Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

TARP Oversight

Someone should mention that she's now the chairwoman of the congressional oversight panel that is watching over the $700 billion TARP bailout[1] Jozsefs (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason she's called Ms. Warren here? Strikes me as a little odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlomTrain (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's against Wikipedia's WP:SURNAME policy. Fixed it. Davemck (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Link Quality

The article makes the statement "Tax policy experts debunked Zywicki's claim.[4]" The link supporting this statement seems extremely weak. The link takes you to a blog that presents the article which is then "debunked" in the comments section by three people (Gwailo, Ugh & Bill) with no evidence they are experts in anything.Pmillerny (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Zywicki's claim that the tax increase is an "increase that is bigger than the increase in mortgage etc. combined" is pure nonsense. He bases this claim on the 'fact' that, if people earn double their previous income, they pay slightly more than double their taxes (because of the jump in tax scale from 25 to 33%)

This roughly 25% increase (or 8% of total income) is referred to by him as a "140% increase" ([2]), which is indeed the nominal increase, but an absolutely meaningless percentage, per the fairly basic mathematical insight 'the smaller the initial figure, the larger the %age increase if the absolute figure rises'. (e.g., an increase from paying 1 to 10$ in taxes would be a "shocking" 900% increase.) In point of fact, the only tax scheme in which you wouldn't pay at least 100% more when you double your income is in a regressive tax scheme, which seems to be what he considers 'the norm'. As such, I'm not really sure why such a fringe opinion should really be considered a 'criticism' of Warren's numbers. Giving him equal time with her would seem to me to be overemphasizing his insightfulness/importance.boombaard (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcies

"However, the data on medical bankruptcies come from the 2007 Consumer Bankruptcy Project, which is the only national study that has surveyed or interviewed a large, random sample of consumer bankruptcy debtors" is completely unsupported by the given ref. Somercet (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

74.69.123.216 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)== Undergrad Degree ==

The article says that Warren got her undergrad degree at the University of Houston, but according to the following two links, she attended George Washington University on a debate scholarship. (I didn't feel comfortable editing the article myself because I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Ms. Warren.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/25warren.html

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people7/Warren/warren-con1.html

RiverTreeOxen (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. She got her first teaching job at UoH. Alatari (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I updated the personal section. It appears she did go to GW as a freshman on the debating scholarship, but then transferred to UoH to be with her husband (see the Bloomberg article cited to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.244.32 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As of 9/25/11, it states she recieved her B.S. at GWU, which is not true. She transfered from GWU to UoH... don't know the year. Thought someone should know. ″

Bio info

I don't see any mention of her maiden name. Nor the name of her parents. Can that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.73.210 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor the city she was born in. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Incumbent"

There is no stated reason why "Incumbent" is used in the chart. Prof. Warren does sit on an oversight committee, which is a non-elected appointment, and as far as I know not a full time job. It certainly is not an elected position, nor is it a partisan position. Incumbent does not make sence here. Same logic applies to the professorship position. Just wanted to give other editors a chance to provide a reason why the Incumbent tag should not be removed. --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be brought up to date

Most of the news of Elizabeth Warren's professional activity in 2011 has not yet found its way into this article. In particular the controversies surrounding her task as a Special Adviser of setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the battle of left vs. right over her proposed appointment as its official head (director? chair?). The NY Times Elizabeth Warren index page [3] is one place to start researching. I've added a Template:Update tag in the hopes that someone who follows these kinds of issues will update the article. —Blanchette (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On July 19, 2011, on the radio program Democracy Now, www.democracynow.org, it was reported that To lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, President Obama had tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray instead of Elizabeth Warren. Warren was the person who first proposed the bureau and had overseen its establishment for the prior year. On that program, Ralph Nader said that he'd like Warren to run for Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts and tnat Nader would favor a Warren presidential bid in 2016. (P90Z1ah) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P90Z1ah (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

She is no longer an Obama advisor, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, former. This does need to be updated with the information about Republican opposition to her appointment at CFPB and her stepping aside. I'll put it on my to do list, but if someone beats me to it, fantastic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was scheduled to launch in July 2011. A product of 2010's overhaul of financial regulation, the bureau was established to protect consumers from deceptive practices. Obama has tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray instead of Elizabeth Warren, who first proposed the bureau and had overseen its establishment for the past year — Preceding unsigned comment added by P90Z1ah (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Political future

On http://www.Democracynow.org, Ralph Nader raised the possibility of Warren running for U.S. Senate or President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P90Z1ah (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The spat with McHenry

It seems to me you really can't write an article about Warren without mentioning that spat with McHenry in May. Mbshogu thinks it's undue weight--but it wasn't like I added a whole section on it, just some graphs. Blueboy96 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that this is very similar to Talk:Barbara_Boxer#Walsh_Incident, another situation that got press but resulted in nothing. We don't report news. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Boxer affair, as I see it, was just an everyday occurrence. On the other hand, it's not every day that you hear a congressman accuse a White House official of a crime in open session. McHenry was accusing Warren of lying to Congress--which is a crime. By comparison, there are probably enough instances where a Senator is called "sir" or "ma'am" and a Senator demands that s/he be called Senator that when it happens, it isn't particularly notable. Blueboy96 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

I've reverted a well-meaning edit to offer "context" to Warren's "Bostonian of the Year" award. This BLP is about Warren exclusively. Readers can discover Scott Brown's accomplishments at his BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. It might even be relevant in United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, but not here.—GoldRingChip 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is a "Recognition" section here but no "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section. Obviously this politician is nonetheless at least somewhat controversial if her nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was pulled. Furthermore, most of these recognitions are dubious... she delivered a commencement address etc... is this really distinctive? That Warren and Scott Brown were back to back Bostonian of the Year is interesting information in itself, and it could go into both BLPs, with the only reason for it not going into Brown's BLP is because it is not yet determined who his Democrat opponent is going to be. Scott Brown is far from irrelevant to Warren's life and politics from this point on. In any case, I see this as a conflict between NPOV and relevancy; if the NPOV leaves readers more informed, better to err on the side of being more informative. Pare back this section in favour of an explanation for why she was considered too anti-business to be named head of the Bureau and it would not be as necessary to consider POV correctives to these sorts of details.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are examples of poor writing. Legitimate criticism should always be woven into an article where appropriate, not gathered into one section that just becomes a magnet for edit-warring POV warriors. With respect to recognitions, it is not for you to decide which are "dubious". We leave that to reliable sources. With respect to your comment about "anti-business", that's just what Republicans and their Wall Street paymasters call people who are "pro-consumer". As far as Scott Brown is concerned, he only becomes of passing significance if Warren should win the Democratic primary. And let's not pretend that adding a criticism section, removing "dubious" recognitions and mentioning Scott Brown is an example of neutral editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Recognition" sections are also examples of poor writing and should be woven into the article. A person can't respond to an undue weight concern by just noting the material is cited to a reliable source (not that what I pointed to was fully cited anyways!). Whether she's "anti-business" or "pro-consumer" she's a zealot (she believes Hillary Clinton is a sellout to the finance industry) and one can only presume that the article does not give reasons for why Obama rejected her as an option to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because the main reason was that she's too extreme.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "recognition" section is poor writing, and hopefully editors will collaborate to fix that issue. Your personal opinion that Warren is a "zealot" and "extreme" is not welcome here, and a violation of WP:BLPTALK. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

birthplace and childhood

I thought she was born in south east oklahoma and then raised in Norman OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ancestry.com has the Northwest Classen High School yearbook on line, and "Liz Herring" is there and is a debate champion (and looks a lot like her). I know it's not authoritative, but it is a pretty good clue. Pfranson (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Political Party

