Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

"He said, she said" on whether universities hired her on the basis of race

This Wikipedia article currently falsely presents a "he said, she said" text as to whether Warren's status as a 'Native-American' advanced her career. The most thorough and comprehensive investigation of this by the Boston Globe[1] concluded that there is "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools." An editor removed the Boston Globe's conclusion, with the edit summary that it was "unnecessary additions".[2] Again, the most comprehensive investigation by a RS on this subject is being kept out of the article because the conclusion of that investigation runs contrary to the false narrative that this led to career advancement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have very little skin in the game here, but I personally support the article as it is. There have been various issues with everything from WP:WEIGHT to WP:POV to WP:FORUM to WP:SOAP to WP:NOTNEWS...I mean, seriously, from afar I have had quite a few serious issues with the article and discussion. Right now, I see none of those issues. I see a few important notes to make:

1) Her claim of Native American ancestry is WP:NOTABLE. It has been a major source of news, dating back to her first run for office. It impacts both her earlier life (as part of her upbringing), her academic career (with Harvard) and her political career (as a source of controversy). It has also been at the center of her conflict with the President (which is notable in its own right but will become much more so if she runs for POTUS).

2) Right now, we are just stating the facts. She made the claim. It was thought to affect her hiring. Most associated say it did not. It aroused controversy during her political career. The President made a bet. She took a DNA test. She may have some Native ancestry. The Cherokee nation does not like DNA tests. BOOM, DONE. That covers all the important, well-covered details. But no more.

3) The citations we rely on are from high quality articles. They are well-written and well-researched. BBC News and the NY Times are both well regarded. Though this certainly is not the most important point, it is worth noting.

All in all, I would keep it as is, only adding more if something noteworthy occurs. PrairieKid (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of "BOOM, DONE." A lot of key content has been left out. For example, there's the whitewashing of the racist statement that Indians have high cheekbones, plus there is the fact she has claimed to be Cherokee. Why omit such key facts from an encyclopaedia? XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I should add this is the version I am talking about. The inclusion of The Boston Globe article is not in support or opposition to it; rather, it is simply stating that a major article was written and made that conclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The BG piece is the most comprehensive investigation of this controversy to date. And from the same paper that broke this story in the first place a decade ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your desire to put positive information in article from reliable sources concerning EW's Indian issues over the years. I think the BG article and the conclusions it draws should be in the article. However, there has been a focused effort to severely limit the amount of information concerning EW's Indian issues in article. Now, we all agreed that we would limit the amount of Indian issue information is included in the article. If you want to break that consensus then that is fine. It is perfectly ok, but we should not whitewash the article of the information that is decidedly negative concerning her claims of being: (1) Native American, (2) Cherokee, (3) she's Indian because she has high cheekbones, and (4) a number of other various, at best, embarrassing facts about her claims that DNA testing and New England genealogists do not support. I ask the question why add the BG article and its unscientific, non-legal opinion, but whitewash the article of her claim that high cheekbones proves that she is Indian? I think we should have all of the information and quit censoring the article. The Donald Trump article would definitely quote the Trump if Trump claimed that someone is an Indian because they have high cheekbones. It is a whitewash and that is all there is to it. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the Boston Globe article belongs in this bio. To call it an attempt to whitewash is really quite silly. Gandydancer (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Globe report is so persuasive, it might be simpler just to state as a fact that her assertions of Cherokee ancestry did not influence the hiring process. In any case, it is clearly misleading to leave readers in any doubt about the facts. TFD (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Citation 27

I think it doesn't really support her claim, rather , it's more about how this usage of DNA tests decredits legit usages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariodant (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Since the article is evolving and will evolve further, it may not be clear to everyone which source the above comment is talking about. I think it is talking about this one: "Elizabeth Warren: DNA test finds 'strong evidence' of Native American blood". BBC News. October 15, 2018. But I am still not sure what the comment is saying about the Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump's charity promise

