Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

[S.] Alan Ray

I removed a wikilink that went to a page for a basketball player. Also, is there a reason we are giving him the description "blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee nation"? It seems a little disparaging in context:

Alan Ray, the administrator then responsible for HLS' diversity statistics (and himself a blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee nation) said that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide".

Thought it should be removed but thought I'd ask here. Ayzmo (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My response is that the phrase, "and himself a blue-eyed Oklahoman member of the Cherokee Nation" is not notable or relevant to the Elizabeth Warren article. The color of Rey's eyes have zero impact or relevance on whether Warren is a Cherokee. That is information is not relevant, therefore, it is not notable. It should be removed. And, yes, it is disparaging which is also a reason to have it removed because it is a personal attack on a living person. There is no reason to have the information in the article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is essentially, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The current article seems to not mention Alan Rey (or "Alan Ray" or "Allan Ray").[1] --→gab 24dot grab← 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The part about him was removed today by user FurrySings here. I actually came to remove it and found it gone. Ayzmo (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This bit of serendipity about Ray (that he's exactly the kind of person "like" Warren that she wanted to meet as a result of listing herself a minority) doesn't seem the slightest bit disparaging to me. All those folks in Oklahoma who want to say they're part Cherokee without much or any justification aren't doing it because they think it's a bad thing. But the main reason Rey must be mentioned is that he's directly contradicting Warren's story that the administration classified her as Native American without telling her. He's saying that he didn't do that. (And I can confirm that that's not the way it works. Back when I had a work-study job at a university I was given a form and told to select my racial idenitity. Not much caring for this, I checked "other" and wrote down "Klingon". I was then called in by the responsible beaurocrat and told that if I didn't provide an acceptable answer that he would decide what I was by looking at me. But the point is FIRST THEY GIVE YOU THE FORM!) Andyvphil (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An introductory bio for Ray on Elmhurst College's website, where he is now the President, makes a point of mentioning that he is a Cherokee, "[b]lue-eyed"and "light-skinned". Can we bury the idea that it's "disparaging"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment about a person varies based on how it is used. Someone calling me gay could be derogatory(when slung as an insult) or descriptive, for example. How the comment was worded it insinuated, to my reading, that his heritage should be questioned. Maybe I'm the only one who read it that way? Ayzmo (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how can this guy be a Cherokee at HLS in the first place? Every news story says Warren was/would be the LONE minority on the HLS faculty. Is he not considered faculty as an "administrator" (whatever that is, exactly)? So there are minorities, including Native Americans, among the STAFF there, just not the faculty? Is that it? 66.105.218.12 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right that he was Administration, not Faculty, and so not included in the category talked about. There is a separate filing for Administration, for Faculty, and for Staff. Hope that helps. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Ayzmo; He is significant in that 1) he is the sort of people Warren alleged she was trying to meet, but she made no attempt to meet him, 2) he was the first EEO officer at Harvard Law expert in Native American claims, and right after his hiring, Warren "de-listed" herself from the minority directory 3) He directly contradicts Warren's initial claim, which she has now recanted, that Harvard's promotion of her as a Native American was made without her involvement. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that's a reply to me but I'll respond. I have no problem with his being mentioned or quoted. I actually think it added some good info. I thought that the part in parenthesis read as an unneeded dig at him. Whether it belongs in this article or one to be written about Rey is another question. I can't really say I have much care though so I happily defer to someone who has more interest in the article. Ayzmo (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But what is an "administrator" exactly? The "administration" of HLS is composed of elected faculty members, no? That leaves STAFF, i.e. janitors, secretaries, etc. Is this guy a minor employee like that, or a big-wig director of the school (as "administrator" implies to me).

I'm with the others, btw. The mere serendipity that the guy recording Warren's supposed cherokeedom just HAPPENS to be cherokee himself is something worth noting. How many of them are there in all of HLS -- just the TWO of them?!

I would insert the word "coincidentally" somewhere, though. 66.105.218.25 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Administration is not generally composed of academics, though it may report to academics. The distinctions are arcane ("Ray taught courses on Native American religion and the law, even as he served as an administrator" -"director of academic affairs"- as it happens, but that doesn't mean he had an academic appointment) but politically important, and his status in the pecking order was pretty certainly considerably lower than Warren's named tenured professorship. Andyvphil (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So it does not refer to the Dean, Headmaster, President, Provosts, Directors, etc? That to me is the default meaning of "Administration" (cf President, Cabinet, etc in the real world). Is HLS in the minority on this one? 66.105.218.22 (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First senator who has Native American heritage

Earlier this month, Warren herself chose to keep the whole Cherokee/Native American/American Indian thing going strong when she chose to say this in an interview earlier this month (June 2012):

• "I would be their [Massachusetts'] first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."