It is 'Democrat Party' instead of the erroneous "Democratic Party". There is very little anything liberal about them in today's politics... Fifty years ago? yes, now? no. --Spike (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is the Democratic Party. Please use this talk page to propose improvements to the article, not as a forum for your opinions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Bye. —Designate (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.108.87.173, 29 September 2011

I think it is important to note that Elizabeth Warren did not want to be the director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not that she was not chosen for the position. Thanks!

http://huff.to/o61qoL

Here is my recommendation:

On September 17, 2010, she was named a special adviser by President Obama to oversee the development of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The position included the responsibility of recommending a director for this new entity; though, Warren stated from the beginning she had no interest in assuming the role as director. She supported Obama’s nomination of Richard Cordray on July 17, 2011, which is subject to Congressional approval.

Jorgenson1061 (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Seminold, 30 September 2011

Please correct the information about Warren's undergraduate degree. Currently the entry says she "attended" George Washington University. It does not say she graduated because she didn't graduate from that institution. The entry says "She graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology . . . " The impression is she graduated from GWU. She actually received her bachelor's degree from the University of Houston.

The misleading sentence can be corrected with a simple addition: "She graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 . . . "

Footnote 10 references an interview in which she left out reference to her bachelor's degree. My source is a University of Houston website:

    http://www.uh.edu/pride-stories/Elizabeth-Warren/Elizabeth-Warren-Story/index.php

This information is confirmed by a biography website:

    http://www.nndb.com/people/408/000103099/

Another confirmatin comes from "Washington Monthly": http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/elizabeth_warren_have_a_harvar.php

Seminold (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Update done. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Academic Offices

Academic offices? Is wikipedia going to track the professorships of Harvard? It seems too trivial to deserve its own banner, especially since there is no former professor listed. 184.195.255.193 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Law.com Citation

• The article asserts "The National Law Journal has repeatedly named her as one of the fifty most influential female lawyers,[36]". AmbidexterNH (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The comma is not needed.
  • The law.com citation should be "The 50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America", as is stated in the citation section, as that is what the NLJ calls their list. To not do so is analogous to calling the "INC 500" list the "iNc. five-hundred" list.
  • The term "female" is less respectful than "woman", as woman is used to refer to a female human who is an adult, or young adult, as compared to "girl", to refer to a female human who is a child.
  • The link itself should be considered dead, as a paid subscription is required to access it, the free law.com subscription does not retrieve the article.
  • The citation says the law.com article was "retrieved", but there is no actual retrieved document.
  • There is no evidence that Ms. Warren had been "repeatedly named" to the law.com list. Perhaps there would be evidence in the text of the law.com article, common practice would expect multiple citations to support an assertion of "repeatedly", as such assertion should be documented locally to the Wiki article.
  • It is, IMHO, disrespectful to call Ms. Warren 'her', so the citation should say something along the lines of "In 2007 the National Law Journal had named Ms. Warren to their "The 50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America" list.

The National Law Review not only recognized Warren as one of the most influential women attorneys, they bumped her up in 2010 by naming her one of the decade's 40 most influential lawyers out of a field of American men and women. That's a bigger honor and should be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is not germane to the above questions of format or content what additional award Ms. Warren has obtained. Whether or not this greater honor should go in the lead secion is dealt with below.
• The publication is National Law Journal, not The National Law Review.
• If citing the NLJ, use the law.com link http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202446812068 the citation provided above shows the same content, but wraps the LNJ article in the Recorder banner, which makes it harder to see the origin of the NLJ article. Even though The Recorder and NLJ are both ALM publications, The Recorder is, as the jsp says "PubArticleFriendlyCA".
• It does appear that the citation for this recognition should go into the first paragraph. Good catch!
  • However, the category for which she is recognized, is 'Legal Education'. It seems that there should be more citations for what she taught, rather than generic text citing "contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law" as the focus as a (or the? are there more than one or is Ms. Warren the only one?) Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. Many people, most of which are not cited as a "40 most influencial" lawers teach contracts, bankruptcy, and commercial law. Many teachers of these courses teach then to first-year law students. What is it that distinquished her for this honor? If it's the Gottlieb professorship, then explain why. That's what needs to go into the first paragraph.AmbidexterNH (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this better? Davemck (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Only somewhat better. We don't know where CPBN got their information—it could have been from Wikipedia. The best option is to dump the word "repeatedly" (which may mean as few as twice which is misleading) and give each of the years in which she was so named.

I think being named one of the 40 most influential American attorneys in the decade 2000–2009 is a much higher honor. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try to help with some of this, but a lot of my time is going to the Occupy Wall Street article. Re "40 most influential American attorneys" for the lede...I sure can't figure out where it should be placed! I'm tending to think it would fit better in the Recognition section. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anywhere is better than nowhere! ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of OWS, see below... Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Only somewhat better". All of that is fine with me. I think CPBN got the phrase "repeatedly named..." from Warren's bio on the website of the Bankruptcy Data Project at Harvard here. I doubt CPBN got it from Wikipedia for two reasons: 1) They used the wording "Women Attorneys", which is National Law Journal's phrase, not "female lawyers" as it was on Wikipedia, and 2) I would regard CPBN as a reliable source, that is, professional journalists who would use due diligence, not resort to Wikipedia. I debated whether to use the Harvard link or CPBN, but chose CPBN on the strength of WP:SECONDARY, regarding Harvard as a primary source and CPBN as a secondary source. I think tracing down each of NLJ's citations borders on original research. In short, to paraphrase WP:VERIFY, "If it's good enough for CPBN (a reliable source), it should be good enough for Wikipedia". Davemck (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good argument! CPBN is okay. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Free images

Warren at the Treasury Dept

Warren in March 2010

I noticed that there are free images of Warren on the Treasury website. The images were made by U.S. Government employees so they are public domain. Here's one with Treasury blogger Erika Gudmundson. Here's another with Treasury chief Geithner. A couple of them should be used in the article. I uploaded one for starters, this one from Flickr but uploaded by the Treasury. More free ones can be found on Flickr including the David Shankbone image that is already in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Free federal images

• Warren and Pelosi at a Democratic Caucus meeting July 20, 2011
• Geithner and Warren at the Mortgage Disclosure Forum
• Warren getting sworn in as Special Advisor by Dan Tangherlini
• Christina Romer and Warren at the Women in Finance symposium, March 2010

I hope these help. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Credit CARD Act of 2009

Something about the Credit CARD Act of 2009 should be in the article. The Act was important to Warren. She gave a keynote speech about the act at a Treasury symposium one year later. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in Finance

During Women's History Month 2010, the White House and the Treasury Department co-hosted their first Women in Finance symposium. Warren participated; she was in a panel discussion with moderator CNBC Anchor Maria Bartiromo, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. It was held Monday, March 29, 2010, at the Treasury Department in Washington, in the Cash Room.