It's easily sourced to RS that Trump promised to donate 1 million to the charity of Warren's choice. He made this promise during a rally and later claimed that he would only accept the results if he could do the test himself. This fuller context of the Native American controversy should be explained. While the Cherokee Nation didn't like what Warren did, she did it clearly in response to Trump's demand and challenge, and his promise, which he seems to have broken as well. I don't necessarily think we need to include the fact that Trump hasn't yet donated the money, because maybe he still will one day. See this RS at Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/trump-dared-elizabeth-warren-take-dna-test-prove-her-native-american-ancestry-now-what/ Yetishawl (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of "junk science," this is obviously not relevant or an appropriate POV to include. Yetishawl (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yetishawl: I find your argument for removing Trump's comment about the DNA test as "junk science" to be without any support by reliable sources. Your argument is not an argument at all to support your removal of the comment, but actually just a conclusion which is based upon your personal opinion. Now, I have two points about your personal opinion: (1) It is your personal opinion and it is wrong and (2) your personal opinion is completely and totally irrelevant anything to do with Wikipedia. It is my opinion that your opinion is wrong, which is also also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Here, in Wikipedia, we don't put something in an article unless it is supported by a reliable source. You are not a reliable source. We can't remove something, which is supported by a reliable source simply just because you don't like it or you think is is not "appropriate", whatever that might mean. You need to supply a reason why the information that inserted into the article, which is supported by a reliable source, should not be in the article and you can't simply say: "I don't think is it 'appropriate'". That doesn't cut it. If you want to put in the article Trump's charity promise then it is completely "appropriate" for Trump's comment on it to be included also. The truth is that Trump's promise really shouldn't be in the article because it is undue weight. But since you insist that it be included that it is completely "appropriate" and proper to include Trump's comment, as long as it is presented in a neutral manner and supported by a reliable source--both of things were met in my edit. You need to provide a real reason for its removal other than simply your personal opinion, which is completely and totally irrelevant. --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoa there, buddy. If you insist on including the "junk science" quote, I have added that it was conducted by a recognized expert and Stanford professor who we have an article about. It is not "junk science," it's a DNA analysis, which has been supported by reliable sources to be legitimate. "Alternative facts" and Trumpist spin have no place here. The facts are, as supported by RS, Warren is a very small percentage Native American, Trump promised to donate $1m, but he hasn't made good on that promise. Yetishawl (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yetishawl: Whoa there, buddy. You need to get concensus to remove tons of information from the article. Information that has been debated and discussed on this talk page over and over. You removed most of the paragraph that has been years in the making. I reverted your edits because you do not have any concensus to tear apart the paragraph that was the concensus paragraph. I removed Trump's response and I removed the reference to Trump's promise, neither of which were part of the original concensus paragraph. We will go back to that concensus paragraph for right now. Please seek concensus. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove any information at all! What information did you think I removed? This is crazy - you are the one who just removed a bunch of info. Yetishawl (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about including Trump's promise to donate $1m to charity