An editor had added that to the article,[2] another editor removed it claiming a lack of WP:RELIABLESOURCES,[3] and now I have reverted[4] the removal and included two reliable sources for verification (The Daily Caller and Fox Boston). If editors seek to hide Warren's continued and continuing claims, they should only do so on encyclopedic merits. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I whole completely agree with 24Dot. This comment is notable and it is backed up with reliable sources. It gets to the heart of why this section needs to be here, which many editors have been attempting to either fully eliminate to scale back to one or two sentences. She has been promoting herself as Native American on the campaign trail. This happened, not in 1994 or 1995, but right now in the campaign that this article is about--completely notable and reliably sourced. It does not violate BLP because it is her own words.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, this comment is very, very important because it is factually incorrect and there will noise coming from Indian Country on this one. Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado) is an enrolled citizen of the Northern Cheyenne and of course Charles Curtis, former Senator from Kansas and Vice President of the United States under Herbert Hoover, was Kaw, Osage, and Pottawatomie. She will get grief over this most recent gaffe. It shows that, once again, she doesn't even know American Indian history--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore the above commentary. I misheard her in the audio.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor again removed[5] Warren's new claim that she'd be Massachusetts' "first senator...who has Native American heritage". Since the removing editor simply claimed "not needed" and since the new claim is multiply sourced, I've again reverted the removal[6]. The original addition was not by me, but it seems relevant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced and the new information should not be removed except regarding its encyclopedic merits. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn about WP:CONSENSUS, on which WP:BRD is an excellent resource. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has again removed Warren's own statement ("I would be their [Massachusetts'] first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."), with the editor's edit summary stating "WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT." Admittedly, this specific Warren statement is recent, but I'm confident that it easily passes Wikipedia's suggested 'WP:10 year test' because Warren's statement contains a succinct, plain, explicit summary of what Warren is actually still claiming and likely will always claim. I haven't seen another quote like it from her, and it serves as a metaphoric "bookend" to the section. Weight-wise, the statement is her own official statement during an interview and almost by definition it cannot be considered undue weight. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remarkable about Warren's statement, certainly nothing that suggests that it be included in her WP article. This is her bio, not a blow by blow account of her campaign. Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement should be added to WP because (a) if true, it illustrates a noteworthy historic first, and (b) if false, demonstrates in a very simple and straightforward fashion that Warren is lying. Cheeseburrito (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'WP:10 year test' doesn't require remarkableness. Warren's statement encapsulates her view, and makes it clear that she isn't now and won't ever back down from those who question her Native American bona fides. I contend that this Warren statement has more significance than almost any other currently cited in the article. Which other quote also passes the 10-year test? --→gab 24dot grab← 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Warren has repeatedly said that it is part of her family history and she has no reason to "back down" from anything. Perhaps you do not understand how difficult genealogy research can be - I know from doing my own family research that it can be extremely difficult. Names were commonly changed to make them more English-sounding and it would not be surprising if someone "forgot" to mention that an individual was an Indian when filling out records. Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Cheeseburrito; The quote is significant in that, in the face of overwhelming evidence her family lore is wrong, she is still maintaining that she has Native American heritage, a good inclusion. To characterize this as lying, though, is probably not warranted. Warren has lied and misdirected and evaded many times, but not this time. She was asked a question out of the blue about the historic significance of her possible election, and it got an answer because it was a question she hadn't prepared for, probably the reason it was asked. This time, she made clear she didn't know the answer with certainty. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

24Dot, instead of edit warring, I suggest you start a content RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've waited two days, and this thread has seen no specific objection to the article including the following sentence:

• Elizabeth Warren has personally confirmed that if elected by Massachusetts voters, "I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage."

So, I reinstated it.[7] If an editor wants to hide Warren's current, succinct position on the matter, that editor should explain himself or herself here at this Talk thread. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Earlier today, an editor both complicated Warren's explicit statement and moved it to an illogical place in the article[8]. I've reinstated it as bookend to the section[9]. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Late yesterday, Warren's explicit statement was removed by an editor claiming "not part of the controversy".[10] I've again reinstated Warren's claim: "I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage.".[11] --→gab 24dot grab← 06:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I removed it because it is not part of the controversy, it is about her senate run for election. It seems some that editors feel that it should be included to prove that she is a liar. As has been said several times, many persons in the U.S. with Indian heritage are unable to furnish proof of it. Gandydancer (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your objection makes no sense. Warren was not talking about her campaign, she was plainly talking about her purported ancestry. If the intention were "to prove that she is a liar", it would be more likely to just cite articles such as these:

• "Elizabeth Warren accused of lying by House panel", CNN, May 24, 2011
• "Elizabeth Warren Dances With Lies", Investors Business Daily, May 9, 2012
• "Cherokees reject politician's claim of kinship ", One News Now, June 7, 2012
• "Native American issue continues to dog Warren", Boston Globe, May 25, 2012[12]
• "Warren Gaffes on Native American Roots Enflame Senate Race in Massachusetts", US News & World Report, June 5, 2012[13]

Warren's claim that she'd be the 'first Native American Senator from Massachusetts' absolutely positively is part of the her self-identification controversy; I've again simplified and moved Warren's statement to the end of the section.[14]

Incidentally, most Americans with unsupportable claims of Native American ancestry did not check the box as "minority" for certain academic directories, did not allow themselves to be used as an example of racial diversity in academia, and did not sign their supposed work "Joe Shmoe, Cherokee". --→gab 24dot grab← 19:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor had asked whether a certain reference had been cited to show that Warren is a liar[15]. Even though it was published yesterday, I hadn't yet seen the following article, from Indian Country, June 11, 2012[16]:

• "Over the course of the past month, facts have come to attention that leave little doubt that the HLS [Harvard Law School] bureaucracy and Professor Warren perpetrated nothing less than ethnic fraud [that] reflects not just a single offense of intellectual dishonesty but, rather, a broader and systemic racial masquerade rooted in egregious insensitivity. ...I urge fellow Native alumni of Harvard, as well as all American Indians presently associated with any of the University’s schools, to denounce the conduct of HLS and Professor Warren. ...[W]e should...hold her accountable for the damage she has wrought—by either crassly capitalizing on the plight of the American Indian or indulging in the fetishization of a frequently caricaturized minority group. We ask the fellow Native alumni of Harvard, as well as the University’s current Native students and staffers, to join in supporting Senator Brown. Because when Warren directly facilitates a corruption of equal opportunity philosophy and then disingenuously dismisses valid concerns about her behavior as attacks against her family, she demeans the bravery of our Native forebears"

That article applies to Warren such terms as "ethnic fraud", "intellectual dishonesty", and "systemic racial masquerade". It seems likely this Indian Country article is also a more likely citation for Warren's lies than the article about her claims to potentially being MA's first Native American senator. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proud as she may be of her Cherokee "heritage", it was not Warren's practice to mention it. (See the last two sentences of the first paragraph here) before the controversy arose. Andyvphil (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC).

It seems that most or all of the article editors agree that it is appropriate. I continue to believe that it is highly inappropriate but I have no alternative but to go with consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Derisive Sobriquets

Thread retitled from "Sobriquets".

