plenty of Americans have Native ancestry yet are ineligible for tribal citizenship.

(2) The Missoula Independent piece is an op-ed from "a third-year law student at the University of Montana"—doesn't really carry that much weight in terms of "major news coverage." Sure, some Native American activists criticized Warren (see this news piece from the Christian Science Monitor). But no tribe or tribal official has condemned Warren, as far as I can see. Neutrality^talk 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(3)"Warren was protested by..." many people from all walks of life, because she is quite outspoken about several political issues. Political detractors are just as likely to be found among Cherokee as any other group. Major news coverage? Not so much; but there was significant echo-chamber coverage for a brief time. Despite considerable effort, it never rose to the level of "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child" memes in the same category, which actually did receive "major news coverage". The "Native American activists" trying to fan this into an issue can be counted on two hands (I think one even created a website!), while actual news sources reported that most people (in both Native American communities, and the wider general public) were rolling their eyes at the non-issue.

(4)I read the recent Op-Ed linked above by the young self-described activist in Native American public policy, tribal politics and Native American culture. Unless I'm mistaken, her opinion piece can be summarized as "Because of the spotlight now on Warren, she should use this opportunity to educate herself on Native American political concerns and then have 'a national teachable moment on Indian identity and tribal citizenship' and 'make a real, national impact, and to empower native people'". That sounds like a source more suitable for a Wikipedia article about the activist. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What we are concerned about here, Xenophrenic, is the fact that you seem to want to bury the Native American ancestry thing at the end of the 2012 section where no one will ever find it. Since this issue was prominently brought up again recently by Donald Trump and the media as a whole, it belongs in a more prominent place. I don't like the way that this page is being censored in an attempt to remove anything bad. Corbie provides a legitimate publication from June of 2016 that deserves to be included somewhere in the article. The only references that are included are those that apologetic in tone. Boab (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It's placed where it should be given how it is presented in reliable sources. Yes, Donald Trump mentioned it, and then Elizabeth Warren laughed and mocked Donald Trump, and so did "the media as a whole," and it promptly disappeared again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A sorted by date Google News search finds hundreds of articles about Warren in the last week, only a handful of which mention the issue, and those which do generally do so in a manner which focuses on Trump's insults as demonstrating unfitness for office. That belongs in the article about Donald Trump's presidential campaign, not Warren's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Corbie provides a legitimate publication from June of 2016 that deserves to be included somewhere in the article.

We don't "include publications somewhere in articles". We include encyclopedic information in our articles, and cite reliable publications. Can you tell me what factual, encyclopedic information about Warren you are proposing to add to the Warren BLP from that source? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Boab, read "Neutrality". It is buried because the mainstream media has chosen, for right or wrong, to bury it. Wikipedia articles are not designed to rebalance the coverage shown in reliable sources, but to reflect it. TFD (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If it has been "buried" it's a zombie because with two full pages of media sources containing the words "elizabeth warren native american" just from today I don't think the adjective "buried" qualifies any more. Marteau (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump brought it up today and it has received some coverage, although Warren's appearance with Clinton has got much more. Let's see if it gets on-going coverage. TFD (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy you cited says "This policy is non-negotiable" and does not include a provision that coverage be "on-going". Significant coverage has been obtained. This issue has clearly gone beyond just the 2012 Election, and that it remains there without so much as a sub-sub-SUB heading is ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I will quote it: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." TFD (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And I will say it again: giving the issue a sub-sub-sub heading to remove the implication that the issue is limited to the 2012 Election (as is currently implied by its current placement) is not undue, does not give it improper weight, and is simply properly categorizing the issue. Marteau (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean, really now... I know you think people who want to learn about Warren's heritage should go to Snopes or Factcheck because you've said so, but the fact of the matter is, some will come here. And because they may not associate it with the 2012 election, but with current events, they will not find it. And I know that others think people interested in Warren's heritage should go to articles about the Trump campaign. If information about her heritage issue is to be in the article (and consensus says it should be) it should be properly categorized. It's as simple as that, and it is simply fixed by giving it a sub-sub-sub heading. Marteau (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We should follow Wikipedia policy, not our idea of what people may be looking for. Material is not included or given prominence just because someone may come here looking for it. A lot of people may go to the Chocolate chip cookie page looking for a recipe. That does not mean we should include one, or make it prominent on the page. LK (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Time for another RfC

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)

• Leave the issue under the "2012 election- It is an event from the 2012 election cycle. It definitely should not have its own section. That would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE particularly in a BLP. If Trump is talking about it now, which I have not seen, then it should go in a new article Donald J. Trump's Twitter Account. ;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:12, 30 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 [1]. 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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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.