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

---

Donald Trump said he would donate $1m to charity if Elizabeth Warren had her DNA tested for Native American ancestry. Should Trump's statement be included in the article? Yetishawl (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Improvement of RfC formulation. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yetishawl: This is a poorly formed RfC. Please fix it. If you look at the RfC listing page (click on the link in the box above), you'll see that the section heading here does not appear there. Therefore, as currently formed, editors reading that page will have no idea what the RfC is about, defeating the purpose of the listing. Per WP:RFC, you should start with the concise and neutral question, end that with your signature, and follow with any background information such as links to prior related discussions. Your position and arguments should not appear in the RfC listing. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @Yetishawl: Thanks. I've further improved the question, in two ways. First, don't assume that the reader of the listing knows anything about the issue before reading it. Second, while I may be corrected, I don't think Trump used the word "promise", so it's not entirely neutral to use it in the RfC question. The word has a subtle connotation that is better avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Moved here: This appears in RS and is clearly a motivating reason as to why Warren released her DNA test. Trump's charity promise should be included. Note that I am not arguing to remove any information at all. Please look at the diffs and history. Yetishawl (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppet) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Could you please be more specific? What specific text are you proposing to add; where would you add it; and what reliable sources would you be citing? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The proposed text was added to the article and cites the Washington Post. I am proposing to include, in some form, the idea that Trump said he would donate $1m to charity. You can see several versions I added to the article history. Yetishawl (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see. Here is the proposed text you added: Trump had promised to donate one million dollars to the charity of Warren's choice; he has not done so. His press representative Kellyanne Conway called the test "junk science." You do realize that this is the Elizabeth Warren article, right? The information you are proposing tells us nothing about Warren, the subject of this article. Have you thought about introducing it into the Trump and Conway articles? Also, your assertion that the money offer is clearly a motivating reason as to why Warren released her DNA test", the sources you provided contradict that: it was "his racism" that prompted her. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It's verifiable and an important part of the controversy. It's mentioned by many, many sources. R2 (bleep) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The subject received significant coverage from many reliable sources. But it is a relatively minor issue. It should not be given disproportionate weight in a biography. So the verbiage should be sparing, mostly directing readers to sources if they want to know more.––Saranoon (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but - As Saranoon mentioned; we want to make sure we're not giving this WP:UNDUE weight. Frankly, I think the whole discussion about her native American heritage (real or imagined), should be pared down to 3 sentences. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• No, right now the section is only one paragraph in "Early life, education, and family", it would be undue to go into this much detail in that section. If it's moved to a sub-section of "2016 presidential and vice presidential speculation" (which should be expanded to also cover 2020 speculation) it might not be undue to mention this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Depends - as per Power~enwiki, it depends on the detail. If the entire text about this is brief (which I would prefer), it's not DUE. If lengthy, it's DUE. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but keep brief, per NickCT and others. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes; a single sentence, somewhere in the article when it otherwise mentions her political career and the Native American controversy/issue generally.Happy monsoon day 04:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• No. The proposed addition tells us absolutely nothing about the subject of this article, Elizabeth Warren. If you want to convey information that Trump doesn't honor his commitments, or that Conway appears clueless about an advanced science, there are two appropriate articles in which to do so. This article isn't one of them. Have you thought about introducing it here, instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  That's not true, at all. It tells us that Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision. The current text does not include Conway or whether Trump has yet honored his promise, simply that he said it. I agree, that Conway or her junk science should not be in here at all. That was suggested to be added by Charles Shirley. There is clearly a consensus above that Trump's promise is to be included and I don't think one invalid argument matters at this point. Yetishawl (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  ... Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision..." - citation, please? That isn't in your cited sources. In addition, I highly doubt that Warren takes any claims made by Trump as a "motivating factor" for much of anything. I would wager that holds true for the vast majority of Democrats as well. As for your declaration that there is clearly a consensus above", that isn't for you, the originator of this RfC, to decide. You may request that the consensus be determined at this noticeboard, if you'd like: WP:AN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  It says here: CNBC article "Send them your $1M check, @ realDonaldTrump," Warren tweeted. She also mentions the $1million in her video released at the same time. There are other sources that she knew about and responded to the $1m pledge. Your feelings about whether Democrats take Trump seriously are not relevant. Yetishawl (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Of course she knew about Trump's $1M fake-offer. You, however, are claiming she "used this as a motivating factor for her decision" to take the test, which is not only unsupported by your citations (including this latest one), but is also logically unlikely. So, citation, please? You are correct that the fact that Democrats (or the general public) take Trump less seriously with each utterance isn't specifically relevant to this discussion. I only mentioned it because Warren is a Democrat, last I checked, and you were trying to imply (without source citation) that she was somehow motivated to act because of his comments. Hopefully that is clearer now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  You said earlier that Trump's challenge and promise are irrelevant to Warren, and tell us absolutely nothing. That's absurd. She explicitly called out Donald and name-checked him. She addressed his claim telling him to "pay up." Yetishawl (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) (getting back to RFC whether or not to mention Trump's wager here) but as per NickCT, keep it brief. Trump's challenge is relevant context for DNA test. This article should not become a COATRACK about whether Trump pays his bets, what his spox said about it later, etc. etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This RFC was adopted by Saranoon and is now closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&diff=872013103&oldid=871998017&diffmode=source Yetishawl (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Speaking as an uninvolved observer, we use the RfC process when we seek a lot of input from editors not particularly invested in the article or the issue. The default duration of an RfC listing is 30 days, and we generally don't unilaterally de-list one and declare a consensus after 3 days when the !voting is leaning 5-2-1 in our favor (5 Yes, 2 No, 1 Depends). Strength of consensus includes amount of participation, such that 25-10 would be a far stronger consensus than 5-2 despite having the same ratio. I'm not going to revert Saranoon's edit and re-list the RfC, but I would support anybody who did. This is not how it's done in my experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Xenophrenic's change was in bad faith. Consensus had formed above that some brief explanation was merited. Additionally his argument on the face of it is invalid. 03:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetishawl (talk • contribs) That's not how I read it. What I see is two relatively inexperienced editors being in too much of a rush to resolve this issue, and one exhibiting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, failing to assume good faith, and—classic newbie mistake—declaring that an opponent's argument is invalid and therefore should be dismissed. Now that Xenophrenic has reverted Saranoon's edit, I am re-listing the RfC. I don't see any urgency as to this issue, so I don't see why the RfC couldn't be allowed to run the most common 30 days (I might be swayed if we got to 25-10 or something before then). I generally go find something else to occupy my attention while the RfC runs. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Fine let the RFC continue. You may sidebar this conversation if that's what is normally done. Yetishawl (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It depends on how it is phrased. Trump offered $1 million if Warren proved she was an Indian. She of course is not. Also, we should mention criticism of Warren for falling into Trump's trap, especially as the midterms approached. TFD (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe specify that Trump ought to pay $976 dollars?

$976 is 1/1024 of one million. XavierItzm (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) a brief mention . Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes zzz (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• No. It doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic biographical information. It says nothing significant about the subject of the article. - Kzirkel (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• No GMG^talk 17:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Very briefly. Quite evidently the Native American ancestry question has become a high profile political football (with back and forth ponts between Warren and various Republicans - mainly Trump of late). As a political issue, we should cover the issue - very briefly, with the main back and forth barbs here. Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps, if the statement is brief, though per TFD I think the political theatre around this issue is far more important than any specific statement by Trump. And I oppose this edit [3] attempting to add Trump's statement while also claiming in authoritative Wikipedia voice that this, specific statement led Warren to test her DNA. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not as shown - what was offered seems more a Trump-oriented line not a significant part of her biography, and the RFC is asking about a Trump promise -- and what Trump said seems just not something that is important to the course of her life so not BLP material. (If a Warren-focused different line was stated and location proposed then maybe, but it seems problematic as to how much must be added for NPOV seems a bit long. It had lot of coverage so seems DUE some but ... first it would have to lay out the story, and then the most coverage DUE is first saying she had a test that found 'strong evidence' of Native American blood 1 though not definitive -- and after that the next big thing is the backlash from the Cherokee 2. The Trump promise is down lower, along with that it was part of 2016 campaign alleging she made improper claims to gain an advantage and that this 2018 reveal is thought preparation for a bid in 2020. This all seems a bit complex.) I'll suggest trying to write one or two lines that convey the major points perhaps like 'After allegations about her ancestry in 2016 primaries she had a DNA test which strongly supported that she had a distant Native American ancestry.' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, briefly. Interactions with the president of the United States, especially ones as high-profile as this, are notable. - Sdkb (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• No per Xenophrenic. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• No Not something I initially felt terribly strong about, but Zenophrenic makes a very good case for not including it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include. This is a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis at the end of the day. It's not our place to interject our idiosyncratic views on what is a meaningful part of the narrative of this public exhange between politicians; it receives a certain amount of weight in our sources and it this receives a duely weighted summary in on our article. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• No as per Xenophrenic's cogently-stated position. This issue is complex and fraught enough without introducing Trump's political arguments into Warren's early life, childhood and family section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• No, per Xenophrenic's argument. Trump's offer is relevant to Trump, but given the large number of fake-offers he has made, it is doubtful that it says anything meaningful about Warren. More appropriate to include it in a Trump-related article. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The President directed a specific offer to her. She did prove her NA heritage. He reneged. She urged him to fulfill his promise[4]. Interactions such as these, covered extensively by RS, with the President are clearly pertinent. I don't see why it matters if this was the primary reason why she released the DNA test. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