• AP Photo
• "The Glass Ceiling: Cracked but Not Shattered", The Fiscal Times
• "Putting the Spotlight on Women in Finance: Watch Live at 10:00", Whitehouse.gov
• "Women in Finance Investment Symposium", Treasury Notes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
• "'Women In Finance': See The Female Business Leaders Whom The White House Invited To Its Symposium", Huffington Post
• "If women ran Wall Street? Geithner likes the idea", Reuters

Perhaps a paragraph or at least a sentence can be written about this event. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Something about Occupy Wall Street should be in the article. Much has been written about Warren's relation to it, with Warren making statements and others giving their positive and negative opinions. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find something please let me know. All I can find is her "I invented the internet" statement. She needs to attend the OWS demonstrations and do some teach-ins. Gandydancer (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Jacobs, Samuel P. (October 24, 2011). "Warren Takes Credit for Occupy Wall Street". The Daily Beast. 'I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,' she says. 'I support what they do.'
• Cassidy, Chris (October 28, 2011). "Queen of Occupy? Elizabeth Warren distances self". Boston Herald. On the Occupy protesters, Warren told the Daily Beast earlier this week: 'I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.' But Warren admitted yesterday she misspoke. 'What I meant to say was I've been protesting Wall Street for a long time now,' she said. 'The Occupy Wall Street movement is organic, it is independent, and that's how it should be.'
• Grim, Ryan (November 3, 2011). "Elizabeth Warren Heckled By Tea Party Supporter". Huffington Post. 'I've been protesting what's been going on on Wall Street for a very long time,' she said, but added that the movement has its own independent agenda and will proceed along its own course.

The Daily Beast interview was widely quoted. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource, Mother Jones (magazine)

• Wall Street Goes After Elizabeth Warren For Being Too Nice to Wall Street by Tim Murphy Dec. 8, 2011 8:50 AM PST
• Elizabeth Warren, Wall Street Shill by Kevin Drum Dec. 9, 2011 10:27 AM PST
• Fracking and the Feds by Kevin Drum Dec. 20, 2011 11:53 AM PST; excerpt ...

  But as Elizabeth Warren says, people who make a lot of money do it with the help of huge amounts of public infrastructure that make their businesses possible. Likewise, lots of scientific breakthroughs are done with the help of huge amounts of basic research that are funded and/or run by the federal government. Fracking is just the latest example.

• January/February 2012 in-print issue, page 5 & 6 by Tim Murphy The Warren Report: Elizabeth Warren became a populist hero by taking on the banks. Will Wall Street get its revenge on Election Day/

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read them all and see what I can find. Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for wp:civil.  :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Position Section?

Her main opponent has a section that outlines his political positions. I was hoping Warren would have the same section, which is why I came here. Do you think someone can add something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.69.50 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we can work with this: [4] Gandydancer (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Resume

I don't see why (GA status notwithstanding) so much space is devoted to her publications. "Selected" publications--selected on the basis of what? The only article discussed in the WP article is "Illness and Injury". In "Popular works", the only book that has secondary sources about it is The Two-Income Trap; the claim that several of her books were bestsellers is never verified. That leaves seven of the books and all but one of the articles unmentioned. I propose that the articles section be scrapped completely (the one reviewed article is already referenced in a footnote) since Wikipedia articles should not be resumes, and that the listed books be accompanied by footnotes that list reviews of the books. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Update: I just tagged the EL section, which consists of a lot of links that aren't appropriate--interviews, other short bios, article collections, etc. Too much. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

POV-section

This article is dramatically over weighting one of the political silly-season events in the campaign run. Two days of news does not over 1/3 the space make. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, have you forgotten that this is the US Wikipedia? Come on, man. If only she had a dog. Hey, Elizabeth Warren on Twitter is just begging for your attention. Also, Critics of Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. And Liberal Wikipedians Crying "Foul Play" over Objective News on Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. Believe me, this is only the beginning. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wish I COULD see what George Will would say

^ Will, George F. (October 28, 2011). "Elizabeth Warren's winning formula". The Washington Post.

The linked source is not by George Will. SteveO1951 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected it to Dana Milbank who's listed in the by-line. Thanks for the catch.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Highly Questionable Alteration

Information about Warren's supposed Native American ancestry doesn't appear on earlier cached versions of your article. As is, the article might give the impression that you and Warren's campaign presented this information before rather than after the recent allegations. Is there some way to indicate that this information appeared on the website only recently -- after Warren's background was called into question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Designate (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee - Perhaps the voters of Massachusetts and the many thousands of people who are posting to the various articles about Warren's ancestry. Last I checked she was running for a pretty important office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.131.153.210 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no provision for making change date notations within the article itself. That's nothing to do with politics, it's just the way every single article on wikipedia works. They get updated & changed. Some hourly, some very infrequently. The method for doing what you said is found within the article history tab. Those who are interested can clearly see what the article looked like at any revision since it was first written, as well as the details on every single change made. But again, you have to look for it. No page here makes notations like that within the encyclopedia article itself, and to be frank, none ever will. It's just not the way this format works.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Geneological Society?

That bit is WP:UNSOURCED, and it also qualifies as WP:OR, as you're pushing the conclusion that she may not have any Native American ancestry. The rest of the edit is POV-pushing by trying to make it appear that Warren has done something nefarious. I can imagine that this IP editor is likely anti-Warren and trying to use Wikipedia to smear her in light of the coming election. I've been nice to simply undo those edits and not revert as vandalism, but I'll start doing that if you persist. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? I clearly linked the Boston Herald news artilce that mentions it. Additionally, Boston Herald is also the news organization that uncovered the old Crimson reports and I have clearly referenced the specific news article?

You are trying to defend Elizabeth Warren here by labelling clearly linked news reports as unsourced? Chill out dude. You are the one who seems to be vandalizing here. I challenge you to identify which specific part of my edit is unsourced, unverified, original research or states an 'opinion' and is not a fact that has not already been reported by news media. And I mean well established news organizations, not blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.12 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors keep removing this from the article: "On May 15, the New England Historical Genealogical Society announced that it had discovered no documentation to back up Warren's claims, and the society was discontinuing research into the matter."

Here is the quote from the Boston Herald:

• "The New England Historical Genealogical Society, which originally announced they found evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage, said today they have discovered no documentation to back up claims that she is 1/32 Cherokee. ...The Herald reported today that an Oklahoma county clerk said a document purporting to prove Warren’s Cherokee roots does not exist. ...All of which leaves Warren, who said she relied on family lore when reporting her Native American ties, once again without any proof of her heritage."

Plainly, there is no valid objection per WP:SOURCE or WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. While I haven't personally seen a secondary or tertiary source refer to Warren as "nefarious", I have seen published non-opinion discussions of the matter which freely use terms like "dishonesty" and "fraud". On May 9, The New York Observer half-jokingly asked of Elizabeth Warren, "Why does she insist on keeping her campaign running, despite the fact that she’s revealed herself to be either part Native American or an opportunistic liar?" Even the Boston Globe had to admit this week (burying it among a bunch of other "corrections"): "May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven."