• Family Legends - Fiction or Fact? - http://genealogy.about.com/od/family_legends/a/common_myths.htm

• Your Family. Myths and Legends in Genealogy - http://www.ancestor.com/getting-started/your-family-myths-and-legends-in-genealogy/

• 5 Genealogy Myths Exposed - http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/5-genealogy-myths-exposed.html

• Gather Family Information: Family Traditions - https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Gather_Family_Information#Family_Traditions

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.

Community consensus

It's clear from the above RfC that community consensus is #2; that is, consistent with Wikipedia policy (WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY, WP:CONTENTFORKING), material should be merged into the main article United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, and leave a short summary in this article. Does anyone object to this as the prima facie consensus from the RfC? LK (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image crop

The new infobox image is an improvement, being a more recent official portrait. However, the crop of the image is in dispute at Commons. Please comment in that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Please change "middle class" to "working class" in the personal section of this entry. Wikipedia's own definition of "middle class" does not support the notion that Elizabeth Warren, who was born to a family with a father who was a janitor, was born to a middle class family. Timothybrace (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - See #"Born to middle-class parents"?. In short, we're going by the sources per WP:V. If you can source "working class", please post that link here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

"Elizabeth Warren". Tech Logins (PVT) LTD. 2016. Retrieved August 24, 2016.

Efurniture Showroom 10:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Please add the Elizabeth Warren series template.

Annexor (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has the template. RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Interaction

Hello y'all, instead of committing WP:vandalism on my post about Trump's remarks about the Pocahontas moniker, please discuss it here in a WP:neutrality way to consensus build.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your bold addition has been reverted; the burden for demonstrating consensus for inclusion of this material lies upon you. You need to discuss your proposed addition here before it is added, if at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As was said, it's a continuation of the Trump interaction already in the article. However, I would fix a comma if that's your gripe.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To address the proposed addition on the merits, there's nothing of encyclopedic substance here; being attacked by a political opponent during a campaign is not inherently noteworthy and we already adequately cover and discuss the ancestry issue. Moreover, the wording of the addition misrepresents the editorial conclusion of the cited reliable source, which is that there is no evidence Warren misrepresented her heritage nor that she gained anything from the listing. I oppose inclusion of the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then we should get rid of the Trump interaction completely, which leaves a void in the WP:POV clause if Warren interacted with anyone else. Also his reasoning is here, rather than my original research (Sorry). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/will-trump-be-dumped.html?_r=0 I would say something like, "He believes shes a fraud so thats why Pocahontas is the more esteemed person".Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant to Elizabeth Warren's biography that a political opponent "thinks she's a fraud" — just as it's not relevant to George W. Bush's biography that political opponents called him a "miserable failure". There might be a place somewhere in Political positions of Donald J. Trump or something, because it's clearly something he believes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between getting called "Pocahontas" or "Fraud"? And also, Jeff Madrick comments on Warren's book. I hope there's no WP:POV in this article.Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Committee assignment

Elizabeth Warren rotated off the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is now on Armed Services. Please rectify. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a source confirming her stepping down? Meatsgains (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article from Dec 14th states: "Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has landed a spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee." "She is stepping down from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources". That good enough? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Will you make the change? Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I added it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fraudulent Native American Controversy

Elizabeth Warren in :

“[Trump’s] got as his strategic adviser someone who’s a white supremacist,” she said of Bannon, the former chairman of Breitbart News, on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.”

“Wait a minute, there’s no evidence he’s a white supremacist,” Cooper said, interrupting Warren. "Obviously, there are people who are white supremacists who support Donald Trump and support Breitbart or Steve Bannon.”