My reverted additions

My five additions, from (→‎Early life, education, and family: specific tribes, maternal grandfather; listed in AALS directory, and identified by Harvard Crimson; expanded quote to cover whole claim of minority listing) to (→‎Early life, education, and family: comparison to Trump rumors about Obama place of birth), have been reverted by two different editors for possibly the same reason, which is that they were made to a section which is stated as "the product of extensive debate, compromise[,] and consensus". I open discussion on my additions here.

I did not realize that the first four of these additions had already been reverted by the time I started working on another addition. If I had known, I would have not made the last addition and would have addressed the concerns, as I am now. I apologize for that.

My additions rely on the existing sources, and they concern points that are not yet covered by the Wikipedia article. Specifically, I added which of Warren's grandparents she claimed as having Native American ancestors, and to which tribal nations those ancestors belonged. I specified the name of the legal directory in which Warren listed herself as a minority, and mentioned that she removed her minority claim and that she was identified as American Indian in the Harvard Crimson. I acknowledged the genealogist's report. I explained that the DNA report was released in tandem with a video, which included a clip of Trump calling Warren "Pocahontas" and a comment from Warren's cousin. I described the BBC's comparison of Trump's comments on Warren to his comments on Obama. Lastly, I gave the full quote from the Cherokee Nation rejecting DNA testing as a way to claim tribal ancestry. All of these points are notable, as they were in the articles by CBS, BBC, and The New York Times.

There is no rule that some sections of Wikipedia articles are off-limits without notifying other editors or gaining explicit permission, as there are no owners of articles. But discussion has been requested, so I respectfully ask for discussion. If there is no challenge to the sources by this time tomorrow, then I would like to reinstate my additions. Although no one has expressed concern that I made too many additions to this article, I apologize for that anyways, since I do sometimes end up making more additions to an article than I initially planned. The only concern was that I added to a particular section without giving warning or gaining permission. Thank you, and again I apologize for making the last addition after the previous four were reverted. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Nobody "owns" any article, but WP:BRD applies her. The size and content of the "ancestry" section have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and consensus has been to keep its length in balance to the article as per WP:BALASP: "news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Your additions were relatively trivial details which are already addressed in summmary form by the article. Before adding such details, we should have a new consensus to increase the length of the "ancestry" section in order to cover it in far more detail than we cover any other aspect of Warren's career. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Your points, on keeping the sections in proportion with their significance, are good. I will let my additions be left out. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

To write about her fraud as a native american Hbell2044 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The article already discusses Warren's claims of Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

2012 democratic primary

Warren did not run unopposed in 2012; she beat Marisa DeFranco (which is correctly stated in the article for the 2012 senate election in MA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.112.142 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

1984 - the date when Warren first claimed to be Cherokee

HouseOfChange deleted the following which is well supported by a February 2nd, 2019 WP:RS:
«[Warren,] who first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984,».
The rationale for deletion was that this is trivia. Now, if it were trivia, why would the Boston Herald include it in an article entitled "Timeline of Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee heritage claims"? The Wikipedia entry goes to great pains to explain that the end point of Warren disavowing her Native American heritage is 2019; such an endpoint calls for an opening point. I restored the material. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The edit made by XavierItzm that adds the words "who first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984" is not trivia -- it's an important fact, well-documented in the proposed edit, and should be included in the article. Ebw343 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The subject of this article is Elizabeth Warren, a US Senator and legal scholar. The content of a 1984 recipe book published by her cousin is trivia. As for the motivation of the Boston Herald, once a great paper, in promoting this story as Warren "touting her claim of Cherokee heritage," their online front page today lists three different negative opinion pieces about Elizabeth Warren, also an op-ed by Howie Carr "Northam provides latest shame for sanctimonious Dems."[5] It doesn't belong in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been covered by a lot of source as one of the first listings of her calling herself Cherokee.[6][7][8][9] PackMecEng (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange - the edit is not about a 1984 recipe book. The edit is an important and relevant fact that should be in the page.Ebw343 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd hesitate before using any source that repeatedly uses the characterization: "touted". O3000 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include The details of her claim to be Cherokee, with dates, needs to be included because it has been getting WP:SIGCOV for years. There are multiple sources for the 1984 date. The Atlantic "in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."". Politifact: Pow Wow Chow.Warren sent five, and under each one, listed herself as Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.. According to The Weekly Standard: Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren contributed a number of recipes to "Pow Wow Chow," a cookbook, the Boston Herald broke the story. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus to include the 1984 date, the link and quote should go to a source of better quality and less POV than the Herald. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with HoC that this shouldn't be included. For one thing, the claim that was added was inaccurate, and a more accurate summary of the information shows how trivial and excessive the detail is: if she was raised being told she had Cherokee ancestry, it's unlikely she "first claimed Cherokee ancestry in 1984"; what seems to be in the case is that that's merely when the earliest still-extant printed instance which has been found so far dates from, hence even the Herald is saying things like "touted ... as early as". (Would anyone add the earliest still-extant printed instance of her signing her name as some variation of Elizabeth and spin it similarly as the first time she claimed to have that name? Let's not.) -sche (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