Collapsing previous discussion in the interest of rebooting conversation; see below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it would be inappropriate for anyone to use the terms in passing in the article (e.g. "Lieawatha now claims that...") but there should at least be a line or two POINTING OUT that the names are in such use. Even without the cute portmanteaus inherent in "Lieawatha" and "Fauxcahontas" etc, the actual names "Hiawatha", "Geronimo" etc are also being slapped on her quite a bit. Including combined forms like "Hiawatha Liz", "Geronimo Warren" etc. Definitely needs to be mentioned at least. 66.105.218.23 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC) No. While the fact remains that these sobriquets are mentioned even in cold news reports on the matter, an encyclopedia must meet a more encyclopedic standard than a newspaper. A list of too-cute sobriquets would add almost nothing useful to the article and would almost certainly detract from its credibility. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Can a neutral admin erase this section per WP:BLP? It's offensively sexist and racist. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Sexist only in the sense that use of the term "Elizabeth" is sexist, namely being an identifiably female name. Racist only in the sense of referring to someone of alleged Amerindian stock, also to the point. The sobriquets neither demean women in general, nor Amerindians in general, just a particular individual. Political meme Are the two sobriquets used insulting? Obviously. However, political memes usually are in some way, but they are a part of political races, and reportable. Stating that these two have gained currency, since they, albeit in a mocking tone (as is usual for memes) crystallize an issue neatly, is a statement of fact, meeting NPOV part of WP:BLP. Referred to by many media sources? Yes, meeting the Verifiable part of WP:BLP, and as long as no new or self-generated sobriquets/political memes are added, just those in common use, the WP:OR part of WP:BLP is met. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not going to delete this section at present, but it is extremely borderline at best in terms of the talkpage guidelines. As a general reminder, editors should focus on finding and accurately reflecting the content of the best available reliable sources. This thread gives the impression of editors scrambling to dredge up some way to get these insulting nicknames into the article. That's a concern at the level of WP:BLP and at the more general level of this site's basic content policies. The reliable source requirement isn't an obstacle that you circumvent to get your talking points into a biography. Article talkpages aren't a free-fire zone to express your personal contempt for an article subject. I'd encourage editors of this page to stop treating them as such. MastCell Talk 18:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 66.105.218.23's argument for mentioning the many colorful expressions of derision applied to Warren isn't "disruptive", sexist, racist or a BLP vio. Were "Potatoe" not mentioned in Dan Quayle it would be a Wikifoolishness. (An extremely unlikely Wikifoolishness given the correlation of forces on Wikipedia...) Not sure that Liawatha has reached that point, but it's a question of editorial discretion that we are free to discuss. Andyvphil (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Editors Binksternet and Seb az86556 have four times deleted this entire thread[17][18][19][20], with a variety of "reasons". Even if a Talk comment seems "disruptive" to certain editors, the posted guideline states this: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is". An editor interested in claiming a 'WP:BLP' basis for removing this or another Talk section should consider what that guideline actually states at WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." So, either being "sourced" or being "related to making content choices" is the basis upon which to retain even supposedly "contentious material". A quality encyclopedia will likely include material which Warren and her supporters would prefer to hide, but political campaigns' concerns are not the same as Wikipedia's concerns. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As an administrative action, to facilitate more productive use of this talkpage, I've collapsed the previous conversation, which was at best extremely borderline in terms of the talkpage guidelines and WP:BLP. Interested parties are free to re-start a conversation on the topic, provided they adhere to the talkpage guidelines and discuss specific sources and specific proposed changes to the article content. An ideal format would be along the lines of: "A reliable source says X about Warren's nicknames. I think our article should say Y, based on that reliable source." MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversourced?

The requirement for sources seems to be exceeded when numerous sources are cited for the same small bit of data, i.e. one day's statement by Warren. Each statement related to the Cherokee ancestry is not controversial, and the same information does not have to be cited six times or more. The differences of opinion should be better explained, and the issues related to identification and classification. Parkwells (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed duplicate

As the YouTube clip in which Warren says she would be the first MA senator with Native American heritage has been added to the end of the article, I removed the earlier hidden version.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! BTW, this new section seems plainly within (a subsection of?) your other recently-created section; you may wish to review the guideline WP:TALKNEW. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at 77 reference notes, this is not all that over-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it seemed unnecessary to include six sources for the same information.Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty documenting ancestry is beside the point

In consideration of the issue of Undue Weight, I think the section on the controversy suffers more from irrelevant content. Although newspapers reported material about issues related to tracing Native American lineage (i.e., NEGHS, Damron and the OK Historical Society), the editors of this article don't have to repeat that, as most of it is not relevant to the main point: did Warren, by all appearances European American and by her record someone who was not at all involved with Cherokee or Delaware/Lenape culture, life or issues, overstep by claiming minority status as a Native American? "Identity" for such a claim is generally understood as not simply having some distant biological connection, but identifying with the culture and having membership in it, as one of a group who were historically disadvantaged. The protesting groups would have accepted Warren's claim if she were an enrolled member of a tribe (as in the DOL requirement), which usually requires more than having had one or two distant connections. The difference between "having some ancestry" that is part of family lore, and identifying as Native American and knowing what that means, is the issue. Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommended for deletion: <<Child said that for records older than 150 years, the data is complicated and may take months to research. Child also noted that finding Native American lineage can be difficult. He said, “Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claim to have Native American heritage, but we were never able to find evidence of that.”>>