From </ref>:

Elizabeth Warren is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

And Elizabeth Warren is not one of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.

Nor could she become one, even if she wanted to.

Despite a nearly three week flap over her claim of "being Native American," the progressive consumer advocate has been unable to point to evidence of Native heritage except for a unsubstantiated thirdhand report that she might be 1/32 Cherokee. Even if it could be proven, it wouldn't qualify her to be a member of a tribe: Contrary to assertions in outlets from The New York Times to Mother Jonesthat having 1/32 Cherokee ancestry is "sufficient for tribal citizenship," "Indian enough" for "the Cherokee Nation," and "not a deal-breaker," Warren would not be eligible to become a member of any of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes based on the evidence so far surfaced by independent genealogists about her ancestry.

From Boston Globe:

Months after the political flare-up, Warren and some of her family members remain unwilling to provide details on the subject. In a lengthy interview, Warren referred to stories about her roots that she says were frequently told at family gatherings in her native Oklahoma, but declined to share virtually any of them. “I knew it was part of our family,” Warren said. “It was part of what we talked about. . . . It was just part of who we were.”

Warren’s family, including cousin Mapes, have no documentation of Native American affiliation, nor is there evidence that they are listed on any official tribal roll. While Senator Scott Brown, Warren’s opponent, has used this to question her truthfulness, many who assert such heritage are unable to document it, according to several scholars. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, many Native Americans did not join tribal rolls for a host of complex reasons, including residency requirements, fear of discrimination, and opposition to land allotment policies. ExcelsiorPage (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

References

This was a month ago, but I think the newbie wanted the article to give coverage to the fact that Warren seems/seemed to use her ancestry to say, "Look, I'm not a white person. I'm an American Indian, which makes me more compassionate toward minorities!" which is a pump for a Democrat. However, Warren isn't a member of any group or tribal roll, and in any case her ancestry is not unique. Marriage between Cherokees (and the rest of the Civilized Tribes) and whites was pretty common 100-150 years ago. There are a lot of people who are genetically mostly white but with a small percentage of American Indian ancestry. (Including me.) It's not that remarkable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

But Elizabeth Warren isn't one of them. TFD (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the old talk pages where hundreds of edits with thousands of words have discussed this issue. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election

It should probably be mentioned that she received two faithless electors' electoral votes for the Vice-Presidency during the 2016 election, taking them from Tim Kaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:34C0:CC40:80A0:690F:152F:3128 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

151.213.144.137 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Where has her religious beliefs gone? Isn't she a Methodist that teaches Sunday School? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.191 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of a person’s religion is encyclopedic only when it is central to their career or identity. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is according to this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/elizabeth-warren-on-health-care-and-religion/2012/08/23/5c509058-ed6c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html It even quotes the specific bible verses from the Book of Mathews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.144.137 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How is religious beliefs not central to a politician's career in the United States of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.191 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

Harvard Crimson in 1996 described her as Elizabeth Warren as Native American. A 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color," based upon an August 6, 1996 phone interview with the news director at Harvard Law, Michael Chmura. The claim is based upon having ancestry of 1/32nd American Indian which she was unable to support,.

While she denies promoting herself in this way and that she did not know that Harvard was billing her as such beginning in the mid-1980s when she listed herself as Native American in the faculty directory for the Association of American Law Schools, on the “Minority Law Teachers” list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogershok (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Already in the article. TFD (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is already too much about this in the article, and now there is also Donald Trump's racist use of the term "Pocahontas", in the article. Neutron (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Racist"? just seems like good-natured teasing to me. Motsebboh (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing good-hearted about Trump's manner of speech. Motsebboh I must implore you to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It has been deeply affected by both Trump supporting and anti-Trump wikipedians, so we don't need any more of this bias.Radiohist (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Whose bias? Yours? Everyone knows the kind of fellow Trump is. There are millions of men like him. They get very vocal and defensive when challenged and they tend to use crude language, but heir bark is much worse than their bite. However none of this has anything to do with the article. Motsebboh (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He is the president, which means he is in a position to "bite". You cannot defend him by saying there are millions of men like him. You could just as well be referring to school bullies. Once again, there is nothing good-hearted about him. Trump has no heart.Radiohist (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, none of this has anything to do with THE ARTICLE which is about Elizabeth Warren, not about whether Trump is a fine fellow or a heartless SOB. And even if it were about the latter, OUR opinions shouldn't matter. We go by our sources. So Long. Motsebboh (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This all started, because of your desire to point out the so-called "good-hearted teasing", but I agree that it's time to drop the stickRadiohist (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence, which I just added to a little bit: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories, called the AALS Directory of Law Teachers.[62]" Reference 62 is: Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". Boston Herald. Retrieved June 9, 2012, which points to http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2012/04/harvard_trips_on_roots_of_elizabeth_warren_s_family_tree. However, that reference doesn't say anything about Warren listing herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheekbones

While I was preparing this info, Marteau reverted Xenophrenic's revert of my revert of his removal of reliably sourced and relevant narrative. Thanks, Marteau! I'm going ahead and posting this to Xenophrenic here on talk.

Nope, here's Warren herself, quite adamant about the cheekbones.

The CBS reference in the article is reliable. CNN links to it.

Then the Washington Post wrote about the cheekbones, quoting Warren at length and editorializing about it:

Asked if she regretted self-identifying as Native American given all the grief she’s gotten over the past week, Warren gave a long, rambling response.

“I have lived in a family that has talked about Native America, talked about tribes, since I’ve been a little girl,” she said. “I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee [sic] has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she though this was the bad deal she had gotten in life. Being Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it.”

That kind of convoluted answer, filled with odd details, is exactly how not to respond to an attack. Instead of a short and to the point response about why she claimed Native American heritage on some law documents, Warren instead launched on a personal reflection that gives her political opponents plenty of fodder. (High cheekbones!)

Also see The Atlantic.

Most importantly, Indian Country Media Network reported Warren's statement.

Please be careful, Xenophrenic, not to edit war, and note that long-standing, well-sourced text should not be removed without consensus. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my! And while I was posting yet another editor reverted. I undid that revert. Let's talk this over! YoPienso (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction, Yopienso: the content was not "long-standing"; it was inserted on March 13 by a drive-by editor who has made no other edits to the topic. I disagree with including it and agree with Xenophrenic; we already include too much about this minor and long-since vanished nontroversy, and adding more simply puts more undue weight on it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As for your revert, you seem determined to include this material without consensus. The default position is that disputed material remains out of the article, until and unless consensus is developed that it should be included in the article. I thank you for initiating this discussion, and now it's a matter of discussing the issue and creating consensus one way or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To discuss my objection more specifically, I disagree that we should include a poorly-contexted fragment of a quote in which Warren is quoting a statement by her aunt, for reasons of ambiguity to start with. It is enough to state that her family has made historical claims to such ancestry, and that Warren based her statements on those family claims. Quoting her quoting her aunt adds nothing to that statement.

Frankly, if you wanted to directly quote any part of that response, a far more straightforward and less cherry-picked quote would be to use the final line, Being Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it. That sentence accurately and completely sums up her viewpoint on the matter and has the substantial virtue of not being an attempt to quote someone's quote within a quote from a third party. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, NBSB; hope you don't mind my indenting your comments. My bad about thinking the info about high cheekbones was long-standing. I was active on this article once and didn't realize four years have passed. Please assume good faith; I'm not determined to edit against consensus but with it.

Still, let's talk about this, since CNN reported on Trump calling Warren "Pocahontas" just last month, mentioning the high cheekbones 3 times.

Multiple RSs reported the same story, mentioning high cheekbones: HuffPo, AOL, for three. Nor is it a one-off; Trump did it a year ago, as reported by many sources, and repeatedly during his campaign.

