Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Native American heritage

We need to add a section entitled "Native American heritage" or "Self-identity as Native American" or something to that effect. We debated about it earlier without reaching a consensus; people have added to the discussion as recently as Jan. 29. (See above.) With her recent speech about her heritage, widely reported by reliable sources, this cannot be dismissed as a campaign issue. The controversy about it was a campaign issue, but, as I've said before, she reiterated the claim in her 2014 book and mentioned it again on p. 224 of her 2017 book, This Fight is Our Fight. Now she's brought it up again. It has nothing to do with any election but is part of her long-standing self-identity. See, for one RS, "Elizabeth Warren, Addressing Claims of Native Ancestry, Vows to Press for Tribes" in today's NYT. YoPienso (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the fact Warren mentioned her alleged Indian ancestry yesterday does not mean it suddenly deserves its own section. If the media choose to turn this into a major story then we will have the material to write a neutral section, that is we will have all the various views. We cannot give any aspects more significance than reliable sources do, per balancing aspects. If you think the world should know more about this, this is not the place to start. TFD (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it deserved its own section several years ago. This should put the nail in the coffin to the protests that it isn't an integral part of Warren's self-identity. YoPienso (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That is your view and you may be right. It strikes me as odd that she would now claim again that she had Cherokee ancestry when experts said it is all but impossible and the media accepted her explanation that she was merely repeating what her family told her. But that is not the perception in mainstream sources. That btw is why fringe media exist, to trumpet information that gets passing mention if any in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Like Warren, I was raised in a part of the US where there was a Cherokee presence, and numerous friends and in-laws of mine believed they were part Cherokee. In every case, they were convinced in their minds, though their "knowledge" was purely family lore and they were not tribal members. Warren, therefore, is utterly credible to me in asserting what may well be a mistaken belief, but one she was taught in her childhood.

The perception of reliable media is that Warren insists she was raised believing she was part Cherokee. I linked only to the NYT, but nearly all the MSM covered her speech at the National Congress of American Indians event in Washington, D.C. today. (It's still Wed. in my time zone.) Here's the full text in the WaPo. Nothing fringe about NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN. Newsweek, AJC etc. YoPienso (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

An entire section? For what purpose? What factual information would be added to this article supported by these sources? How many additional sentences would be proportional to the sources? I do not see how this would justify an entire section. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right; I meant a subsection, as discussed above. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, we don't even need a subsection. The subsection "Political affiliation" in the section "Early life, education, and family" should be moved to the end of the "Career" section. Details about Warren's professed self-identity and the family lore concerning Cherokee heritage can be given in a new paragraph after the current second one, between working at her aunt's restaurant and starring on the debate team. YoPienso (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the political affiliation part. Maybe the Cherokee lore should be added onto the end of the very first paragraph of "Early life, education, and family" or inserted in a new second (not third) paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the media covered her speech, since she is one of the most covered politicians in America. In the past week, media have also covered her on grilling Wells Fargo, planning a Holyoke fundraiser, blasting the White House over abuse, blasting the Senate on maternity leave rules, requesting an extension of FEMA in PR, defending childcare funding, defending DACA, choosing Garcia as a surrogate, and many, many other stories.[1] We need to apply balancing aspects (please read the linked policy section). TFD (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note the difference between current events and personal characteristics. Wells Fargo is mentioned specifically twice in the article and banking throughout the article because her major area of expertise and activism is banking. She persistently claims Native American heritage, or at least confirms her family told her stories of Native American background, despite being mocked about her claims. The recent speech and coverage only further attest to her longstanding assertion that Native American heritage is part and parcel of who she is. YoPienso (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For the most part I've been in agreement with TFD. However, reading this article [2] I'm starting to tend to think that a paragraph in the Public life section might be appropriate. I'd object to putting anything in the "Early life, education, and family" section because while it was part of family lore it had no impact on her life until it was brought up when she ran for the Senate (where it is very well covered). Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

While it made no impact on public opinion of her, Warren's belief that her mother was part Cherokee impacted her life from her earliest memory. She did the recipe thing and listed herself as a minority long before the senate run.

The article you linked to, which is similar to the several I linked to, says:

Warren did not apologize for her undocumented claims that her mother’s family had Cherokee blood — instead, reaffirming: “My mother’s family was part Native American. And my daddy’s parents were bitterly opposed to their relationship. So, in 1932, when Mother was 19 and Daddy had just turned 20, they eloped.”

“The story they lived will always be a part of me,” she said, as tears came to her eyes. '“And no one — not even the president of the United States — will ever take that part of me away.”' [Emphasis added.]

I don't think Wikipedia, out of misguided caution, should take that part of her away. YoPienso (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In the previous discussion on having a separate section, I was against it because I thought she had stopped claiming it, but unfortunately recent events show she still makes these claims despite extensive genealogical research being published showing that her family's claims are false and many responses from the Native American community (this is an articulate example) in the last six years, so I change my vote to Yes, add the separate section. Yuchitown (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

You must be working from completely different sources than the rest of us. Warren has explained her family lore regarding her Native American heritage, and there has been no starting or stopping of any 'claims'. And the 'extensive genealogical research' explicitly admitted they weren't able to find evidence to conclude either way about her ancestry -- they certainly never said "the claims are false". That is already explained in our Wikipedia articles. So what is your rationale for proposing to add a "separate section"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Renewed discussion about Native American heritage

It seems the discussion about a new section on Warren's purported Native American heritage fizzled out. Time to start again!
This was not a passing moment in Warren's life, but a heritage she has espoused for her entire life. She is now trying to strengthen her relationship with Native Americans because of Pres. Trump's continued use of the nickname "Pocahontas." This is very much a part of Warren's ongoing concerns and activities.
Please read this CNN report, published today, that begins, "Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has quietly waged a months-long, behind-the-scenes effort to put 'Pocahontas' in the past."
The fact that an anonymous person had Pocahontas,com redirect to Warren's website is important. She countered it by having it then redirected to a plea to "support the NIWRC’s work of protecting Native women from violence." (Try it: type pocahontas.com into your address bar and see what happens.) YoPienso (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about creating undue separate sections about purported "controversy" will always fizzle out, because that kind of POV editing is not encyclopedic and is strongly discouraged. Despite this, when it comes to politics, the discussions will likely never go away completely. This is a continuation of the same discussion.