Also delete:<<According to Michael Dean of the Oklahoma Historical Society, intermarriage had been common in the 1890s in Oklahoma and many individuals refer to having some Native American ancestry. (Note: This was after removal to the Indian Territory.) Tara Damron, assistant curator of the society's American Indian collection, said finding proof of Native American heritage can be difficult because some Native Americans refused to be listed on the federal tribal rolls made at the time of the land allotment in the early 20th century. Damron said, "There are a lot of people in Oklahoma who do have native lineage but can't prove that."[55]>> These are beside the point. Parkwells (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please consider using more-specific thread headings (section titles). For example, this section might have been titled "Finding proof difficult" (rather than the original, too-generic "Content question"). Regarding User:Parkwell's suggestion, as I stated above: Agree with the suggestion to just state the facts and remove the article's over-reaching apologism. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion on title.Parkwells (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the editors here have insisted that the information regarding Warren's statement re being the first senator with Native American heritage if elected be included in the article. Since most of the reporting has attempted to show that Warren did not appear to be a minority per "legal" definition, it is only fair to Warren that information be provided that shows that she may well be of Native American ancestry even though genalogical proof does not exist. It also backs up her statements re her Native American heritage being part of family lore. Gandydancer (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it could be organized differently, then. More information has been published since the first statements about "difficulty of tracing" appeared. It has to be clear that there is a difference between having family lore of ancestry - part of your heritage - and identifying as a minority for diversity reports and public persona. What people object to is that she never acted as a Cherokee; didn't join any groups, support any causes, participate in events. Let me think about where to put it.Parkwells (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the article I note that new genealogical information has been added while you say you believe that the present information is not appropriate. The new info is from a blog that carries this disclaimer: All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. I make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. I will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. I will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Gandydancer (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I took that out after adding back the general info by the OK Hist Society on intermarriage and difficulty tracing. The blog affirmed the NEGHS, which as of the end of May, had found no documentation of Cherokee ancestors in Warren's family.Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A blog by an amateur genealogist is not appropriate for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Got your point the first time, but she is more than an amateur by the quality of her work. Anyway, she agreed with the NEGHS; no sight of Cherokee ancestry in Warren's family.Parkwells (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Have added timing of statements and reordered

Have reordered some sections and shown the timing of Warren's responses, as that was critical for people who want to evaluate what was going on. e.g., She denied telling Harvard of her identity or said she had no knowledge they would use it; but the Law School's administrator, Alan Ray, was reported as saying that the university's diversity census was based on self-reporting by professors. Warren continued to say she had just "talked about" her heritage in conversation, but that is contradicted by the university's diversity census records. Editors had jumbled together material from different days, and confused this aspect of the account. This is more significant to her campaign and self-presentation than commentary (as above) about the difficulties of tracing ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's reduce the size of the Cherokee section using footnotes

The section is clearly too long, but summarizing it will create debates about interpretation and so on. I think the best way to handle the section for now would be to use a broad level of detail in the article body, and move some of the individual authorities and quotations into a series of footnotes for people who want more information. This seems like a fair short-term measure to keep the article balanced without getting into quibbles about what to remove. —Designate (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is very long and continues to grow as each day passes. Gandydancer (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - Parkwells (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah no shit. It's almost longer than the rest of the article combined. I don't need this much information on Warren pretending she's Cherokee and I'm not sure anyone does.

I agree that at least two-thirds of the information in the "Cherokee" section should be placed in footnotes. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this method of shortening a section of an article. Could someone please offer the guidelines for how this is used and another article in which it has been used so that I may better decide how I feel about it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Expert?!

that is hardly NPOV.

how about "specialist" instead? 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't anybody going to fix this?? "Expert" is hardly a term appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. 66.105.218.13 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, any IP editor can become an "autoconfirmed user" and edit the article themselves. I invite you to do so.

Second of all, the term "expert" seems perfectly valid in this case and supported by WP:SOURCES. Perhaps you're objecting on the basis of WP:WEASEL (which frowns on "experts declare"); plainly that guideline doesn't apply here since the expert is explicitly named. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Account or no, the page is locked.

And no, I'm not talking about "experts declare" type weaseldom. I'm talking about the term "expert" itself. That's a term suitable to a sourced quote ABOUT her, not a neutral statement of who she is. Does it say expert on her resume or business cards? Does she refer to herself with occupation: "expert"?

The appropriate term is "specialist". 66.105.218.14 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone pulllllllllllllllease correct this?!

There is no point debating NPOV of anything else in the article when it starts out with a howler like this. The word is flat-out inappropriate for a biography. 66.105.218.27 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, IP editors get less respect and attention than registered ("named") editors. Technically, a registered user may be restricted from certain edits (such as at this article) but only until the editor has become established by a few successful edits and the passage of a few days (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). So, if you've registered with a username, use it and soon you'll be able to edit this article. However, in this case, it seems likely that no one agrees with the request. I don't agree that the term "specialist" is more encyclopedic than "expert", and I don't believe it's wrong (or "nonneutral") to describe Warren as an expert on bankruptcy law and certain other topics, so the article with "expert" still conveys NPOV (neutral point of view). --→gab 24dot grab← 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

you are so reasonable everywhere else on the talk page; why are you defending a loaded word like "expert"? i ask again: would her OWN resume use such a term? would it in any way be part of her JOB DESCRIPTION?

how about "genius"? can we add THAT as well?? same diff. 66.105.218.3 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not support the term "genius" as a plain label of Warren, as the term "genius" has no useful (eg forensic) encyclopedic meaning. By contrast, many formal proceedings actually expect that certain persons will be designated as "experts"; Warren is a bankruptcy (etc) expert for such governmental/academic/etc purposes. That fact that her informed legal conclusions may be useful to laypersons does not stipulate that Warren is a genius or the best person for a particular position. If you feel the matter needs more discussion... Please, consider discussing the term "expert" over at the so-called "words to watch" (see WP:WTW/WT:WTW); I don't believe many will concur that the term "expert" here qualifies as "puffery" (see WP:PEACOCK). --→gab 24dot grab← 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

i certainly didn't mean genius for HER; i meant in general. even in wikis like Einstein or Hawking, expressions like "reputed genius" or "regarded as a genius" are used. Einstein was a "physicist, professor, researcher and genius" sounds just as ridiculous as warren being a "bankrupcy expert" here. Once again, I'd have no objection to "regarded as a bankrupcy expert", even adding "preeminent" in the middle. Don't agree with it personally, but at least it sounds encyclopaedic! 66.105.218.17 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Information about ancestry research generally