HoC didn't say the edit shouldn't be included. He said: "if there is a consensus to include the 1984 date, the link and quote should go to a source of better quality and less POV than the Herald." This fact, i.e., the first time Senator Warren claimed to be Cherokee is a critical fact -- certainly not one that is "trivial." I also agree with HoC that the proper citation should be to sources less POV than the Herald. In fact, that's precisely what E.M. Gregory did -- he provided three sources (The Atlantic, Politifact, and the Weekly Standard) that specifically confirm that Senator Warren first publicly and in writing stated that she was Cherokee in 1984 ("Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee.") I don't understand why this edit is contentious: it's an important, well-documented fact that is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. Ebw343 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems that some editors are hell-bent to PROVE that YES she did too say she has Cherokee ancestry and we've got it in print as early as 1984 to prove it. And then in the end, according to Wikipedia, disavowed it in 2019. The fact is, Warren believed she had Cherokee ancestry prior to 1984 and she still believes it today. There is no need to bring trivia into the article to PROVE that she believes she has Cherokee heritage. BTW, anyone reading the Herald article should note what 0300 said about their use of the word "touted". Unbiased reporting does not use that word. Gandydancer (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is "hell-bent to PROVE" that she said she was Cherokee in 1984 -- she said it in writing, as documented by three different non-POV sources. It's a simple and relevant fact. The argument that the first date of her claim is "trivia" has no merit. Obviously it's relevant to know when she first stated that she was Cherokee. This simple, relevant, well-documented fact is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. BTW, the article does not say that Warren "disavowed it [her claim] in 2019." Ebw343 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the editor that opened this discussion: " The Wikipedia entry goes to great pains to explain that the end point of Warren disavowing her Native American heritage is 2019; such an endpoint calls for an opening point. I restored the material. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)" Ebw, if the name of this article were "Elizabeth Warren's claim of Cherokee heritage" it would be expected that this information would be included and discussed. However, this article covers her entire life up to this point and the cookbook information, for an encyclopedia article, is quite trivial. That it can be found in several news outlet's articles does not suggest that it is worthy of entering it in an encyclopedia article about Warren. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's the quote from The Atlantic Magazine (a non-POV source): "in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee." " So this is not a question of "cookbook information." Senator Warren signed her name "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee" in 1984. That fact is relevant and well-documented in a non-POV source. Again, this simple fact is in no way prejudicial to Senator Warren. Ebw343 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – She’s not claiming to be a member of any tribe in this cookbook. It’s just five recipes in a book that she didn’t author listing her as Cherokee – and she may very well have Cherokee ancestry. We don’t add everything that is in the media, and I ‘m not seeing a convincing argument that this is WP:DUE. We have plenty of material on the subject without this bit of trivia. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