I've read the CNN piece you linked. What, specifically, is the article addition or improvement are you proposing now? The CNN piece re-caps the (already noted in our Warren article) facts about Warren's distant past native American heritage claim, and that genealogical societies couldn't prove or disprove that heritage, but even so, political opponents have tried to make political-hay out of her family history claims (Brown in 2012 claiming she materially benefited from minority status, and Trump addressing her with the racial slur "Pocahontas", referring to her family's Native American heritage). All of that is already covered in our article. The only thing "new", to my understanding, is that she has used Trump's slurs (and the "Native American heritage" issue in general) as a pretext to increase her focus and involvement on political issues important to Native Americans (per your new CNN source). Whether her increased focus on Native American political issues is motivated by genuine concern or political expediency is still a matter of speculation (my opinion is that it is likely both), but I can't tell from your recent comment if this is what you wished to expound upon. Are you proposing to add a brief sentence to the "2018 election" section stating that she has increased her attention to Native American-related political issues? (As an aside, I don't share your opinion that "The fact that an anonymous person had Pocahontas,com redirect to Warren's website is important." What importance would that be? It looks like very common political shenanigans on the Interwebs to me. It certainly doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic factoid I would expect to see in a Britannica-style biography about Warren.)

I'm looking forward to your more specific article improvement proposals. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand why Warren's detractors find this issue important. Policy however requires we give it only the weight found in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a detractor. The weight, specially from Warren herself, is considerable. I hope to improve this aspect of the article soon. YoPienso (talk)

There's a paragraph about it, plus a sentence about Trump's slur against her because of it. What more do we need to add? Certainly not some random setting up a website. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussion but I do hope that no editor makes any changes without prior discussion. We have worked so hard to put something together that we all could accept and it took a lot of give and take on all sides to get there. Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is human nature that if we like someone we see their strengths and downplay their faults and vice versa if we do not like them. But we have to assign weight based on what mainstream sources do. For good or ill, they chose to largely ignore this issue. TFD (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether this is a strength or weakness of Warren's, and if I did, it shouldn't influence my editing. I'm just following the sources:

1. Warren herself

• A Fighting Chance has a whole section called "Native American." It's only a few pages long, but the claim to Native American heritage threads throughout the book on pp. 9, 143, 239-42, 262-63, not counting notes.
• This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class, though mainly about economics, includes some autobiographical references. She briefly mentioned her family lore about Native American ancestry and Trump's nicknames for her, "Goofy" and "Pocahontas."
• She addressed the issue in Feb., 2018, at the National Congress of the American Indian, and subsequently spoke about it on national TV, where she declared, "It’s a part of me and nobody’s going to take that part of me away."

2. And then the media themselves. I'm going to paste and hide a bunch of links from liberal, centrist, and conservative sources. YoPienso (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You've listed sources, from both Warren and media (some from as far back as 2012), that show there was coverage of the controversy ginned up about Warren's family lore. That is why our article on Warren already includes information about her family lore, and the attempts to stir controversy over it by Brown, and later, Trump. What, specifically, is the article addition or improvement are you proposing now? I'm looking forward to your more specific article improvement proposals. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the Native American issue deserves its own section, "Native American heritage controversy," because it traverses several other sections describing Warren's life. The issue is relevant to "Early life, education and family" because her belief that she has some Native heritage traces back to her recollections of family lore and because nevertheless she did NOT seek the advantage of Affirmative Action classifications when applying to college and law school. It's relevant to "Career" because the only reason we're even talking about this is because of her decision while on the faculty of the University of Texas from 1986 and 1995 to list herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty, and because Penn, apparently only once, and Harvard, for a time, touted her as Native American. It's certainly relevant to "U.S. Senate," with respect to her 2012 Senate campaign and it's all but certain to be an issue in her 2018 re-election campaign, once her GOP is opponent is identified and ditto if she decides to run for president in 2020. There IS a controversy about Warren's ethnic heritage. Should there be or is the controversy "fair"? I don't think so on either point, but that's just me. BUT the fact is, and this is an encyclopedia about facts, remember, that controversy exists and currently looms large thanks in no small part to the efforts of the president of the United States. Hillary Clinton probably gave less thought to her decision to use a private email server than Warren gave to her decision to list herself as a minority in the law school faculty directory. But-for Clinton's decision it's all but certain she would be president today (and there would not be a full section captioned "Email controversy" in Clinton's Wikipedia article). Life is unfair. I wish we did not live in a world where political opponents can seize on some really trivial issue, twist surrounding facts beyond recognition and, through bombast and lies, make a mountain from a molehill. But we do and Wikipedia, in Warren's case, should take that issue straight forwardly on. I'll wait a week or so before creating that section myself. This is probably a good time to mention the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. I have none and we all would appreciate it if those that do refrain from editing the article in chief, but not, of course, with disclosure, from commenting on this Talk page. Lahaun (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus to create an entire section about this issue, because there isn't really a "controversy." The issue is already adequately discussed in prose, and you should probably seek to gain consensus for any significant, contested changes to this biography. I'm not aware of any editors here having any conflicts of interest; if you have evidence that a particular editor does, you should bring that up at WP:COINB, otherwise it's irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In light of the latest news about Warren's DNA results, there most certainly is a controversy—and it's not as if some fringe element is driving it, either. Warren initially claimed to be 1⁄32 Native American, or five generations removed from Native ancestors. But her test showed that she is no more than 1⁄64 Native American, which is no less than six generations removed from Native ancestry. The newspaper sources cited in that paragraph corroborate these numbers. So merely calling the section, or sub-section, "Native American heritage" would be disingenuous, because it implies that she has significant amount of Native American DNA, which she does not. Being 1⁄64 Native American is not a defining characteristic of any person, much less Warren. After all, most Americans, even white ones, have about as much Native American DNA as she does, according to the New York Times. This has also been pointed out by other media outlets writing about Warren's DNA test, including a recent article in The Federalist.