It's silly to pretend that Warren's decades of lies (including published lies) should be excluded as non-notable. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia

This article reads more like her campaign literature than a biographical entry. Typical Wikipedia, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.16.9 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What would you like changed? Be specific. —Designate (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

She's so extreme even the Obama administration thought she was too controversial to head the CFPB. Yet this article with its unencyclopedic "Recognition" section suggests that no reasonable person would think she would be anything but highly qualified for such a position. There is no mention of the Occupy movement in this article, which she claims to be the "intellectual" mother of, never mind her connections to Occupy's most extreme elements. When asked in an interview with WCVB Boston if "these are your people?" Warren declined to create any distance with Occupy, saying "I’ve been fighting Wall Street for a very long time."--Brian Dell (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no suggestion that Warren is "extreme" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). As a preeminent consumer advocate who setup the CFPB, she would clearly have been the best candidate to run the bureau. The Obama administration did not nominate her to head the CFPB because there was never any chance of getting her confirmed. Republicans would've filibustered her confirmation because they knew she'd be too effective fighting against their wealthy overlords. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Warren is extreme in the sense that she's extremely good at understanding the problems of consumer finance, both at a high level regarding government actions and at the level of the man on the street. As Scjessney said, she was not named to lead her own baby because the Republicans never would have approved her. The Occupy events were still in the future at that time.

Remember that this talk page is for article improvement rather than discussion of the general topic. Please bring specific article improvement suggestions here. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless a citation can be provided to support the assertion, the phrase, "that would eventually lead her to become the nation's top authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class" should be deleted. While this may be the opinion of one or more authors, it is unseemly to make such unsupported claims in a biographical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.237.140 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I changed the wording. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Warren taught law at several universities and was listed by the Association of American Law Schools as a minority law professor throughout the 1980s and 1990s." - It was listed this way because she submitted her listing as such, this line indicates the AALS supports her claim to be a minority. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"She has written several academic and popular books concerning the American economy and personal finance." What/who determines them to be popular, even academic while we're at it? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Herring[1] was born June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring." I don't see a reason for the working class parents piece of this sentence. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"When Warren was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to a pay cut, medical bills, and eventually the loss of their car. Her mother went to work answering phones at Sears and Warren worked as a waitress.[6][7]" The two citations here are at odds with each other with the longer more in depth article making no mention of a heart attack, mentioning the mothers job not as a reaction to the heart attack, and bringing up the worries about medical care in a completely different context.

• From the Vanity Fair article: "Her father worked as a janitor, and her mother brought in extra money working in the catalogue-order department at Sears. Warren would recall her mother hesitating to take her to the doctor because money was so tight."

• From the HuffPo article: "When she was twelve, her dad suffered a heart attack. The store where he worked changed his job and cut his pay, and the medical bills piled up. The family lost their car, and her mom went to work answering phones at Sears to pay the mortgage."

Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"She went on to teach for a year in a public school helping children with disabilities." I thought she was a teacher, did she get an award for "helping" the children? This implies she was a superb teacher, do we even know she was a good teacher? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

" In a 2007 interview, Warren spoke of the experience that led her to devote her career to work that would eventually lead her to become an authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class." Who says she's an authority on the economic pressures facing the american middle class? Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong and probably am wrong, but this is supposed to be a biography of Liz Warren and the sources being used are heavily reliant on information from Liz Warren and it seems like they should be excluded. Thebomer (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I resoundingly agree with this. The subject is not a verifiable or reliable source of information. Information to be included should be a) verifiable b) neutral c) publicly researched. If you're the teacher of the Sunday school at the place down the street, how can I verify these records? Are they public? Etc. Information which is not easily verifiable should not be presented in a academic biographical context. Wikipedia articles are intended to be informational, not promotional. Promotion is bias. Kyanwan (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thebomer, you challenge the blue-collar status of Warren's parents but then you cite text that says dad was a janitor and mom worked on the telephone. What's the beef?

The cited sources are presenting the information as factual, not as suspicious or doubtful. The information is thus reliably sourced. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I challenge "Blue-collar" as a legitimate status, it is nothing more than political speak. The cited sources, both heavily reliant on Liz Warren herself, are in conflict with each other. They are trying to tell the same story, but it is clear the calculated message in the story is slowly evolving with each telling. Thebomer (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Janitor/custodian is unarguably a blue collar job. Using dad's humble status for political gain is Warren's right—it's a simple statement of the truth. All I'm hearing from you is a plate full of I-don't-like-it. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're addressing one of my comments while grouping with it a separate comment of a different subject. I agree, I don't like the "working class" piece of the sentence and that was my entire point, I don't see a need for it. If you were to compare to other political figures biographies you will see they don't generally include such fluff. I realize such comparisons are moot. Thebomer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You earlier commented separately on sources. The sources you mention as factual are not secondary sources as they relied on Warren. Additionally, they sources conflict with each other, pretty significantly. In one case the family struggled to take Liz to the doctor, while in the other it was the father that drove up medical bills. Similarly, in one case the mother worked to help with the bills, while in the other she worked to replace lost income due to the father's illness. The stories are like parables of the person Liz wants to have been while growing up. Thebomer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Thebomer, you seem to have a lot of knowledge of WP for a first time editor - or perhaps you have edited under a different name in the past? Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just read the talk page of most of wikipedia to try to navigate to other material when it's clear there is conflict between the editors of an entry, so I have a bit of exposure to the arguments made on both sides. Thebomer (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand what a secondary source is. If a reporter interviews Warren and publishes an article based on the interview it is a secondary source, and we accept the facts as far as they agree with other sources, as far as they are not contradicted by equal or better sources. The details that you think do not agree may in fact be all true: maybe both Liz and dad had expensive medical costs. Anyway, the secondary sources you cite are perfectly suitable for our use in the article. We don't consider Vanity Fair or Huffington Post to be unreliable or primary. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what a secondary source is, and it is a stretch to say this is secondary source. They seem to rely solely on Warren for biographical information with no effort to interview neighbors or even family to verify the information. At best it is primary without conflicting information, as long as you ignore the stories of having had 3 cars in the family at a time that it would have been considered an extravagance. I had also posted a few other lines directly above this with odd poistive wording where none is necessary and all exclude citing to attest to them, and I would be interested in your perspective on those.

BTW... I apologize for the copy paste, I meant to delete it from this section as I realized that the conversation was pretty stale this high in the talk page when I added it to the lower section but forgot and then both had comments so I just left both in place. Thebomer (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Puff

There is a lot of it here - being High School debater of the year is not a major item, etc. Wording like "also led the conception and establishment of ", " Initially aspiring to be a teacher", "hoping specifically to work with brain-injured children", "By this point she and Jim had moved to New Jersey, and she was pregnant with their first child, so she stayed at home for several years" ad nauseum is the type of prose I expect to find in promotional BLPs and not in any which actually aspire to be encyclopedia articles.