See my response above. Ebw343 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Already been said before. Exclude. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When you sign an article or a recipe for publication - you are affirming that you authored or approved it for publication. Unless you have a RS in which Sen. Warren formally disavows signng those recipes, they are a published statement of her claim to Cherokee heritage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We know she claimed Cherokee heritage -- or at least Amerind. And she may very well be. What does this add? O3000 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. First, this isn't an accurate description of the sources as-written (they're clear that that's just the earliest indicator they could find, which doesn't mean she "first claimed" it then. "First claimed" clearly implies she never claimed it before, which which we have no sources whatsoever supporting and which has a negative connotation in the context of the rest of the paragraph describing the oral family history going back much further.) Second, the exact date is still trivia - even those sources, while they mention it, do not give it any particular weight. In context, stating it as "first claimed..." gives the impression that there is something sinister, unusual, or telling about her "first claiming" it in 1984, which isn't backed by the sources and seems to essentially be WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the words "first claimed" should be removed. I suggest that after the first sentence of the paragraph a new sentence is added: "In 1984, Warren publicly noted her Native American ancestry, signing her name in a book 'Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee.'" The source would be the Atlantic Magazine article noted by E.M. Gregory, which contains that exact quote. This sentence would state a non-trivial fact: a specific date upon which Warren publicly noted her Native American ancestry. This sentence would in no way be prejudicial to Warren.Ebw343 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is more information in this direct quote from Politifact: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984."[10] HouseOfChange (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So, alternatively, the new second sentence could read: "As noted by Politifact: 'Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984.' " The cite would be to Politifact, perhaps with a second cite to The Atlantic Magazine which specifically states that Warren signed her name "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee." What do you think? Ebw343 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• A claim published in a book is a public claim. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• You would have to take that up with Politifact, which seems to see a distinction between mentioning it in a cookbook and "publicly claiming" it. I'd tend to agree with them - for a politician "publicly claiming" implies something a lot more significant than adding "Cherokee" after your name in a cookbook. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note that the 1984 cookbook was not a stand-alone. Washington Post: "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html?utm_term=.819797afb5b7 "Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report." The SUSTAINED, INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV of her claims to be Native American - in ways that enhanced her career - is notable and belongs on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• PROPOSED sentence: Warren first publicly described her self as "Cherokee" in an Oklahoma cookbook entitled Pow Wow Chow, in 1984, and identified herself as a member of a minority group in law faculty listings from 1986 until 1995. We can source this to The Atlantic [11], Politifact, [12], and the Washington Post [[13] (off topic: that was great Washington Post ad [14] during the fourth quarter last night!!,). Or we can add a dozen more WP:RS that cover the fact that she began claiming to be Native American in 1984 and continued to make a claim that WP:RS describe as presumptively beneficial to her hiring prospects until 1995. We need to add it because it is supported by sources ad a significant part of her career ane persona.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We don’t know that she “claimed” or “signed” anything in particular in this book. It was a cookbook of various recipes handed down by various tribes. Perhaps the book’s author labeled each recipe with his/her understanding of an associated tribe as that is the theme of the book. I think you’re attaching significance that likely doesn’t exist. It’s not a history text book. It appears to be a self-published cookbook. As for the general subject, yes it belongs, and it is already in the article, although I don’t see how it “enhanced her career”. And please, let's not think of adding presumptions to an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

1.) As to your argument about Pow Wow Chow, nonsense. It was published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum and to the best of my knowledge (I searched,) Warren has never denied submitting five recipes for publication over her signature "Elizabeth Warren," Cherokee.

2.) Take a look at the context of her self-listing as a minority, Washington Post: "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School. - Elizabeth Warren AALS Listing - The former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, David Bernstein, told the Herald that the group’s directory once served as a tip sheet for administrators. “In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people,” he said. “There are schools that, if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority.’” .

3.) there is no indication that Warren ever got a job because she was listed as a member of a minority group. The sole validated claim is that she did indeed claim to be native American, and she began making this claim in a public manner in a 1984 cookbook.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Never denying something is not validating something. Yes, we already know she claimed to be a minority. This is already in the article. O3000 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the proposed sentence. The date of her public announcement is noteworthy. Ebw343 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposed sentence, and here's one more reference to add, from The Boston Globe. XavierItzm (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Added sentence as suggested by @Ebw343: to included 1984 date cited to RS and using neutral language. People who want to know more about early history of Warren's claims can get a fuller explanation by following link to Politifact article.HouseOfChange (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this sentence for further discussion. The sentence "As noted by Politifact: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984." suggests that Warren was remiss to not have publicly disclosed her Native roots prior to her Senate run. At present the for/against inclusion is pretty much evenly divided. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the general idea of it should be included somewhere. I am just not married any of the wording. You mentioned an issue with how it was presented, what would you suggest to improve that? PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Are well still debating this? GMG^talk 17:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The section can't be that old. There are no images of cute kittens and Hitler hasn't been mentioned once. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Good lord. It's worse than I thought. We've been debating this since 2012. GMG^talk 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am honestly a little surprised it is not farther back. Found one it the first archive though April 2012. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... can it really be unrelated that Hitler claimed Indian ancestry too? </bad joke> -sche (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude See my reasoning above. BTW, please don't keep adding this while the discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Reverted Edit on reliability of DNA tests in informing of ancestry

The edit I just completed on the subject of the unreliability of DNA tests in completely and accurately revealing ancestry have immediately been reverted. I intend to repost them as I believe the comments to be very important to the question of Warren's indigenous ancestry, given the public's fixation on the percentage of that ancestry, and the unfortunately widespread misconception that all ancestry is faithfully recorded in an individual's genome. The reverted (removed) text:

In fact, DNA tests are unreliable in documenting ancestry completely and accurately as only a part of a parent's genome is handed down to a child (with a child inheriting 50% of its genome from each parent), and (other than those genes tied to maternal or paternal lineages) the selection is random. This accounts for discrepancies between the DNA test results of two children of the same parents. It also accounts for ancestry being erased in successive generations. Due to this Genetic drift, if Warren's paternal grandmother was genetically 100% Native American and her other three grandparents were entirely of European stock, then Warren's DNA test could have been expected to show she had between 0% and 34% Native American ancestry (had she stated that she had black African ancestry, rather than Native American, many who currently ridicule her for claiming Native American ancestry might apply the One-drop rule instead; a result of blacks having no treaty rights or ancestral claims to the land of the United States). Consequently, while it might be accurate to say that between 0.098 percent and 3 percent of Elizabeth Warren's genome is Native American, this cannot be assumed for her ancestry. Genetic drift generally works to erase the smaller part genetic heritage, so that it can be assumed that Warren's Native American ancestry is higher than the DNA test revealed, and possibly substantially larger. Most Native American tribes, however, do not rely on a biological definition of tribal identity.