As such, I agree with Lahaun that the section, or sub-section, in question shall be titled "Native American heritage controversy." Greggens (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's already covered in the article. Style prefers that controversy be mentioned where it occurs, because controversy sections are inherently non-neutral. Trump has attracted a lot of controversy by calling Warren "Pocahontas." Why not put a section about the controversy in his article? TFD (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't about Trump. It's about Warren, and this controversy seems to be a defining characteristic of hers. Besides, lots of people have publicly called her "Pocahontas," even before Trump ever did. If we mention Trump calling her that, we'd have to mention everyone else who's called her that, as well. Too much information for this article. Greggens (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have people resisted stating the plain fact that she claims Indian heritage? Without discussing that fact, this Wikipedia bio is very misleading. Clearly some editors have engaged in an effort to keep this fact off her page. I strongly object. Ebw343 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I just wrote, "It's already covered in the article." Is there anyway I could have phrased it more clearly? TFD (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet more developments - she's released the results of a genetic test, which appears to support her claim of Native American ancestry: see this Boston Globe story. I've added a mention of that to the 2012 election section, as that's where the rest of this ancestry stuff seems to be going, even though it seems out of place there. Her team has also produced a 5-min video about her family history accompanying this event, but I didn't mention it as I'm not sure if it will gain enough views/coverage to be considered notable. See here: Updated section of her personal website & YouTube video. Given the importance she's placing on this, and her (growing?) national profile, I do wonder if this ancestry story should be moved out of the sections for the 2012 + 2016 elections. Perhaps into a paragraph in personal life, but without its own heading, so as to de-emphasise the story? Massivefranklin (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why de-emphasize it? It's very important to Warren herself, who has been emphasizing it for some time now. It's important to Donald Trump and, most importantly, to the news media, which is why it's notable. I suggest--not for the first time--that it have its own subheading under a revamped version of "Early life, education, and family" or under "Career" or even under "U.S. Senate". YoPienso (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be tucked away under the 2012 campaign because Warren's heritage was important to her long before then, and the controversy has far outlived that campaign. YoPienso (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I suggested something less emphatic than a dedicated section w/ heading is because the discussion above was starkly divided on whether that was desirable. I thought my suggestion might be a consensual middle ground. Massivefranklin (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for you response and for your willingness to compromise--although I myself am not very willing to compromise this particular point. YoPienso (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned in my edit summary that the Carlos Bustamante who conducted the analysis is *not* the biochemist Carlos Bustamante with the Wikipedia article -- but within 2 hrs somebody naively chucked the double square brackets around that name! Putting this comment here as yet another reminder to editors that these two Carloses are not the same. Massivefranklin (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

I have removed a lengthy discourse on the Native American issue from the lede of the article and per WP:BRD I request that it not be reinserted until consensus is reached on whether or not it belongs, and if so, how to properly word and weight it. The section inserted by YoPienso gave as much space in the lede to the Native American issue as it gave to Warren's entire Senate career, which is clearly and obviously undue weight on this single issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was bold, you reverted, here I am to discuss. Please enlarge on your edit summary, "I simply disagree. Per WP:BRD this material needs to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached first," to discuss why you simply disagree. Please see my recent comment for why I think it should be included. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the sub-section is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that what I wrote is too long. Yet I insist some mention of the issue be made in the lead and that a subsection tell the details. Otherwise, we're tampering with Warren's life story and omitting pertinent info. YoPienso (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be in the lead, as it is a notable enough issue.--72.208.47.172 (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be placed in the lede. It has been the cornerstone of her whole law professor career. The article has become a whitewashed article where editors who are supportive of her career and her politics remove huge amounts of negative information about her. There are editors who blatantly point out that they believe protecting her political career is the most important issue when editing this article. The whole and complete removal of her claims of being both a Native American AND a Cherokee from the lede without making even one helpful comment is typical of the phenomena. She is not a member of my tribe. She has claimed to be Cherokee in the past and that information has been removed. She has claimed to be Native American and at the same time provides information that proves that she is somewhere between 98.5% to 99.9% WHITE. She has defended her Native American and Cherokee claims by saying she has "high cheekbones" which is disturbing at the least and racist at the most. There are thousands of enrolled members of various Cherokee Nations that have condemned and crticized her claims. But editors want to whitewash the article because she is a potential 2020 candidate. One of the editors actually said those words. ALL of these facts are wildly supported by reliable sources from across the political spectrum but there are still attempts to whitewhite the article of all of this information. The attempts to remove ALL mentions of these facts in the lede is an attempt to whitewash. The attempts to write one line buried in the body of the article and then direct readers to a separate article is at attempt at whitewash. Since the woman has been making these claims for DECADES indicates that there should be some concensus supported mention in the lede and there should be a summary in the article. The information is extensive and therefore it might also require its own article. If Donald Trump says things that are racial it gets placed in Wikipedia immediately. If Elizabeth Warren makes a racist comment defending herself even though she is 98.5% to 99.9% white her "high cheekbones" comment gets deleted from the article as if she never said it. Wikipedia is not censored or whitewashed.CharlesShirley (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede (at all). It's not a sufficiently noteworthy or defining element in her life and career. It has simply been used as a weapon by her opponents and adversaries, and that seems to be the only reason it has gained media attention and traction and click-bait. Anyone who wants to read about it can skip to the subsection on it. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: and @CharesShirley: There really shouldn’t even be a subsection on it. Including it in the article at all serves no purpose except to suggest that Warren isn’t genuine, as a means of manipulating public opinion against her - which is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Aidaakron (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, including it validates her personal narrative; excluding it reeks of Orwellian editing--throwing unwelcome facts down the memory hole. See my comments below. YoPienso (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SoftLavender says, "There's no consensus as of yet to include this in the lede; or how and in what wording. Wait till there is a consensus on Talk." I see a lot of agreement here. Please chime in, everyone.
Also, to contextualize NorthBySouthBaranof's comment on my "lengthy discourse," it was this: Warren has always believed family lore that she has American Indian and specifically Cherokee ancestry; in 2018 a DNA test showed a Native ancestor some six to ten generations ago. Her claim has been mocked by politicians and criticized by Cherokees. Questions about whether she used her claimed Indian heritage to obtain various academic positions have been refuted by those who hired her. I agreed it was too long, but don't consider it a lengthy discourse. So let's be careful in our discussions and comments. My newer addition that SoftLavender reverted was in the third paragraph of the lead right after "Scott Brown": During the election, controversy over her alleged Native American heritage arose. YoPienso (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion, "It's not a sufficiently noteworthy or defining element in her life and career." As I've said repeatedly, it has been part of her personal narrative for her entire life, and has cropped up again and again throughout her life. (Remember the cookbook and the checkmark at Harvard.) In 2012 editors here said it was a passing political attack, but she continued to remark and write on it, as did political opponents and the press. Six years later it's more alive and relevant to her life story than ever. YoPienso (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, you violated WP:ALLEGED. For another, you didn't wait until there was a consensus on whether to include anything in the lede, or what the wording should be. Since you've been reverted twice on this, per WP:BRD you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for both the inclusion and the precise wording, rather than making those decisions yourself. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm hoping to work with you to write the best possible article. (Though in a moment I'm going offline for hours.) I don't understand what you mean about violating WP:ALLEGED. I was carefully trying to be as accurate as possible--as that time, there was no geneological or scientific evidence that she has Native ancestry, but only her familuy lore, which was being hotly disputed. Once again, yes, let's discuss! YoPienso (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED: Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Her DNA test proved that she has some Native American ancestry. It doesn't matter when the DNA test was; your use of the word "alleged" implied that her assertion of Native American heritage was inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what you meant. Do you agree that in 2012 it was alleged, not demonstrated? I was going to say "claimed," but thought that was pejorative, whereas "alleged" seemed dispassionate and encyclopedic. I personally would gladly drop any qualifier, but only because I have always believed her 100%. But my understanding of policy is that we need a qualifier when referring to the claim before the DNA test confirmed it.