She has taught Sunday School and cites Methodist founder John Wesley as an inspiration

Really? Ya gotta be kidding! Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note also "The finding was particularly noteworthy because 75 percent of families who fit that description had medical insurance" (in "Popular works")--sourced to an article by her. The second paragraph of that section likewise presents her opinion/conclusions as fact (I don't doubt the veracity of it, but it can't be written like this). When protection runs out this will need to be adjusted (it's a GA!), or we could place an edit request. Since I asked for protection I'm not going to override it. Thanks Collect, Drmies (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"also led the conception and establishment of "... What is the problem with this, exactly? An abundance of sources list her as the person who conceived of the bureau, and the person who fought for its establishment throughout the Dodd-Frank negotiations. It may be a bold description but it's accurate, and it's encyclopedic (the point is to relay her significance immediately in the first paragraph, rather than a wishy-washy mess calling her a "politician" and nothing else). —Designate (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be no problem with it Designate. Now this should be seen as problematic, but no one seems in a rush to fix it: xxx has not served in Iraq or Afghanistan, but said in 2009 that he was prepared to go if called. "I go where they order me to go... I'm just proud to serve and be part of the team."[2] Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical records

Arbor edited the article to indicate that so-called "genealogical records" were found to show Warren ancestry. The AP article actually states that "Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian. Child says more research is needed." No where in that sentence does it refer to "genealogical records". I have properly edited the sentence to correct reflect the facts of the situation by using an old Wikipedia recommendation. I used the actual words of the article as it good Wikipedia practice and as it outlined in various places in the guidelines. Using the authoritative phase "genealogical records" is an interpretation by a Wikipedia and as such fails. The proper sentence should be "Warren produced a document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make Warren 1/32nd American Indian."--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, "genealogical records" was my characterization. I re-worded the section to remove the suggestion that Harvard was using her heritage for it's advantage (that's about Harvard, not about Warren) and included the concern that a single document may not be sufficient proof of her heritage. I think part of the problem here is that, unlike most other racial or ethnic groups, there are specific legal criteria that designate who can and cannot identify legally as Native American. What's not clear to me is whether Warren ever asserted that she fit the legal criteria (it doesn't seem like she does), or whether she was stating that because of her family history as she understood it at the time, she identified as partially Native American? Does that make sense?

Marriage application ARE genealogical records. Handwritten Ellis Island rosters (which can vary from being filled out in the ship by the immigrant, or filled out by a ships personnel with little to no input by the immigrant) are genealogical records. Diary entries are genealogical records!

What do you think genealogical records are?

"there are specific legal criteria that designate who can and cannot identify legally as Native American." No. Do not project your own views onto wikipedia. It is perfectly "legal" for people who do not fir a tribes specific criteria to identify as "Native American". There are criteria for certain government programs and certain rights specific to to certain nation's/tribes settlements admittance. Millions and millions of Americans identify -- perfectly legally -- without meeting any tribe's strict criteria. In fact if one looks at the 2010 census numbers the are double those "enrolled" in tribes. Are those million people with some identity but not meeting a tribes criteria falsifying their descent? That is no different than millions of Americans identifying as Irish who are not eligible for Irish citizenship. In any other sense or situation, there are not any more criteria than who can identify as being of Irish descent or Italian descent.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma requires that membership in the tribe be traced from an ancestor/relative whose name appears on the 1907 Dawes Roll. There are quite a few Reeds shown on the Roll - some listed as 1/4 and others as 1/8 Cherokee by blood. But this is a matter between the Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma and Mrs. Warren. GWPDA (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I really think we ought to both tread rather lightly here and work together to improve the article. Sound good? Arbor8 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I was trying to stick to the supporting Associated Press article. I never made an edit referring to Harvard in any way, so I don't know what you are referring to there. I have been trying to stick to what reliable sources have been stating and they did not use the term "genealogical" or "prove" those are words used by other Wikipedia editors, not reliable sources. I don't think that there is enough evidence to "prove" either Warren is N.A. or is not N.A.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, marriage application are per se genealogical records. Go to any genealogy site or any general volume on genealogical research, they are listed.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps editors are unaware that 1) Even if valid, the so-called application would be considered "secondary"; a primary document is needed to determine ancestry; 2). Even if valid, the so-called application shows only what the applicant wrote (not necessarily what is true); 3). Even if valid, the so-called application's applicant was NOT the so-called Cherokee ancestor herself, but a relative of hers; 4). Genealogical societies have pointedly rejected the specific so-called application even as a secondary source for several reasons; 5). Even if valid, the so-called application claimed as "Cherokee" a person who had previously claimed herself as "white" in the 1860 Census. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is there not a section devoted to this? Someone listing them self as a minority faculty member for possibly being 1/32nd Cherokee shows a disconnection to reality at the very least. As the story develops, there is a good chance it will be uncovered that she personally benefited from the classification. This story is large enough to warrant its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.201.228 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is YOUR interpretation. I see no indication in any of the sourced material that she applied for tribal rights. :"Personally benefiting" an ethic identity, no matter how distant, in politics is common. So "there is a good chance it will be 'uncovered' she personally benefited" is a strange argument to make. That leaves Harvard. Harvard apparently leaves this at self nomination and gives applicants no criteria, no minimum degree of background, to test their self nomination.71.252.102.186 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The "benefits" of Native American ancestry are far from limited to "tribal rights". The narrative of this matter actually features the allegation that Warren did "personally benefit" from her claims of American Indian ancestry.

• "Editorial: Elizabeth Warren was in a position to benefit from both racial preferences and white privilege" by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2012, [5], "Warren downplayed her alleged Indian roots after coming to Harvard to avoid the stigma of "affirmative action." ...early in her career, "minority status" would have been useful to her advancement. But once she was on the tenure track at an Ivy League law school, she had more or less reached the pinnacle of academia. At that point, if people thought of her as white, they would assume she got the job entirely on the merits, without benefit of racial preferences."
• "Editorial: Jig's Up, Cherokee Liz", Investors Business Daily, May 18, 2012, [6], "Unless Warren can offer proof, she should quit her post at Harvard Law, which has touted her as its "first woman of color." She plainly wasn't hired on merit. ...She also owes Native Americans an apology. They're justifiably outraged over a white leftist gaming the racial spoils system (that white leftists created), and enjoying an affirmative-action leg-up at their expense."
• Commentary: The Massachusetts senate race Indian War of 2012" by Mary Sanchez, The Kansas City Star, May 21, 2012, [7], "Warren, the charge goes, is an affirmative action poser. ...It seems that Warren may be guilty of a crime millions of Americans routinely commit: claiming, with no actual proof, that some ancestor back in the misty past was a Cherokee. Many families perpetuate these myths, perhaps to make their humdrum antecedents seem more exotic, perhaps just to share in the romance of all things Indian."
• "A recipe for trouble" by Howie Carr, New York Post, May 21, 2012, [8], "[Warren] began checking the box, as they say, back in 1984 — and her academic career immediately took off. The newly minted minority catapulted from the University of Texas to the Ivy League, first Penn (where her name was boldfaced in faculty directories to indicate her minority status) and then Harvard."