It is not clear why this was reverted. As instructed, I will wait 24 hours before re-instating the text. Aodhdubh (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no 24 hour rule. You inserted a completely unsourced addition that appeared to be original research. The edit summary undoing you ,explained this by pointing you to WP:OR. If you had read the link you should have understood why you were undone. Your edit has been challenged. Unless there is consensus to include it, it stays out, and I agree with its removal. Meters (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Meters, I think the "24 hour rule" the user is referring to is WP:1RR. If the user is going to merely wait 24 hours to reinsert the material to just barely skirt around 1RR, that's still a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition to WP:OR, it appears to be a WP:COATRACK because it's focusing on DNA testing, not Warren. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The material is actually interesting, and could be included if an RS stated it specifically about this situation. Otherwise, it's WP:SYNTH even if sourced. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the poster's statement that the DNA percentage does not necessarily accurately reflect the ancestry percentage, but the article never makes that claim, and I have absolutely no idea how the poster came up with a maximum of 34% Native American DNA if one grandparent were Native American.

OK, 1RR would explain that comment. This is unsourced, WP:OR, and contested. WP:BRD is in play. Meters (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Aodhdubh, you have three editors in this section who object to you reinserting that material. Unless you can develop a consensus that supports its inclusion, do not reinsert, even after 24 hours have passed. That's a manipulation of WP:1RR that will not be tolerated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if you ever intend to wait 24hr to get around 1RR, don’t announce it in advance as you’re admitting to gaming the restriction. In any case, this article is also under Enforced BRD. O3000 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The test showed she had Native American ancestry between 6 and 10 generations ago. That reflects the uncertainty that you mention. It is however consistent with her claim that she has Native American ancestry between 6 and 7 generations ago. TFD (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

Fix typo (minor) in the introduction: Change "Some commentators describe her poisition as left-wing populism" to "Some commentators describe her position as left-wing populism" Patounia (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by User:Jspiegler. DannyS712 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Political info removed

The following was deleted with the note that it is not appropriate for this article:

A long critic of President Trump, at her opening rally Warren called Trump a "symptom of a larger problem [that has resulted in] a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."

I re-added it since it is quite appropriate and normal. See for example Bernie Sanders or many other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you feel free to overrule deletions of your edits, but you delete essentially every edit having to do with Warren's ancestry. BTW, it's not "A long critic," unless you think Warren is "long." It's "A longtime critic." Ebw343 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to be so snarky re my "long" mistake. It obviously should have read longtime and you could have fixed it as done by another editor rather than to try to belittle me. Also, actually I've only made a total of two edits re her ancestry since last October. Gandydancer (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Also, actually I've only made a total of two edits re her ancestry since last October." But on the talk page you have played the "consensus" card many times to prevent proposed edits, supported by a majority of editors, from being made.Ebw343 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

But on the talk page you have played the "consensus" card many times to prevent proposed edits, supported by a majority of editors, from being made. I don't know what that means but LOL, you are very funny. Gandydancer (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Subhead for ancestry

Proposing a subhead for "Ancestry" in the "Early life, education, and family" section. Reason is that Warren's ancestry claims have gotten a massive amount of coverage. But readers coming to this page will have a hard time finding them. I did. I scanned the Table of Contents and couldn't find it. Making this hard to find is not User Friendly. The fact that much of the motivation for coverage of this issue is partisan is irrelevant. When the coverage of a thing is massive, readers will turn to Wikipedia to get the facts, and we are making it hard to find them. We can keep the content NPOV. But we have a duty to enable users to locate it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So, GMG points out that this debate goes back to 2012; and your response is to start yet another section? Which site is it, ancestry.com, that has commercials showing that people commonly mistake their ancestry? O3000 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory started this section at 11:39 (diff) and GreenMeansGo's "2012" comment came about 2 hours later (diff.) So unless time travel exists, EMG wasn't responding to GMG, just saying. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Also, per WP:DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, the subhead is needed. In fact, it is overdue, as the coverage has been massive and ongoing. XavierItzm (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Ebw343 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE. Adding a subhead to the Early life, education, and family section would would basically mean that this is a more important part of the section than her early life, education, and family. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There was a recent discussion here on this very subject. It found that there should be it's own section. PackMecEng (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that it is time for a sub-heading to centralize and summarize the issue. The newly discovered Bar card with Warren's stated race as American Indian will give this fresh legs. There's been many months of coverage now on this topic, and it is no longer UNDUE. A concise couple of paragraphs documenting the instances Warren claimed Native American heritage, her responses and apologies, and the DNA test and resulting feud with Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone agrees that this needs its own sub-section somewhere, but this has to do with her career just as much as with her early life. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "everyone" when it doesn't apply. O3000 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