An editor put in a quote that talked about the difficulty of doing research on ancestry, especially Indian ancestry. The quote did not refer to Warren specifically. It just stated that doing Indian ancestry research is difficult. I removed it because it is not notable for this article. The quote did not speak to Warren's specific situation. If the quote was providing insight into Warren's particular situation then it would relevant and notable, but it just states that ancestry research is difficult. It might be a relevant and notable quote for another article such as about ancestry, etc., but not here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer returned the information back into the article without discussing it on this page. There is NO consensus for the information being in the article. Gandydancer has so far refused to provide an explanation on why it is relevant. Gandydancer has simply stated "It is relevant" as if that solves the issue, but it does not. Gandydancer, please do not engage in an edit war and please discuss the reason for putting the information back in. As Nomoskedasticity is fond of saying, "your edit has been rejected, therefore, you need to go to the talk page to get consensus to reposition it in the article."--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That advice has been completely ignored on this article. We have a free-for-all here. So fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article has turned into a free-for-all. That information is taken from an article about Warren. It is not an article about genealogy in general. Comments from the article are directly related to the Warren genealogy debate and certainly do belong in the Warren article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Do the comments provide information about Warren? No. Under your line of thinking if we found someone who said that getting a law degree is difficult then that quote is relevant and notable simply because Warren went to law school. No, notability does not work that way. These comments are generic comments about finding out about one's Indian ancestry. They do not, in any way, provide new information about Warren's particular situation. There is zero relevance. Also, you reverted my edit before you even made your comment above. Please show where the relevance is. Please show the notability. So far, you have not shown either of these. The information does not belong in the article. Almost every editor agrees that the section on Warren's Cherokee self-identification is too long. Your quotes do not provide new information, we already knew that proving Indian ancestry was difficult of Warren would have done it by now. The quotes do not speak directly to whether Warren is a Cherokee or not. All your quotes do is add clutter and make the section longer, which is directly opposed to almost all editors--which violates consensus--and it is directly opposed to what you have been arguing as an editor all along. You have repeatedly stated that the section is too long and violates "undue weight". Well, we now have an opportunity to delete some information that is neither relevant or notable and yet you want to keep it in the article even though you state that you believe that the section is too long. These quotes need to be removed because they are not relevant to Warren, they are not notable, and they unnecessarily clutter up the section and make it too long.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a great many things are relevant in this article. Any attempt at getting people to rein themselves in has failed miserably. The section is not too long -- there's room for all sorts of stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that the direction that you and Gandydancer have decided to go? Seems like you will be opening the door to a lot of other topics that have successfully blocked up to this point in time.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is every reason to include the information. There seems to be an attempt to prove that Warren lied about her heritage because to this point there is no genealogical proof that she is of Native American ancestry. She has said all along that it is part of her family lore and has never claimed that she has any proof of it. As the article which is specifically about Warren's heritage points out, it is common in Oklahoma to have an Indian heritage and yet be unable to back it up with genealogical or governmental records. I'd suggest that if you are sincere about wanting to shorten the article we get rid of this: Politico.com characterized the Herald story that began the controversy as a "blockbuster scoop"[58] and the Washington Post observed that she had "turned what could have been a small problem into a major story" by the way she had handled the issue.[59] According to Politico, the two rivals, the Herald and the Globe, have been "duking it out" for scoops long before the Scott Brown Elizabeth Warren senate race.[60]. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all I did not put the Politico information in the article, but that is not what this article is about. You have not provided any reason why we should put non-notable, irrelevant information in the article. You are wanting to change the subject from the irrelevant information that you placed in the article. The Politico information just might be irrelevant, but that can wait for another discussion. These quotes that you demand, against consensus, to include are NOT relevant. As I pointed out before if we had two different experts on childbirth who pointed out how difficult childbirth is then, under your incorrect definition of relevance, then we would have to include the quotes from the childbirth experts because Elizabeth Warren has given birth. There is no end to the ludicrous quotes that we could put in the article. We could also put in the article a couple of quotes from experts about serious problem of affirmation action fraud in academic settings by people that are white but they claim that they are Native Americans. And, yes, the articles are out there. As a matter of fact, this has been such a difficult problem in the academic world that there has been various serious research articles on it. There has been a draft protocol on how to handle Native American affirmative action hires. I can get generic quotes on this topic and include in the article since you and Nomoskedasticity have decided that everything should be included whether it meets notability or relevance or not.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct re the deletion I suggested. I should not have muddied the water with that suggestion and I was wrong to discuss it at this time. As for the relevancy of the other information, I guess that we will have to wait for other editors to give their thoughts. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that reliable sources are using the quotes we use to defend Warren. Reliable sources have not discussed this alleged protocol with respect to Warren. The first is not improper synthesis. The second is. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Hypocrite. What you just stated is flat out wrong. Those quotes that Gandydancer placed in the article did not mention Warren by name. Those folk did not speak to Warren specific situation. For you to assume that the quotes are talking about Warren is wrong and it borders on original research. Is this article now an essay by you, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity? Apparently, under your line of thought if you want to take bits and pieces of quotes, as long as they are from reliable sources, then we can piece them together however we want to to make the article say whatever we want the article to say. If we want to write an essay that defends Warren's actions then if we can find comments from reliable sources, regardless of whether we are taking those quotes out of context, we can write just about anything that we want to, as long as defends a certain point of view. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we are not suppose to engage in original research AND we are not suppose to have a POV. We are suppose to write the article in NPOV manner. So, in summary, your comment is wrong. Taking quotes out of context to defend Warren's actions is original research. And making edits just for the specific reason to defend Warren violates the NPOV premise. So it appears that the longer you, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity defend this edit the clearer it becomes how it violates several aspects of the Wikipedia rules.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So the source of his quotes in no way discussed Warren? Wow, that's a real problem. Is that what you are saying is true - that the source of the quotes doesn't discuss Warren at all? Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Hipocrite. I do not know if you are being sincere or if you are mocking me. Therefore, I will assume good faith and take you at your word. First of all, if you truly unaware if the quotes are talking about Warren then you did not do your due diligence before you started commenting on this page. A straight-forward reading of the Seattle newspaper article would have made it undeniably clear to anyone that the quotes were talking about families doing research on their ancestry and that the quotes are not talking about Warren specifically. I have reprinted the wording from the article below. Hipocrite, Gandydancer, and Nomoskedasticity please provide the exact place where these individuals say Warren's name. If Michael Dean had commented on Warren's background we would have heard about it by now. This is original research. It violates NPOV. It is not relevant. It is not notable.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dean with the Oklahoma Historical Society said it's not unusual for families from Oklahoma to claim some Native American heritage. "There was so much intermarriage back in the 1890s that was fairly common," Dean said. Tara Damron, assistant curator of the society's American Indian collection, said finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land. "There are a lot of people in Oklahoma who do have native lineage but can't prove that," Damron said.--This article was written by Steve LeBlanc of the Associated Press and it was published in the Seattle Times on April 30, 2012. You can see the whole article here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that article isn't about Warren? Because up above you said very clearly that using those quotes about Warren would be taking them out of context - IE, they were not about Warren. As such, I'll ask again - is the source that the quotes are from about Warren? Yes or no will work. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he's been clear that he is saying the quote is about "ancestry research generally". Present your case that it -is- about Warren, please. Arkon (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Arkon, thank you. You are absolutely right.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article it comes from is "In Mass. US Senate race, a question of heritage." That a specific paragraph does not have the word "Warren" in it does not make the article about something else. This is yet another edit in the pattern of Edmonton7838 misrepresenting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please focus on the article and not me. There is no evidence that either of these quotes are referring to Elizabeth Warren. If you have some kind of proof that Dean and Damron are referring to Warren please provide it.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this article need not discuss genealogical research; that's what Wikilinks are for! --→gab 24dot grab← 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