I don't see how including something that has been all over the media is cherry-picking. Trump stood in front of a national audience and pointed at his own high cheekbones while mocking Warren. YoPienso (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced, it's notable, it's a memorable and often quoted line from the campaign, and it's inclusion should, in a perfect world, be a no-brainer. But it was kind of awkward and somewhat embarassing, which will bring out her admirers and defenders... a particulary tenacious bunch for sure... which is why I'll not be investing more time than this in voicing my support for it's obvious includability. Ciao for now. Marteau (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. It should definitely be in the articles about Warren's 2012 campaign and Trump's 2016 campaign. YoPienso (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our article says this:

Warren responded to the allegations, saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots. Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

A couple editors have been edit warring to have it say this instead:

Warren responded to the allegations recalling a story from her aunt stating her grandfather "had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do," and saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots. Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

Could someone please explain what encyclopedic information about Warren that additional text is supposed to convey to our readers? I see some would like it in there because they hope it will be "embarassing", but is there an actual legitimate reason? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the side by side comparison. So we have the consensus version, with a quote by her brother, as being fine. But a quote by the woman herself, about the same issue (her heritage) is being challenged. And we all know why, of course. Because what her brother said sounds noble, but what she said sounds goofy. And we can't have that, can we, for such a noble woman fighting the good fight. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The mentions of her claims to Native heritage are still biased, the protests of Cherokee citizens and genealogists omitted in favour of non-Native sources only. Records kept by non-Natives may be unclear. The tribal records are much better. No Native community acknowledges her. As a minority viewpoint, and an inherent bias on WP issue, this was argued and defeated by the majority. But what is in the article is not an accurate or fair portrayal of what happened; it is a whitewashed one. We need at least one sentence about Cherokees protesting, and to remove the ridiculous claim that ancestry is difficult to determine as hers has been thoroughly done and sourced and she is white. And again, before anyone comes in with the ad hominems, which always happen whenever someone wants to point out that Cherokee and other Indigenous viewpoints were removed, I and others who advocated for this inclusion are leftists, and it was Native American Democrats trying to speak with Warren at the conventions, and she snubbed them. Her PR people misrepresented the protests as Republican opposition, but it was not. I propose we cut this sentence from the 2012 election section:
The [[Oklahoma Historical Society]] said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration.<ref>Steve LeBlanc, [http://archive.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/04/30/in_mass_us_senate_race_a_question_of_heritage/ In Mass. US Senate race, a question of heritage], Associated Press (April 30, 2012).</ref>
and add in this one: Some members of the [[Cherokee Nation]] protested her claim to Native American ancestry and questioned whether she benefitted from it.<ref name ="BHer">{{cite web|last=Cassidy|first=Chris|title=Cherokee women to Elizabeth Warren: Stop ducking us!|url=http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220619cherokee_women_to_elizabeth_warren_stop_ducking_us|work=Boston Herald|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120627042357/http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220619cherokee_women_to_elizabeth_warren_stop_ducking_us|archive-date=June 27, 2012|date=June 19, 2012}}</ref><ref name="csm">{{cite web|author=Jonsson, Patrick|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0602/Cherokees-hammer-Elizabeth-Warren-on-ancestry-claim-ahead-of-Mass.-party-convention|title=Cherokees hammer Elizabeth Warren on ancestry claim ahead of Mass. party convention|work=Christian Science Monitor|access-date=April 27, 2014|date=June 2, 2012}}</ref> - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

...remove the ridiculous claim that ancestry is difficult to determine ... I propose we cut this sentence from the 2012 election section: The Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration. --CorbieV

I see no reasonable explanation for removing that reliably sourced information, as it was a statement made directly about Warren's position.

add in this one: Some members of the Cherokee Nation protested her claim to Native American ancestry and questioned whether she benefitted from it. --CorbieV

Really? What information about Warren does that add for the reader? Our article already conveys that her statements on Native ancestry, and whether she benefitted, were being challenged. Your proposed addition does not additionally inform our readers about the subject of this article. In fact, your proposal reads to me as simply an attempt to inflate a political controversy sideshow, rather than factually inform readers about the article subject. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Committee Assignments

The article says Senator Warren is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, but on warren.senate.gov it states she is the Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection. Furthermore,the Subcommittee on Economic Policy website states Senator Heitkamp is the ranking member. https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/economic-policy https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=committees — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiberiusGracchus (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)