So, individual editors may agree or disagree that Warren personally benefited from her claims of Native American ancestry, but no one can pretend that such questions aren't easily verifiable. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plagarism charge

Since Scott Brown still has a "Plagarism" charge in bold from 2011 on his article, this is a perfect chance for Wikipedia to demonstrate its neutrality, and show that it does not favor political candiadates. Warren now has a plagarism charge against her, that has forceful merit, and I would like to see it on her article...especially since Scott Brown has one. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes Doing anything else is irrefutably biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What is or is not on Scott Brown's page has no bearing on what's presented here. If there's something on Brown's page you don't think belongs, handle it over there. The mere fact that other stuff exists doesn't change Wikipedia policy or how it should be applied. Arbor8 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, the editor refers to the section at Scott Brown#Plagiarism controversy. See 14:17, 18 May 2012. --→gab 24dot grab← 22:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - Charges of plagiarism against Warren should absolutely be included in this article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren's plagiarism

Per The Oklahoman, I now see that Warren herself has been accused of plagiarism[9]. Despite what has been tolerated over at the 'Scott Brown' article, I'm inclined to wait and see if this becomes something more before including it in this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 22:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What ever is listed on Scott Brown's article is frankly irrelevant to this article. However if the sources claiming Warren's plagiarism prove to be reliable and are cited, such a section would indeed be appropriate to add to this page. Diraphe (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see someone took down the entry on Scott Brown's page. Not notable, not a scandal, more of an embarrassment for the web designer who put it up.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The charges of plagiarism against Warren should absolutely be included in this article. The charges are especially serious in Warren's case because she is an academic. MiamiManny (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's undisputed that Warren plagiarized three of the five recipes she contributed to Pow Wow Chow. She stole them from a Virgin Island paper sydicated by the New York Times, all available in the public record. What's the big fuss? It goes in, and the public will decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Many Oklahomans believe themselves to be part Indian. It's often true and is likewise simply part of the state's culture. In any case, that the subject was considered the first woman of color hired as a law faculty member of Harvard probably shouldn't be included in the article's lede or career section, owing to the fact that recently this assertion has become controversial. A reference to the controversy w/i the campaign section would be appropriate, however. --74.92.86.1 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a little silly. Recipes are passed around and it can be impossible to be aware that a family recipe is from a published source. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting silly around here. Family recipes are often copied carefully, retaining the original wording. Family members often do not know the source of the recipes. This supposed plagiarism accusation is undue emphasis on a triviality. Should not be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If one of her students did this they would likely be kicked out of law school. Plagiarism is a serious academic issue. To claim someone elses work as your own is not trivial. Arzel (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Recipe books are not law school, are not academic. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, not to Harvard. Non-academic publications also must have a high standard of honesty. Frankly, I am suprised that anyone would defend her claiming the work of someone else as her own. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it matters. It's just a recipe book! The argument I'm making is twofold: The plagiarism is most likely unwitting, and the whole matter is insignificant. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Harvard it doesn't matter, and I don't know how you could unwittingly copy word for word a recipe that is only a few years old at the time. Perhaps if she was not a professor at Harvard it would be insignificant, but since she is, it is highly significant. These two incidents have had a huge impact on her run for senate, I don't know how you can claim this is insignificant. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't know how you could unwittingly copy word for word a recipe that is only a few years old at the time." I don't know how you could think that you could repeatedly get away with inventing your own facts. No one has demonstrated that Warren ever plagiarized a recipe or anything else. As Steven Taylor has explained: "the expectation was clear that the contributor did not write the recipes in the first place" (link). There's a reason why it's not possible to copyright a recipe: because it's considered normal to pass them around. Also, no one has shown that the other sources (for example, LHJ) didn't get the recipe from some other common source that preceded both LHJ and Warren.

But it's nice to know that you think this is serious, and are also arguing that Romney's assault on Lauber shouldn't be in his bio because it's "gossip" and "was dug up for a specific purpose." You need to be reminded of your own advice (that you issued on another page): "Seriously, please go somewhere else for you political pov pushing. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for pushing political points of view." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I made no mention of copyright, I said plagerism, there is a difference. I never said the Romney thing was gossip I said the that your accusing him of committing a crime without him ever being charge of anything is like gossip. The two issues are completely different, but now we have a good baseline for leaving out the Lauder stuff since you are arguing the comparison. Arzel (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"I said plagerism." I know what you said. You should check a dictionary and find out what the word means. As I had to remind you on another page, words don't mean whatever you find convenient in the moment. Plagiarism means to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. Unless she presented the recipe as her own original creation (and that's obviously not what she did), then what she did is not plagiarism. "I made no mention of copyright." I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did. Maybe if you read what I said you'll be able to figure out why it's relevant, and why I mentioned it. "I never said the Romney thing was gossip." Then there must be more than one Arzel here, because someone using that name said the thing you are claiming you never said. See here. John said this: "This information warrants inclusion." You responded as follows: "It is an accusation of a crime without even being charged with one, which to me is nothing more than WP:BLPGOSSIP." The first word in your sentence ("it") is a reference to what John called "this information," which is a reference to "the Romney thing." Here's a suggestion: stop pretending that you didn't say what you said. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You certainly don't seem to know what you are saying. You are implying that since you cannot copyright a recipe (which btw is not entirely true) that what she did was not plagiarism, which is so completely unrelated that it is hard to believe we are even having this discussion. Plagiarism is a specific issue related to original literary thought. As an academic she would never accept her students doing the same for any work, and I find it absolutely hilarious that the left is defending her taking someone elses work and claiming it as her own. I see no reason to repeat your false recollection of my statement regarding Romney, but it is nice to know that you don't feel that that issue belongs in that article since you have now made them equal. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Plagiarism is a specific issue related to original literary thought." Plagiarism means taking someone else's work and presenting it as if it's your own. Let us know when you're in a position to prove that Warren did this. "taking someone elses work and claiming it as her own." Except that "claiming it as her own" is false. "I see no reason to repeat your false recollection of my statement regarding Romney." I cited your exact words. Everyone can see that the "false recollection" is all yours. "[S]ince you have now made them equal." I did nothing even remotely like that. You're continuing your adorable practice of inventing your own facts. Repeating them over and over again doesn't make them less false. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We're done here. Time to move on. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very apt rejoinder. It removes Arzel's flip-flopping position. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spin Spin Spin Spin, you should both get jobs working for her. Per [http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Thankfully most people do not rely on Wikipedia for factual information. [redacted (WP:BLP)] I find it funny how people can defend her no matter what she does. Pretty sad.Panzertank (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, yes, she plagiarized, but am not all that comfortable using the term in an article on an academic. It implies stealing of her professional work product, which recipes in a local fundraising cookbook is NOT. I think the stealing part hasn't lit up the electorate, but the stealing from the most expensive French restaurant has, as evidence she is aspired to be an elitist.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Have to say, yes, she plagiarized." You can say whatever you like, but you're only demonstrating that you don't know what the word means. That word does not apply because she was not presenting this work as if she created it herself. "[S]tealing from the most expensive French restaurant." Making unwarranted assumptions doesn't enhance your credibility. It's entirely possible that they both got it from the same common source. I already explained this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Magazines and newspapers frequently print recipes from famous chefs and restaurants. To suggest that anyone that copies their recipes and passes them around to their friends or submits them to a local fund-raising cookbook is plagiarizing is the height of ignorance. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Warren did not simply 'copy and pass around a recipe to friends or submit to a local fund-raising cookbook'. The work (almost unbelievably titled "Pow Wow Chow") bills itself as a compilation of "special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families" and is published by the "Five Civilized Tribes Museum" in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Second of all, Warren did NOT submit anonymously or even hint that her submissions were another's work, but instead she plainly implied ownership by choosing to sign each recipe with her own name and "tribe" (namely, "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee").