New Thought; It's not the information, it's the juxtaposition. Yes, genealogy is hard, but putting that next to questions of truthfulness is WP:OR not because any PART of this is untrue or undue, but because putting them together makes a conclusion that is not supportable. As a disclaimer at the top of a long section, maybe, but not as an answer to charges. Furthermore, let us look at the 3 (actually 1, 2a and 2b) that pertain to Cherokee.

1) many Cherokees refused to register when told to at the turn of the century. Yes, BUT those who refused were by and large full-blood Cherokee, did so in vehement protest of the idea of the Dawes Roll, were (or could be) added in the 1930s, and left the modern life for a more "authentic" lifestyle based on their roots. Definitely NOT the category Warren's 1/32 ancestor belongs to.

2a) Intermarriage; Cherokees had been intermarrying extensively since Georgia, over a hundred years before the Dawes Rolls, so "looks" were deceiving even then, meaning that ancestry and ethnicity were guarded jealously, but the "family" or Nation was exceedingly inclusive. Dawes Rolls were made very loose as to inclusion, and Warren's family clearly did not meet that loose criterion even then. Not a problem with Warren's genealogy. Which leads to 2b)

2b) False claims of Cherokee heritage. Since people in 1890 didn't have to "look" Cherokee, and if you claimed to be Cherokee at the time the government decided to give away Cherokee land, you got a huge handout just for identifying as Cherokee, which meant you pretty much had a boom of instant (not) Cherokees flooding the Oklahoma Territory. Sorting out genealogy when there were so many false claims made over decades (it took about 20 years), which may have passed into family lore makes the general question of Cherokee lineage more difficult.

Perfectly willing to accept that SHE has family lore and that SHE has believed it, also willing to posit that in spite of basically new evidence that her lore is wrong, it does not PROVE it to be without any basis, since genealogical research always has some questions. All of this is irrelevant, since the problem is not any small genealogical history, but a claim to be a Protected Class of American, which has a specific definition she does not meet.-209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the issue is not whether Warren has any biological Cherokee ancestry, but whether it was appropriate for her to claim protected status, as she is not an enrolled member, and has clearly never participated in the Cherokee culture or worked on issues related to its people. She hasn't lived the life, and doesn't satisfy Cherokee criteria to be accepted as a member, so she shouldn't claim "identity" as Cherokee. Also agree that the side comments (NEGHS, Damron, OK Historical Society) about difficulties of tracing Cherokee lineage should be deleted, as they are not relevant to the main points of the issue about her claim. (See my comments below.) Parkwells (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion to just state the facts and remove the article's over-reaching apologism. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Even the "lore" part is unravelling. It's in the news here (Boston) today that Warren indicated "White" on the death certificate for the Aunt Bea who is the root of all her claims.

I have been accused of bias, so I will leave it to others to flesh out worthy sources. 66.105.218.17 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

no one? the underpinnings of her entire claim just fell apart and NO ONE is even going to address it?!

CBS news carried it, among others. so it wasn't just the breitbart/twila barnes crowd. 66.105.218.3 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Spinoff 2012-06

Relative to the entire article, the length of the notable Cherokee 'Native American' self-identification section argues persuasively for a spinoff article titled 'Elizabeth Warren self-identification controversy'.

• WP:UNDUE#Point of view forks states: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. ...This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article."
• The WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline states: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally...are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create...new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
• The WP:CONTENTFORKING section discussing WP:SPINOFF states: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. ...Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. ...Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. ...Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation"