Here's my proposal--Add the following sentence to the third paragraph of the lead right after "Scott Brown": During the election, controversy over her Native American heritage arose. Let's discuss! I've broken a personal rule of mine to never sign on at work. Now truly disappearing for hours. YoPienso (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy arose" is weasel-wording. Her opponents made it into an issue. It should also be clear that they were wrong on two counts: Warren did have Indian ancestry and she never benefited from it in gaining acceptance to schools or employment. The only arguably valid criticism of her came from the Cherokee nation, which some editors want excluded from the article except where it is critical of Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• With how the article is currently written it should be in the lead. If you want to re-write the article to de-emphasis that part well okay. But as it currently stands there is no reasonable policy based argument that the largest and most well sourced section of the article is not mentioned in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course it should be mentioned, but it must be written according to policy and guidelines first. It's not up to me to re-write it. TFD (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it comes down to wording more than if it should be mentioned at all. I was mostly talking about if it should be mentioned period. Since a few of the arguments above talked about removing it completely. There are more skilled writers than myself that should be able to do a good job in that regard. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it should be in the lede. My attempt at it was just a first attempt. I do not pretend that my version should be used. But I want to emphasize once again, it is not just a topic thrown at her by her political opponents. She made the personal choice to tell law school administrators throughout the country that she believed that she was both a Native American and a Cherokee. She made positive, affirmative steps to tell law school administrators this information. These are things she did--not Trump, not Brown. The controversy that has followed her around since this information came to light grew out of actions she took. Also, she did not take affirmative, positive steps to work with the people of my tribe, the Cherokees. That is choice that she made, not Trump, not Brown, not the Cherokees. I think editors should stop making excuses for her. Neither Trump or Brown made her defend herself by saying she was convinced she is a Cherokee Indian because she claims to have "high cheekbones". She made the choice to make a racist statement to defend herself. She has claimed Native and Cherokee ancestry for DECADES. It is a part of her life and it is CLEARLY a part of her life now. Please stop trying to whitewash it from the lede, the body of the article, etc. It is significant and it belongs in the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not weasel-wording, TFD, but appropriate brief mention in the lead of a topic covered in the body. Per WP:WEASEL: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. [Emphasis added.] Earlier, I was more specific and detailed, and my addition was called a "lengthy discourse." YoPienso (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If mentioned it should say it was a controversy among U.S. conservatives, otherwise it implies that it was wider than it actually was. TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken about that. Please see my hidden list from June 16, "Links to news stories about Warren and her Native American claims." Many centrists and liberals added their voices. Currently, the Cherokee Nation and other Native organizations are vigorously contributing to the controversy; they are progressive, not conservative. YoPienso (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any liberals or centrists. Can you name some? I know that mainstream media did cover the attacks by Brown and Trump, but that does not mean they questioned what Warren said. TFD (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I don't get how you can't see the hundreds of thousands of natives in various tribes who are critical of her for attempting to take jobs from qualified natives who are 100%/50%/25% native, instead of her 1%. I guess we see what we want to see. Take a look at his recent article from the NY Times, who interviewed quite a few people, none of whom are conservatives. I know it is much simplier to say that native complaints at Warren are just conservatives stirred up by Trump and FOX News. But that analysis is flawed and incorrect. It basically ignores that fact that Warren has misused my tribal heritage and the great suffering that natives have gone through and her misuse is just another example of one more person stomping on the native culture and rights of Native Americans. I know it is easier to blow it off as some kind of Trump thing, but that is flat out incorrect. Simple but wrong. See: Astor, Maggie. Why Many Native Americans Are Angry With Elizabeth Warren, New York Times, October 17, 2018.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: How about checking this article from the Huff Post by Rebecca Nagel: I Won’t Support An Elizabeth Warren Presidency While She Appropriates My Identity, Huff Post, October 3, 2018. There are plenty of liberal voices out there that are angry and unhappy with Warren and her Cherokee and N.A. claims. Trump and conservatives are not the only people unhappy with her and you should not make that false assumption.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The comprehensive coverage given by the MSM should be enough to satisfy you, TFD, that not only conservatives are discussing this. Clearly the initial thrust of the controversy was in the context of a political battle, Warren being the progressive and Brown the conservative. Yet from there, "everybody" had to chime in. Please note the article I linked to in The Atlantic that explores the issue itself and doesn't simply report what the conservatives were saying. The New Yorker article is rather critical of Warren, rebutting an assertion that Brown was asking questions that had already been answered with: "Except that they haven’t been, really. When Warren made her reputation by speaking clearly and sensibly about the economy, she seemed to trust her listeners’ intelligence. Why hasn’t she now?" Other responses to Warren in that same article are "one can’t help but wince," and that one can "still be impatient with her on this one. The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value—that this was all about a Native American woman looking for other Native Americans to talk to—it doesn’t sound good. She doesn’t appear to have looked very hard, for one thing." Then we have the very recent outcry from Native Americans, who are progressive, not conservative, as I already said today. YoPienso (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the two articles you listed and I do not see any criticism from liberals or centrists. The one other group that criticized Warren was representatives of the Cherokee nation and I think that should be mentioned. Note that the two groups criticized Warren for different reasons. Conservatives said she had no Indian ancestry and made it up in order to benefit from affirmative action, both of which claims were false. Can you name any liberals who attacked Warren? Obama, Biden, Shumer, Pelosi, the Clintons - where are their negative comments? TFD (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Your statement that there were no liberals in the two articles was simply false. So after I respond here I will waste no more time with responding to your comments because you are just ignoring them and believing what you want. Those articles quoted three different liberal people: (1) Kim TallBear, a prof. at Univ of Alberta and member of Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe in SD; (2) Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Cherokee Nation Secretary of State; and (3) Rebecca Nagel, registered Democrat, avowed liberal, and a member of my tribe, the Cherokees. All three of these people are critics of Warren. You want to lump them in with all "Cherokees", which minimizes their individual worth and is an ignorant statement because Professor TallBear is not even a Cherokee. It is a blatantly false statement by you and it assumes that all American Indians are Cherokees. It also assumes that all Cherokees think alike. The statement is wrong on many levels. It is emblematic of how non-Indians are discussing this whole Warren misappropriating native culture issue. Also, you asked for names of liberals and I gave them to you and then you moved the goalposts and made a list of the only liberals you would accept, which was made up of only white liberals (except for Obama who is half white) from the Democratic Party (e.g., Pelosi, Shumer, etc). Whether this list of white liberals condemns Warren or not does not decide whether Warren's Indian heritage is going to be in the article. They are not the decider of this issue. Clearly I gave you a list of what you asked for and clearly you ignored the list and came up with a new set of rules. I will no longer respond to the silliness. Warren thought she was an Cherokee because she had "high cheekbones" which is a racist and ignorant thought process.CharlesShirley (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