All the cool people then? But anyhow the last consensus was for it to be placed in early life. I can understand the rational for both though, it is something she grew up with as a family story and then later it affected her career. I do not have a good answer on where it should be. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

How has it affected her career? O3000 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

When a politician has to apologize several times for something I think it can reasonably be said it has an effect on their career. For example voters being angry with her about the whole situation.[15] It also did have an affect on her polls, with her unpopularity spiking because of it.[16] PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're making assumptions here. She's still a US Senator. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean I gave sources... Even one showing a spike in unpopularity. Are you taking the position that this controversy has not affected her career in any meaningful way? What do you have to back that up? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Polls go up and down. I don't think it makes sense to say this has affected her career. She's still a US Senator, and I don't see any rational people saying she should be removed from office. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe she would be removed from office over this. But I do think it has had an affect for the 7 years it has been on going. PackMecEng (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The "Career" section isn't mainly about how incidents have affected her career. It's about what's happened during her career: what she has said and done. This issue actually has to do with her public image. YoPienso (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what section it should be in: if someone does something in the past, but it only gets coverage much later on in relation to something else, I think other articles mostly discuss it at the later point (I see Ralph Northam's article discusses his yearbook in the section about his governorship, not the section about his education), but I see coherent arguments for sorting chronologically in this case—it's not like any (or at least, much) of her early life got coverage or was notable before she became well-known, and this came up during both the senate campaign and the (proto-)presidential one so it would be hard to sort non-repetitively into only one of those sections. I abstain on whether these needs its own header, and would favor keeping it under early life (as OP proposed) if it is included, but another possibility to consider if necessary is making it a top-level section; articles not infrequently have sections that cover events from multiple chronological sections (e.g., this article's Honors section). -sche (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that a subheading is needed. Right now we have the whole story under "Early life, education, and family," where it clearly doesn't belong. We could actually go two ways here: 1. Put the last two paragraphs of "Early life, education, and family" as they stand into a new subheading, "Native American ancestry issue," or 2. Leave the family lore in "Early life, education, and family," put the eruption of controversy during the 2012 election into that subsection, and the ongoing drama with Trump's mockery, her DNA test, pushback from the Native community, in its own sub-subheading under "Tenure" or in the "2020 presidential election" section.

Bottom line: The info needs either its own subsection or should be spread chronologically throughout appropriate sections. The whole story does NOT belong in the "Early life, education, and family," section. YoPienso (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A better idea: Open a new subsection, "Public image," under the "Career" section and put those two paragraphs from "Early life, education, and family" there. YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ebw343 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Public image" seems like a poor header for content about ancestry. For one thing, it would seem to include quite a few other things (indeed, mostly other things), and for another, the early aspects of ancestry don't seem to be "public image". -sche (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Native American ancestry claims or Ancestry claims or Claims of Amerindian ancestry are appropriate headers. Not the obfuscating "Public image." The point of a subhead is to enable users to locate information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with YoPienso. This all started when she was running against Brown for the Senate. Brown and his supporters all used it in his campaign, mocking her for her claim. It resurfaced when there seemed to be possibilities of a run for president a few years back and now again that she is running. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree for reasons stated above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. Senator Warren's ancestry has been the subject of national attention for years. SunCrow (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please vote in one of the two sections below. Should the sub heading be in the Early life, education, and family section or the Career section? PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I'm adding the other two options discussed above, namely making it its own section on the same level as "Career"/"Early life" etc, or continuing to not have a (sub)section. -sche (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Early life, education, and family

2nd preference, yes. XavierItzm (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer. This is the subhead where we discuss ancestry on bio pages. (This is not on a top-level topic.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Its own top-level section

1st preference, yes. XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

1st choice it is likely this issue will not go away, especially as the election and her campaign gears up. We may as well provide readers with an accurate summary of what it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm wary of Crystal Ball arguments that this will be so important in the future that it needs a section (and of arguments that it's so important now): I recall how discussion both here and in the news died down to near nothing for months after all the heat (and light?) of last October, which made it easier (for me, at least) to see how relatively unimportant the whole thing was in the grand scheme of things, when the heat of the moment wasn't on. But iff there is consensus to put this in a subsection, then it probably needs to be a top-level section: in other articles where someone did something in the past and it only came up later, the thing is generally handled at the later time (for example, Northam's med-school blackface is discussed in the section on governorship, not the section on education), but in this case it came up in the congressional and presidential campaigns (besides the family stories being an "early life" thing), so a top-level (L2) section may be the best way to cover it in one place. -sche (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. SunCrow (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Other

• "U.S. Senate" and potentially "2020 presidential election" as per Boston Herald timeline and other political biographies. If this eventually gets its own article, I support its own top-level section per above !votes. I'd really like this biography with so many sections and sub-sections to be chronologically ordered as much as possible, so that it is easy to make cross-references in the article. I oppose a new personal life or family section with this on the bottom of the article because it will force readers to scroll down every time a related incident is mentioned in a career-related section. At least I believe that personal life or current family sections always have to be on the bottom of the article. I am also not comfortable with putting these recent events including the DNA test into the very first section in the article which also contains information her early life. wumbolo ^^^ 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)