I've suggested the article title 'Elizabeth Warren self-identification controversy' because 1) the controversy is less about the particular ethnicity/nationality and more about the self-identification itself; and 2) Warren explicitly self-identifies as both Cherokee and Delaware. Any serious objections to creating a 'content fork' for Warren's self-identification controversy? --→gab 24dot grab← 16:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of an independent Spinout. The Cherokee debacle has led to quite a number or other background problems being uncovered, and badly dealt with by the Warren Campaign. They all relate to Elizabeth Warren the person, and this is where someone would look for them. At this point, the most notable activity of her career is the Senate Campaign, so while we might consider migrating all the detail to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, since it does not relate as much to her Law career, along with all the other flubs, and even expanding it there, having to go to a separate article for each and every Warren campaign mis-step hinders readability. That other existing article is suprisingly sparse.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I believe the section on Warren's claimed Native American ancestry should become a new spinout article (per guidelines I cite and quote above, in this thread) and the Elizabeth Warren section here then essentially stubbed and linked to the new spinout. That is absolutely the exact way Wikipedia is intended to be structured. Are there any guideline-based objections to the creation of a spinout followed by drastic pruning here? --→gab 24dot grab← 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can see the point you made above that these need space in WP and inclusion in the Elisabeth Warren requires them to be condensed more than necessary, due to WP:UNDUE . Primary concern is that there are MULTIPLE biography issues with Warren, would there be a way to migrate all of them to a spinout with a different title? Not trying to impede progress in editing, just thinking of how an average reader might look for information.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe that other issues warranting mention can be discussed adequately here without weighing the article; furthermore this controversy both predates and will likely postdate the 2012 campaign. The article 'Elizabeth Warren self-identification controversy' would allow that particular matter to be offloaded without hiding. I'm unenthusiastic about the creation of the new article, but no serious reasoning against has been raised so far. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shuchman accusations

Breitbart News columnist, Tea Party activist, and writer Michael Patrick Leahy has reported that Rutgers University Law School Professor Philip Shuchman ("one of the nation’s leading legal scholars in personal bankruptcy at the time") published "a withering 1990 critique of the academic standards used in the 1989 book she [Warren] co-authored". Leahy quotes Shuchman, writing in Rutgers Law Review, Volume 43, page 187:

"Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct."

Leahy first reported Shuchman's accusations on June 4, 2012 at Breitbart (see "Warren Accused of 'Repeated Instances of Scientific Misconduct' Before Harvard Hire"[21])

redacted BLP violations that have nothing to do with Warren. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So... The fact is that a respected, verifiable publication (the Rutgers Law Review) absolutely does accuse Warren and her co-authors of "repeated instances of scientific misconduct" (and apparently the accuser Shuchman and Rutgers never retracted the accusation). The fact is that a serious writer (albeit an ideological opponent of Warren's) opines with some documented support that the matter is both "unresolved" and potentially career-ending. It is absolutely not a WP:BLP violation for us at Talk to discuss whether and how this 1990 accusation and 2012 speculation might be discussed in the article; at this time, my opinion for both is: "not at all". --→gab 24dot grab← 15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Breitbert.com is not a reliable source for what was written in the "Rutgers Law Review," nor about anything relating to Teresa A. Sullivan. Please stop citing it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is a final warning that the rampant disregard for WP:BLP on this talkpage needs to stop. It is OK to discuss reliably sourced accusations of plagiarism, or of anything else for that matter. The key words are reliably sourced. It is not OK to continually post poorly sourced negative material about a living person. Breitbart.com is a poor source for this kind of material in a WP:BLP. The Rutgers Law Review is arguably useable in a BLP, and the merits of that particular piece can be discussed here, but that discussion needs to take place within the bounds set by WP:BLP.

  Separately, policy cautions us that "when material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." This campaign is closely scrutinized. If there is a story here, it will appear in reliable sources. It would be helpful for editors to understand that our role is not to be at the leading edge of breaking news, but rather to filter and present material of encyclopedic value. Given the ongoing issues, I will likely begin enforcing WP:BLP on this article and talkpage with short blocks, per policy. MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The 60-page Rutgers Law Review article is here [22], read it for yourself on page 4 (page 187 in the article): "Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct." Cheeseburrito (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems the main complaint refers to this edit rather than anything I wrote. Another editor introduced this topic, and cited a blog I'd never heard of. By contrast, I:

1. ). Research the sources myself.
2. ). Blandly present the matter (with NPOV even here at Talk).
3. ). Plainly cite the sources.
4. ). Conclude my summary of the sources with my own comment that I do not support any mention of the matter!

I contend that Breitbart is a reliable source for itself, for its quotes of others, and for the thoughts of its own commentators. For example, I would fully support the inclusion of something like "Writing at Breitbart, Dana Loesch opined, “The government can fight to mandate birth control pills but is helpless to stop the publicly-funded genocide of females.”(incidentally, that's a near-verbatim quote from Philadelphia Weekly). Breitbart's contributors include notable persons such as Peter Schweizer, James D. Hudnall, Batton Lash, Val Mayerik, Chuck DeVore, Michael Wilson, Dwight Schultz, Adam Baldwin, Doug TenNapel, and Frank Gaffney, and other serious thinkers.

Further, how could I refer to Rutgers Law Review directly (that is, without mentioning Breitbart) when I had not personally seen the Rutgers Law Review (an editor only recently posted the link here in this thread)? Surely you realize that no conscientious writer would do that. Even if an editor loves Elizabeth Warren and hates the late Andrew Breitbart, it seems premature to shut down this thread and it seems wrong to pretend that Breitbart commentators are the only ones speculating on the matter. Even ignoring the typical rabid blogfest, there is this:

• Washington Monthly, June 18, 2012, "Last week, on June 10, the president of the University of Virginia, Teresa Sullivan, who had only occupied her position for two years, was officially dismissed as president of the university. ...What does that really mean? In general an academic administrator is only fired after two years for severe misconduct."
• The Washington Post, June 18, 2012, "Sullivan's brief tenure abruptly ended a week ago after the leader of U.Va.'s Board of Visitors, Helen Dragas, told the president she had enough votes to remove her. The Board of Visitors never met or took a vote on Sullivan's ouster."