TFD, I understood your comment, "it was a controversy among U.S. conservatives," to mean it was something heard only in the conservative echo chamber. Perhaps I misunderstood you. At 02:28, 18 October 2018, you acknowledged MSM coverage of the controversy, but stated, "that does not mean they questioned what Warren said." So I quoted from 2 liberal MSM publications that questioned what Warren said. (Imo, they were being impartial and fair--not attacking her, but acknowledging weakness. Nonetheless, they weren't applauding or defending, but questioning.)

If you'll notice, in my list I'm calling the news sources themselves liberal, centrist, and conservative. Clearly the controversy--not the self-identity--arose as a political attack, so, no, of course we're not going to hear Democrats such as Obama, Pelosi, etc., attacking one of their major public faces. (This isn't so much conservative v. liberal as Republican v. Democrat.) YoPienso (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

They did not question what Warren said, they merely repeated the conservative criticisms and her reply. CharlesShirley, it is certainly not incorrect to say that the criticism came from conservatives and members of the Cherokee nation (and we say Native Americans.) But it is misleading to say that liberals criticized Warren. Overwhelmingly they did not. Anyway, this page discussion is going nowhere. The article should reflect this matter the way it was covered in mainstream media and not try to vindicate or villainize Warren beyond what they have done. Have faith that if the criticisms are explained to readers that they can come to their own conclusions. TFD (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrt Warren listing herself as a minority, the New Yorker article called Warren's response disappointing and suggested she was being opportunistic; they explained why another paper called her "Fauxcahontas." Explained why. Not explain away. Then they ask why she's no longer trusting her listeners' intelligence. It directly questions, "She put herself down as Native American for the lunch invitations, and stopped when none were forthcoming?" and then says one can't help but wince at that and be impatient with her. It says, "The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value. . . it doesn’t sound good." And then it criticizes her for not looking very hard. So I don't know how you can say "They did not question what Warren said, they merely repeated the conservative criticisms and her reply." YoPienso (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And here in the Miami Herald is a local Democratic bigwig criticizing Warren for the DNA test. "Instead of worrying about Trump’s attacks and focusing on herself, wouldn’t Democrats be better served if Warren used her substantial intellect to articulate the real issues of the day?" he asks after referring to Jim Messina's criticism of her. YoPienso (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic side discussion ~Awilley (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@The Four Deuces: You are right this discussion is going no where because you are defending information that you want to believe. Also, correct me if I misunderstand your comment above ("and we say Native Americans"), are you trying (unsucessfully I might add) to lecture me on what term I can or cannot say about members of my own tribe? I am a proud enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, unlike Warren. I don't know about your background because you are hiding behind a name that your mother obviously did not give you. Who is the "we" you are referring to in your failed, attempted lecture? Is the "we" the white liberals you have designated to approve changes to this article, e.g., Pelosi, Shumer, Biden, and the Clintons? Just so you understand going forward I will refer to members of my tribe and members of other tribes (not Warren because she is not native) as "native" or "Native American" or "American Indian" or "indigenous". Also, I will not ask you or any of your white liberal overlords (such as the Clintons) for permission to refer to other natives as American Indian because I don't need their elitist approval, or your approval or anyone's approval because all of those terms are acceptable. You clearly did not understand this fact so I had to just explain it to you flat out and fill in the missing pieces of your education. I used to work for an organization called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is not called the Bureau of Native American Affairs. I doubt you knew the BIA even existed because I doubt seriously is an area in which you have any experience or education. Why do I say that? Because you comment is silly and lacks substance or insight and it clear I had to education you about a basic fact of Indian Country.CharlesShirley (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say "we can say Native Americans" meaning we can say Warren has been criticized by Native American organizations instead of saying has been criticized by Cherokee organizations. I resent your reference to "my white liberal overlords" and the statement that I was not aware of the DIA. When I say liberals did not criticize Warren, that does not mean I am defending them, just stating the facts which should be reflected in this article. Incidentally, I have worked for aboriginal bands and tribal councils, and came into contact with the Department of Indian Affairs (since renamed) but I don't claim that gives me any special expertise in editing Wikipedia articles. While the nomenclature used was different, I believe the generally accepted term in the United States today is "Native American." TFD (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: I apologize for jumping down your throat. Please note that: There is nothing in the U.S. federal government called the "Department of Indian Affairs" or "DIA". There is the main U.S. agency that serves as the U.S. government's main contact with American Indian and Alaskan people and that agency is called the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which I used to work for. I gave you a link to the BIA article in Wikipedia. Now, there is a division of the United States Department of the Interior called the Indian Affairs division, which is essentially the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and that Presidentially appointed job is to run the BIA, but it is NOT called the "Department of Indian Affairs" or "DIA". The BIA is probably one of the oldest agencies in the history of the United States government and it has been called the Bureau of Indian Affairs throughout that timeframe. There has never been a "Department of Indian Affairs" or a "DIA". There has never been a renaming of that agency. I just don't know what you are referring to because the BIA has never been renamed and the BIA is the federal government's main agency that deals with Indian people has been called that for well over a century and still is today. And NO there is no "generally accepted term" for people like me who are members of tribes. Please do not say that, it just isn't true. What tribe did you work for?--CharlesShirley (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC) It was in Canada. TFD (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to amend the third paragraph of the lead by inserting "During the election, controversy over her Native American heritage arose" right after the first sentence? YoPienso (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Although given the recent test results, it would be more adequate to state "controversy arose over her purported Native American heritage"… — JFG ^talk 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not funny JFG . OK, this sounds good to me as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(To those that do not understand, this means that I appreciate JFG's humor - it is not meant to be some sort of mean dig.) Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Response from the Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State