Third of all, Wikipedia editors cannot hide the term "plagiarism" because verifiable sources plainly use that term to describe Warren's actions:

• "U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., submitted recipes to a cookbook that purported to collect Native American recipes, but some of her submissions appear to be plagiarized"—The Oklahoman, May 18, 2012, [10].
• "Warren may have plagiarized the recipes published in a family cookbook called Pow Wow Chow"—The Inquisitr', May 19, 2012‎, [11].
• "Scott Brown must be feeling optimistic...when it was reported that Elizabeth Warren gave plagiarized recipes to the “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook... hers apparently came from a New York Times review of a fancy French restaurant."—WBUR.org, May 23, 2012, [12].
• "Warren was recently in hot water after other allegations surfaced that she plagiarized her 'Cherokee' recipes in the book Pow Wow Chow from the New York Times and other publications."—UK Daily Mail, May 31, 2012, [13].
• "Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, is not an Indian — just a plagiarist."—New York Post, May 20, 2012, [14].
• "At least two (and maybe three) of the five Warren recipes appear to have been flat-out plagiarized from Pierre Franey, the chef at Le Pavillon restaurant in Manhattan. ...Warren's recipes are virtually the same, word for word."—Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 27, 2012, [15].
• "That is not the only plagiarism accusation that has come up during the Senate campaign. ...Friday questioned whether three recipes Warren submitted to a 1984 “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook edited by her cousin came from other sources. The Warren campaign has declined to comment on that accusation."—MassLive, May 21, 2012, [16]
• "Pow Wow Chow," the cookbook to which Elizabeth Warren contributed possibly plagiarized recipes, was published in 1984, not 1994"—Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2012, [17].
• "Elizabeth Warren Accused of Plagiarizing Native American Recipes"—New York Magazine, May 18, 2012, [18].

So this new scandal, regarding Warren's recipe plagiarism from the 1980s, seems increasingly likely to also become a permanent part of this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note on sockpuppetry

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson, the accounts TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) and NeutralityPersonified (talk · contribs) have been blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry. As their edit-warring led to full protection of the article, the protection could conceivably be lifted if other editors here feel that they can move forward productively. Given that this high-profile biography has been the target of abusive agenda-driven sockpuppetry, I will keep a close eye on it from an administrative perspective and would encourage other uninvolved admins to do so as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well done. Just yesterday I looked at the archived SPI case, where to my surprise I read "Data for TruthfulPerson and NeutralityPersonified is Inconclusive; at best it's Unlikely". The quacking was obvious even to me, and I'm glad you re-reported this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to sound my thanks as well. I value Wikipedia as a resource, and I would prefer that persons with an agenda one way or the other are discouraged from using it for whatever ends they wish. Wikipedia is an invaluable educational asset to the world, not a means to get out messages or promote agendas. Kyanwan (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But it rather seems that the information provided by the alleged "sock" regarding Warren's use of her Cherokee heritage at Harvard has now been included in the biography, doesn't it? What is apparent is that the original attempts to include that well-sourced information, from the Boston Globe and New York Times, was censored by people with a liberal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

More WP:SOCK

Wow, take a look at this. Nothing like honesty. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Undue?

The "Cherokee" section just keeps growing and growing. I certainly agree that it merits inclusion -- but we've gone beyond the limit of WP:UNDUE here, particularly with the section subheading. The Cherokee bit now dwarfs the rest of the section on her campaign. I recommend cutting it back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Attempts at censorship keep popping up, one after the other. It's been well established that the controversy is valid, is major, and merits inclusion in the article. It's no longer than any other section in the article. Kyanwan (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

NYT considers it important - seems we should do. It is decidely more important than the piles of Marshmall Fludff in the article. Might you reduce that pile a bit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The subsection need not be under the 2012 election section. Warren's formal claims to Native American ancestry began decades ago and (combined with her unwillingness to set aside these claims) affects Warren's future credibility as an intellectual and advocate (not merely her viability for this one particular campaign). That being said, the current level of detail seems excessive. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll, I have added two data points that show the voters don't care: "Most voters surveyed did not consider this controversy to be a decisive issue. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject does deserve mention, as it has taken a life of its own. I do agree, however, that the section is starting to get a little out of hand. It can safely be condensed some, in my opinion. Some of the information can be taken care of via citation. Reign in the updates of it please, it should not be a play-by-play of the daily news. Kyanwan (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