I feel this source should be included.[3]. Also, the Secretary of State's name is Chuck Hoskin Jr.2601:447:4101:41F9:59A7:F6EE:32C0:4CBC (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Warren did this DNA testing because she was called a liar, not because she intended to prove herself as qualifying for membership in the tribe. I believe that it should now be put to rest rather than to further stir the pot. Gandydancer (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's not about membership. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just removed such a statement from the article. It led to a missing ref thing, and I'm going to let that ride and let the bot take care of it, so that the source for the statement is still in the list of references. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There are secondary sources addressing this issue, and it should be included. Reasoning by Gandydancer and Drmies is speculative and irrelevant. The quote can be added using this or another secondary source but a direct link to the statement is inappropriate use of a primary source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary or secondary has nothing to do with anything. That she doesn't qualify for something is simply not relevant if she never asked for that something. You can call that OR, but that's nonsense. If an irrelevant remark is to be included because her name is mentioned, imagine how many other irrelevant things we should start including. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. Warren is not claiming tribal status. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. K.e.coffman the NYT article says the group in question is reacting to the analysis, and the secondary coverage shows it is WP:DUE. Policy clearly allows it to be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Not everything in the news article needs to go into the biography; that fails WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, though I think reasonable editors could disagree. However, your initial objection was not based on Wikipedia policy. And WP:DUE is explicitly tied to the proportion and prevalence of sources, so your subjective assessment of what's important and what's not is less relevant than the amount of coverage received from WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" = "undue", or at least pretty close. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, though that is apparently based on your evaluation of the statement/viewpoint itself and not the degree of coverage in WP:RS. That's not a proper application of WP:DUE, which reads: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's your personal opinion that this is relevant. And that viewpoint of yours, that this is relevant, is not one that needs to be represented. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not my viewpoint, it's the one expressed in the article. WP:DUE is specifically tied to the proportion of sources covering a viewpoint, not about your or my or anyone else's personal opinion about the viewpoint itself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: Re this edit, the material has already been removed here: [4]. Please consider self-reverting while the discussion is on-going. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Display name 99:, your edit summary is a non sequitur. The implication of the statement is that she sought tribal status, which of course she didn't, though your deceptive edit summary tries to find another reason for inclusion. BTW, who wrote this? "Condemned the results"--that's not in the statement, and it makes no logical sense anyway. The more I look at the statement ("Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong"--well, she didn't seek a connection to any nation, did she?) the more I am convinced that including this is akin to asking someone if they stopped beating their wife. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

She did claim to be part Cherokee. See a quote in this CNN article: "As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would? But I knew my father's family didn't like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope." Whether she wanted to formally claim tribal status is, as others have said, is irrelevant, and to say that there is any real implication in the article that she ever tried to do so seems like a stretch to me. As for the language "condemned the results," well, I didn't write it. Someone else did, and I have no problem with it being altered. The wife beating analogy is rather bizarre and I'm not sure what it's supposed to convey. And finally, no, I won't be self-reverting. Display name 99 (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If that seems like a stretch to you, you're not a very good reader. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The response includes the words "even vaguely." How in the world is that supposed to imply an attempt to gain a formal affiliation? It looks like I'm not the one who can't read very well. Display name 99 (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well as the Cherokee's original response before the DNA testing. Their complaint about Warren's lack of support in American Indian issues should also be included. TFD (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Include a very concise summary of the response/reaction from indigenous sources but not in the context of a non-existent tribal membership claim. I agree with Drmies position on this. That said, there has subsequently been a growing backlash against Warren from the indigenous community and academia beyond the initial Cherokee statement, based on the view that the very notion of using DNA testing to demonstrate heritage undermines the basis of longstanding sovereignty claims (which is separate from the issue of membership which - as Drmies I think accurately noted - is somewhat irrelevant). As an accurate representation of the social criticism that has ensued around this announcement, therefore, I think a very succinct note of inclusion of a few points is warranted. A few items that seem relevant and have received traction:

• Kim TallBear, the Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience and Environment at the University of Alberta, issued a statement saying "For Elizabeth Warren to centre a Native American ancestry test as the next move in her fight with Republicans is to make yet another strike — even if unintended — against tribal sovereignty." CBC
• Pam Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer and associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Ryerson University said: "If your only claim to Indigeneity is a quack DNA test or an ancestor from 400 years ago - you are NOT Indigenous. Defining Indigenous by blood and race couldn't get more colonial if she tried." CBC
• Warren should never have made this claim to begin with. It doesn’t mean anything to possibly have 1/1024 Native American ancestry if she has no ties to Native American culture or politics otherwise. The test might prove she didn’t lie about family history, but it doesn’t tell us anything else useful, and plays into the dangerous ways that people already (wrongly) conflate genetic ancestry with culture. The Verge
• "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage." KJRH-TV

That said, we need to avoid a blow by blow of any back-and-forth as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is also not a race and, I get the sense from looking at the edit history, that some editors might be on a quest to get something into the article in the next 20 days which isn't really how this thing works. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but the additions to the article do not in any way point out that her claim is that she somewhere between 0.0976% to 1.56% which gives her an amount of Indian blood approximately equal to the average American. It does not mean that she is an Indian. It means that she is 98.5% to 99.9% white. Based upon those numbers she is no different than the average American. This article gives the false impression that she has "proved" she is Indian, which she did not do. She merely proved that she has just about the same amount of Indian blood than MOST Americans. That last paragraph is deceptive.CharlesShirley (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: What you have written -- "that she is no different than the average American" -- is factually incorrect. You should really consider whether the things you read are biased by political partisanship. In one estimate from a well-powered study, only 2.7% of self-identified European Americans carry any Native American ancestry. Source: [Paper from geneticists collaborating with 23andMe] "3.5% and 2.7% of European Americans... carry African and Native American ancestry, respectively.". This is the same paper that provides the claim "European Americans have 0.18% Native ancestry on average" which has been widely publicised in recent coverage. The report commissioned by Warren provides results suggesting that she has at least ~0.7% Native American DNA, which is many times greater than 0.18%, and that figure is almost certainly an underestimate for numerous technical reasons. If you put Warren through 23andMe's service, she would probably come up as having a significantly higher percentage than that. I am a researcher in genetic anthropology, so I think I know what I am talking about. It's a bad idea to comment on complicated results in genetics if you don't have any expertise in the subject. Massivefranklin (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Do you think we should mention the 2.7% figure in the article? It makes the context a bit clearer, though I think a better comparison would be to so-called "Old Stock Americans" rather than to all European Americans.--Pharos (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I would be tempted to, but that comparison has not been made anywhere else, so the only precedent for it is this talk page, and that doesn't seem right. It also feels like the only reason for including it is specifically to make readers more sympathetic to Warren's claim. If some credible publication published some article mentioning the 2.7% figure in direct relation to Warren's situation, I would feel alright with including it. Massivefranklin (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I also think the 2.7% figure is a bit imperfect, since maybe half of European Americans have ancestors who came relatively recently and not have even vague claims to Native ancestry.--Pharos (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

I think a well-chosen short quote from the Cherokee Nation is appropriate, with context that Warren is not seeking tribal membership. We don't need a half-dozen academic commentaters--Pharos (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Your response is a personal attack on me and you know nothing about me so by definition your comment violates the basic understanding of logic and reason. You are not to comment on other editors, but you can comment on the article. This you did not do. Please focus your comments going forward to the article on Also, your comment missed the point. The paper she paid did point out that she is somewhere between 98.5% and 99.99% white. That's a fact that the article does not point out. The article is written to give her paid for study the best light possible. And finally the paid for study does not, in any way whatsoever, support her past claims that she is a member of my tribe, the Cherokee Nation.CharlesShirley (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: Warren has claimed, on many occasions that she believes she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. That's why there is a whole organization consisting of members of the various federal recognized Cherokee Nations who have spoken out against her claims and her misinformation. These organizations and individuals have spoken out again. She used her 1 percent Native blood to work her way up the law school ladder and various universities referred to her as a "woman of color" which was wrong and she was aware of it. Fordam Law Review referred to as "the first woman of color to get tenure at Harvard Law School" in Volume 66 on page 898 of its journal. Her claims of being a Native American, specifically a Cherokee are well-documented. This article attempts to cover all of this history up and only refers to sources that glowing approvals of Warren's point of view. It extensively quotes a primary source, Warren's bought and paid for study (which makes it by definition questionable), and the article either eliminates or downplays reliably sourced secondary sources, which is the type of source that Wikipedia is supposed to rely upon (but in this situation it is not).CharlesShirley (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Include. It has now been cited by several mainstream news outlets (I've seen it at TIME, ABC News, and NPR, to name a few), and Secretary of State Hoskin has now appeared at a number of outlets giving interviews. As Warren claimed Cherokee descent, this is the definitive response. It is concise and to the point and a necessary rebuttal. Further, it addresses the deeper issues of sovereignty and the racialization of Indigenous identity; these are relevant no matter what she has or hasn't claimed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this shouldn’t be included. It casts Warren in a negative light, suggesting that she isn’t in touch with people who have been marginalized. She is a strong candidate and she has the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020. That is what’s important here, and it outweighs any squabbling over whether some third party’s opinion should be in the article (it shouldn’t). Aidaakron (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

... she has the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020. That is what’s important here... ... That is, quite literally, of no importance at all here. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would ask you why you feel it’s necessary to use Wikipedia to smear Warren’s reputation by including references to the statements you quoted above? Aidaakron (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aidaakron: I will not response to Aidaakron because he/she is taking into consideration issues that have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. He/she states that since in Aidaakron's opinion Warren has a chance against Trump in 2020 and that chance is important negates just about anything else Aidaakron says. Aidaakron needs to focus on the article and how to improve the article nothing more. Warren's political chances are completely, totally unimportant to discussions about what should be included or not included in the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Wow, ok - Dismissing the input of a woman. Well if women are allowed to be heard on Wikipedia, I’d like to reply to your comment. I was trying to offer a perspective on the broader issue, which is that an encyclopedia - just like the press - should not have any role in shaping public opinion on political figures or issues. So, along that vein, I pointed out that including the content in question would only serve to publicize criticism of Warren. This is in contrast to the more appropriate route of presenting Warren as a champion of the marginalized against a presidential bully. And it looks like plenty others agree that this should be excluded. Aidaakron (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Please substantiate your assertion that "Warren has claimed, on many occasions that she believes she is a member of the Cherokee Nation." I've never heard her make it. She has claimed Cherokee ancestry, which is far different from claiming to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. She made this abundantly clear on her recent video. YoPienso (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@YoPienso: In the famous Pow Wow Chow Cookbook, Warren signed her various recipes as "Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee)" which is the way that members of my tribe sign their name. There and other places she makes the assertion that she is a member of the tribe. It is not appropriate and it is makes a representation about her heritage that is not true. On another topic she has said that she thought she was Cherokee Indian because she says that she has "high cheekbones". This disgraceful statement has been removed from the article. This is no reason that this statement should not be in the article. It is significant. It was her first public defense of her claims of being Indian and being Cherokee. Also, the claim that you tell an Indian by high cheekbones is offensive and somewhat racist.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of a cookbook doesn't constitute evidence that "Warren claimed she is a member of the Cherokee Nation." I have removed your addition from the lede; it is both non-neutrally worded and arguably WP:UNDUE. Please discuss your proposed insertion per WP:BRD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: "Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee)" is not a claim of tribal enrollment. What was inappropriate about that and about calling herself a minority faculty member at Harvard was that she was representing herself as self-indentifying mainly as Cherokee, whereas in fact she self-identifies mainly as white. We should definitely include the high cheekbones claim in the body of the article, because it's part of Warren's story. Today it's considered offensive and somewhat racist, but it wasn't when she was growing up. Let's avoid presentism. YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see my year-and-a-half-old comments about cheekbones. YoPienso (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Include a concise summary. It is a useful perspective for understanding an important view on this issue, and it was widely reported. I'll also note that user @Aidaakron: who just removed the quote has demonstrated explicit and serious partisanship on this talk page, so I am restoring it for now. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aidaakron: I think that you have broken WP:3RR on this page. I have not reported this myself, but others may do. Massivefranklin (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I did not realize that was a rule but if I have broken it then I apologize. Aidaakron (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: Aidaakron has not broken the 3RR rule because a continuous sequence of removals counts as only one revert. Therefore, she has made only three reverts. Aidaakron, I encourage you to read the WP:3RR carefully anyway, just in case. wumbolo ^^^ 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is written like an Elizabeth Warren fanbase, as she was responding to this complaint when she stated that she did not consider herself to be Native.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA: I essentially agree, but this issue is being discussed above. Please add to that section rather than making a new one. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC))

Heeding your advice Masssivefranklin. A user also edited the comment which you erased. It deals with a Boston Globe interview concerning her time as a professor at Harvard.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you believe I "erased". Did I accidentally erase a comment on this talk page? Massivefranklin (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to Warren's comment on how she stated she "should have been clearer."

• Omit. In my opinion legal hair-splitting sovereignty issues really aren't relevant enough to her to or her rationale behind taking a DNA test; they belong on the wiki article on Native American tribal sovereignty. And since she never claimed tribal membership the rest of the commentary doesn't apply either. We have to be careful to avoid WP:NOTNEWS. Every person, group, or organization who takes a shot at a public figure does not automatically get airspace on Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid exploiting her heritage for national political gain is very relevant. She currently serves the Vice-Chair of the Senate Democratic caucus and for all we know, this claim may or may not have helped. The WP:NOTNEWS also doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Notability (events).2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maintain She exploited that she was part Cherokee for political gain. It is also easy to assume that having the old Kennedy Senate seat which mix in with this claim for a potential Presidential run.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Has it been proved that her parents eloped because of this heritage? If so, it is just a claim.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It casts Warren in a negative light, suggesting that she isn’t in touch with people who have been marginalized. Looks like campaign wording to me Aidaakron.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing the input of a woman. Well if women are allowed to be heard on Wikipedia, I’d like to reply to your comment. I was trying to offer a perspective on the broader issue, which is that an encyclopedia - just like the press - should not have any role in shaping public opinion on political figures or issues. So, along that vein, I pointed out that including the content in question would only serve to publicize criticism of Warren. This is in contrast to the more appropriate route of presenting Warren as a champion of the marginalized against a presidential bully. And it looks like plenty others agree that this should be excluded.. I don't see what this has to with women being heard on Wikipedia. It has to do with the extent of Warren's claim.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Excuse me but did you ignore the part where she said she was a woman? I think she's right.207.138.219.241 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy ensures that any "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." This is indeed significant and verified with an original statement.[5]2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for Split

I kind of feel this whole thing is a bit WP:UNDUE. Could I make a suggestion we replace the entire Native American section with a concise summary (for example, below) and push everything else into a separate article where those so inclined can battle it out?

Since 2012 there has been an ongoing controversy over Warren's self-identification as a racial minority, specifically a Native American. In response to a challenge by Donald Trump she, in 2018, underwent DNA testing that, according to the Boston Globe, "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". Following the release of the report, Warren launched what NPR called a "campaign-style video" citing the test as validation of her earlier claims. However, the report sparked what the BBC characterized as a "backlash" with representatives of the Cherokee Nation, as well as some Native American Studies professors, criticizing Warren; Cherokee Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr. opined that "Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage".

Anyway, just an idea. Chetsford (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input. As you can see by going through my comments in the history of this talk page, because the Native heritage claim is part and parcel of Warren's personal narrative for her whole life--she's almost 70 now--I believe it must be part of this article, which is her biography--the description of her life. YoPienso (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• The current content can be trimmed down to 2–3 paragraphs if we remove all quotes. An additional article may well be deserved if Warren makes this a big issue for her 2020 platform. Right now it would fail WP:NOTNEWS, especially since it's essentially based on a bunch of Trump's tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Lets Also Preserve the Undue Weight Policy As Well

same as the section above. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After all, it guides us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source" There is also nothing insignificant about the Cherokee Nation which contains the people which Warren claimed she was a descendant of.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)