first woman of color

It sure seems like the page should mention that Liz was Harvard Law's "first woman of color." [19][20][21] After all, Obama's page mentions that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review twice! Only a misogynist racist bigot would censor this important achievement in the field of diversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - It should be included. MiamiManny (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - I don't agree with the poor way that the IP stated it, but I do agree that this is another example of information that is being censored from the article in direct violation of the rule that Wikipedia does not censor.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, keeping the Cherokee bit to one, short, well-cited paragraph will be enough; see my comment above. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have just one opinion and now there are many others that do not find the continued censorship acceptable.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - Lani Guinier is noted by Wikipedia as the first African-American woman tenured professor at Harvard Law School, but Harvard has repeated noted that Guinier is merely the SECOND "woman of color," after Elizabeth Warren. Why should Elizabeth Warren's groundbreaking achievement toward racial diversity be ignored and suppressed? I tried to place Warren in the category List of Native American women of the United States but that appears to have been inappropriately removed by anti-Warren activists. Cheeseburrito (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Total B.S.. This specious discussion should be closed. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Either she lied or she did not. If she did not lie (as her supporters like myself claim), her accomplishment should be noted (as Harvard has noted) as an inspiration for other Native American women and women of color. If she did lie, that should be explicitly mentioned in the 2012 US Senate run section. Cheeseburrito (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your stance here is false. From other contributions of yours it is clear that your are not a Warren supporter. Trying to fool people regarding your position poisons your other arguments. I imagine that the closing administrator will give very little weight to your arguments. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nah -- transparent bullshit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree It's a sad day that I need to spend my WP time in such a frivolous manner. WP does not take part in mudslinging campaign issues. It's time to end this foolishness. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying its a "mudsling" to call her a Native American and a woman of color? Cheeseburrito (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn in to what you apparently consider to be a very cleaver way to prove your position. You are not being cleaver and it's time to end this idiotic gotcha game. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to be "cleaver" or play a gotcha game. Instead of making insults and conclusory remarks, please explain why WP should not recognize her diverse background and her own achievements that she, Harvard, UPenn, and numerous publications have repeatedly stated for decades. If WP currently mentions her NLJ note as one of the top 50 women lawyers in America, why should WP omit her one-of-a-kind status as Harvard's first woman of color. Cheeseburrito (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Opps, perhaps a Freudian slip - I meant "clever". :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree Political opponents trying to make her appear to have lied by putting words in her mouth. She never claimed a specific blood quantum, so it's a non-issue. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. I support Elizabeth Warren; I think she is a great person doing good work, but she is not Native American. She may be of Native American descent, but so are about 30% of all African-Americans and 7% of all European-Americans in the United States. In the 2010 US census approximately 800,000 people claimed, as she did, to be Cherokee. She is neither enrolled in a tribe or eligible to enroll in a tribe, and so cannot claim to be Native American. Thus far, this is the best article I've read explaining her situation: Harjo, Suzan Shown. "What’s the Deal With Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee?" Indian Country Today. 15 May 2012. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Disagree. For the reasons already stated. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Like it or not, she was widely touted as such by Harvard (and UPenn) for years. Major issue around the Lani Guinier hiring. Even though it isn't true, the "Recognition" section does not necessarily have to list only uncontroversial ones.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You agree with an obviously specious argument? Dang. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. I guess that makes me a "misogynist racist bigot [who] would censor this important achievement in the field of diversity." The anonymous person who started this thread is violating the WP:POINT guideline, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. FWIW... Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree If, and only if, there are reliable sources to stating that to be true. Though I'd like more than just the sources posted above. Arkon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The original source (1997 Fordham Law Review article) is here [22]. Go to the 57th page (page 898 in the article) and it clearly says "Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995." with the News Director of Harvard Law School as its source. On March 24, 2012, Warren confirmed that she has a Native American background.[23] Cheeseburrito (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your "original source" is that you have no quote from the "original source." What you have is secondhand, not "original." You have no quote from Chmura. The actual text is from Padilla, who is not a representative of HLS. We have no way of knowing what Chmura actually said, and if Padilla's words are an accurate reflection of what he said. She could simply have been offering her interpretation of what he said. This is not direct, confirmed information. We should not state that HLS described her as "its first woman of color" unless we have an actual quote of an actual statement that was actually issued by HLS. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What you call an "original source" is what Wikipedia disfavors as a "primary source". The Fordham article is what Wikipedia favors, a reliable secondary (third party) source (see WP:source). Andyvphil (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Law review articles are endlessly cite-checked by law students to make sure that their citations are accurate. The statement confirms exactly what Harvard has been reporting to the Department of Education and the public for years, which is that it had one female Native American professor before it hired its first female black professor (Lani Guinier). All Harvard professors are known, yet we have no records of any previous women of color. Also see this NY Times letter stating that Harvard has one female Native American professor before Guinier's hiring (and implied no female blacks and Hispanics), written by ... Chmura. [24]. Of course we don't know exactly what Chmura said there, since the NY Times often edits letters sent to it. Based on your curiously strict standards for sourcing on this issue, half of WP would be eliminated. Cheeseburrito (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Law review articles are endlessly cite-checked by law students to make sure that their citations are accurate." Unless "law students" were on the phone while Padilla chatted with Chmura, there was no way for them to verify this particular citation. "[W]hat Harvard has been reporting … see this NY Times letter." If those are better sources, then those are the sources you should be referencing. Unfortunately, the letter doesn't mention Warren, and it doesn't say anything about "first." "[C]uriously strict standards for sourcing." This is a much better example of "curiously strict:" the Romney article doesn't mention his violent assault because editors have claimed that a report via four named eyewitnesses is "gossip." I'm not being nearly that strict. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on your sourcing criteria, any time a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority, that cannot be used as a WP citation if we don't have a tape of that individual's conversation or some other contemporaneous verification of what he said word-for-word. What is in Romney's article has no relevance to Warren -- if you have an issue with his page, fix it over there. Cheeseburrito (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"[A]ny time a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority, that cannot be used as a WP citation if we don't have a tape." No, that's not what I said, and that doesn't follow from what I said. A key problem here is that Padilla is not even presenting a quote. Normally when "a newspaper article or other published source attributes a factual statement to an individual in a position of authority" they present a quote. When no quote is provided that is indeed a reason to be concerned about the quality of the sourcing. "What is in Romney's article has no relevance to Warren." You said this: "based on your curiously strict standards for sourcing on this issue, half of WP would be eliminated." It was your idea, not mine, to make a comparison regarding what allegedly happens elsewhere at WP. That's why I presented you with a specific example. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The alleged, contrived "sourcing" problem has been resolved, as Harvard Law's own women's journal identified her as a woman of color in 1993. So cite that, instead of the Fordham source. Problem solved.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked for abusive sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson.

"Harvard Law's own women's journal identified her as a woman of color in 1993." The proposed text that I thought we're discussing is this: "first woman of color." Where does your source say anything about "first?" It doesn't. Also, your source does not establish that Harvard Law School viewed her as "a woman of color." Your source does not establish where the author got this information about Warren, and it definitely doesn't establish that this information about Warren came from Harvard Law School. Your source is a student publication. It's not authorized to make statements on behalf of the HLS administration, and it didn't claim that it got this information from the HLS administration. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment should say "was identified as ..." lest we mistakenly suggest that she ever said to anyone that she was remotely Native American anywhere in any form. Collect (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You could not possibly be more wrong. Liz said in a recent interview, “You know, I’m proud of my Native American heritage.” [25] If you had read the page you're commenting on, you would have noted that Liz listed herself as Native American in a law directory. [26][27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, she came clean Wed night and admitted that she was the source of the info that Harvard and UPenn have on her. Either she's lying now or she was lying all last week when she claimed that she wasn't the source. 66.105.218.3 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, she didn't. She was listed only as an (unspecified) minority. It's what makes her assertion that she did it to link up with others "like" her so laughable.Andyvphil (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. If you're actually serious about this, it's not properly sourced; a single reference in the Fordham Law Review is nothing like an official statement or listing from Harvard. Furthermore, the fact that Harvard does not list her does not imply she is lying--for instance, Harvard may not consider Native Americans to be people of color (and since it doesn't have affirmative action for Native Americans this is entirely plausible). Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• AGREE - Has garnered a reasonable amount of coverage in RS. If their are reliably sourced opposing viewpoints we can cover those too. NickCT (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Include if she has publicly stated that she is of Native-American ancestry, this should be included in the article. Also, if she has publicly commented on the recent controversy about it, then this can also be included since she herself has said something about it. If she has remained silent on the controversy, then more discussion is needed before deciding to include or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment if Harvard's statement to that effect can be adequately sourced, sure, include it. But also include that it has been disproven and if Harvard published that, they were wrong. Genealogy has shown her to have only caucasian ancestors, she is not enrolled in any tribe or band and is not eligible for enrollement, and the tribe she claimed (Cherokee) does not claim her. I've included sources in the article about the Cherokee protests against Warren's handling of this issue. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Include. The wrinkle for those seeking to exclude Warren's accomplishment as Harvard's "first woman of color" is that neither Harvard nor Warren has recanted the honorific, and no one has proven that Warren is not a "woman of color". Of course the accomplishment should be mentioned. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It's been pretty thoroughly disproven. Indian Country Today has written the most detailed information about her genealogy and even provided images of the original documentats in question. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Not exactly disproven; one particular "proof" has been disproved. That doesn't necessarily indicate that other proof does not exist; it's nearly impossible to prove a negative (aka "argument from ignorance"). At this time, it cannot be proven that Warren is not part Native American, and there are verifiable references which plainly state that she is (eg The Harvard Crimson). If a bonafide entity has chosen to bestow an honor on her, than it would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for us to contradict that without another unequivocal source. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Troll suggestion in the present controversial context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. Being a person of color is not about genealogy but about life experience as member of a minority community.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree, sort of. She claims to be Cherokee. The Harvard Crimson quoted then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura saying so, in 1996. Harvard & Penn said she was Native American in their diversity reports. So, who's saying she's not? Andyvphil (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)