Frankly, I'm profoundly skeptical that we're approaching any actual WP:BLP violation here at Talk, and I would be interested in another administrator's thought on the matter. Again, I am not moving to include these accusations in the article, but I also don't believe that an intelligent SOURCED Talkspace discussion such as this is the type of "rampant disregard for WP:BLP" that merits a "final warning" threat. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that you have the Rutgers Law Review link, please state what text you would like added to the article based on that source. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to discuss the Rutgers Law Review as a source, and Cla68's suggestion to provide specific proposed wording is a good one. Breitbart.com is not a suitable source for contentious claims about a living person, per WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

24dot, WP usually doesn't use editorials or self-published sources for BLP material. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I believed and believe that the Shuchman accusations should not be mentioned in this article. However, I disagree that Breitbart News can never be a source for any contentious claim, and I disagree with the threat that matter-of-factly discussing these sourced accusations might constitute an actual WP:BLP violation. For example, well-respected newspaper editor James Taranto opined, "Post-Breitbart, Breitbart.com looks more like a traditional newspaper".—Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2012, Retrieved 2012-06-12 --→gab 24dot grab← 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

High School Debater

Paul Rahe says he was a debater at Northwest Classen High School when Warren was reportedly there, but has absolutely no recollection of her. [23]Tebucky (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the story is less than the original post implies. There IS a record of Warren being a High School debater, though it is probably true that the merit claims are exagerrated.[[24]] She was not the top debater, as claimed, but was TEAMED with the top debater, Karl Johnson, who won awards, and is an Attorney.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack problem in United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012

Someone keeps pasting an old version of Elizabeth_Warren#Cherokee_self-identification into United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#General_election_campaign, probably because they can't get it in here. This violates WP:COATRACK. I've reverted it a couple of times,[25] but I'm afraid they're just going to keep on doing it. What should I do? FurrySings (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

THIS is an inappropriate post. This does not aim to improve THIS article in any way, and can be construed as Canvassing, which is banned and subject to sanctions per WP policy. Please remove this.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Political views?

I consulted this article to learn about Warren's political views because I had read or heard that she is pro-war. That information needs to be included. On investigating online, I found the following article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/elizabeth-warren-iran-bob-kerrey_n_1449926.html

This article reports that she believes that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and for that reason favors sanctions on Iran. The article has links to her own website and additional information. ---Dagme (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Long lists of policy positions are not encyclopedic. Other websites are much more suited for that information. This is a biography, so we will refer to her actual political accomplishments, not hypothetical votes her campaign team says she would take. Since she's not a senator, her position on Iran is irrelevant unless it becomes a major issue affecting the campaign. —Designate (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

'Cherokee self-identification controversy' section is far too long

Currently, the 'Cherokee self-identification controversy' section is by some distance the longest section of this article, containing 11 lengthy paragraphs. That's longer than every other section of the article, and almost gives the impression that Warren is a person primarily famous for claiming to be Cherokee who just happens to be a politician, rather than the other way around. It's as if Barack Obama's article had more detail about his background and ancestry than anything else. Simply put, this is not acceptable in a BLP, and it has to be reduced. We don't need to include every single fact about Warren and her disputed history here. I reckon it should be possible to cut this section down to 3-4 paragraphs at most; if no one else is willing to give it a try, I'll have a go myself. Robofish (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Some editors agree with you, but so far we have been unable to prevent this article from becoming a political propaganda piece. Gandydancer (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just go for it. Dealing with the inevitable back-and-forth reversions is not an appealing task, but almost everyone agrees it's a ridiculous size. My advice is to focus on the general story and summarize the overly specific quotations. (I suggested above that we can throw some quotations into the footnote section and summarize them in the article—this is worth considering.) Designate (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made revisions to the self-identification controversy section to come more in-line with WP:NPOV. I have done the best I can, but additional editing, either to further truncate or remedially expand, is welcomed. There seemed to be a consensus, however, that it had become far too long. I have removed sections that seemed especially superfluous; for instance, an explanation of why Harvard Law may or may not have reported on Elizabeth Warren’s heritage seemed to not be useful. Similarly, the protest of a Cherokee group of fewer than 175 members protesting her self-indentification is by itself a flimsy source, and with the previous sentence, does not add any new information. An entire paragraph has also been removed, as its only purpose seemed to be to reiterate how ‘difficult’ it can be to determine tribal ancestry, and that many claim it anyway. This was stated in the prior paragraph. Please review my edits; I'd love to have a dialogue on this issue, but since no one has spoken in over a week here, I figured it was time to start working.

Also, a lot of effort has been put into making this article a resource for facts about claims to Native American heritage. The article itself should not be a source for this; it should instead link to an article on the subject as so much research has consequentially been executed on the topic. Those that feel especially passionate about it are encouraged to do so, as I haven’t been able to locate an article on the nebulous status of Native American heritage in the U.S. Jacotto (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with "section far too long". 3 lines are enough. Yug (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not just Native American heritage and identity; the controversy is tied to diversity programs and reporting, many related to what was previously known as affirmative action. Harvard's reporting was supposed to follow federal guidelines for who can be considered Native American for the purposes of the program - which is not just anyone who has "some" family account of ancestry. Native American tribes participated in formulating these rules as well; many resent individuals' claiming Native American identity who are not members of tribes and do not live an identity as Native American. Each tribe makes the rules on their own members. Similarly, there have been some court challenges on people claiming African-American identity for job affirmative action positions (sort of a reverse one-drop rule application), who to all appearances are white and have lived as white. It's hard to know how this topic, which is larger than the Warren case, should be approached as a Wikipedia article.Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be approached in hindsight, not while it's happening. The best path is the conservative one (keep the short-term controversy to a brief summary until it blows over). People rightfully expect to see the issue addressed here, but it's simply not an encyclopedia's job to give a play-by-play of some goofy political tennis match. After the election, we'll know if this is a biography of "Warren the U.S. Senator" or "Warren the national policy advocate", and in either case this particular issue is only one small part of her biography. —Designate (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I kinda disagree that it is a small part. It's been one of the major issues in the biggest event (to date) with her involvement. I have no idea how it should be worded, or addressed, but it's not minor. Arkon (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, given the comment directly above yours, the lack of consensus on the import of the subject as it unfolds generally demands a conservative approach rather than a play-by-play of every development. That play-by-play is still what we have here, and it seems to violate WP:NOT and more particularly WP:N(E).Jacotto (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This controversy is not necessarily ephemeral insofar as it exposes the antithesis of Ms. Warren's political views (that successful people are not responsible for their achievement which is actually due to the benevolence of government) If she was disingenuous about her Native American heritage, (she is obviously privileged white class), and she did so with the intent to gain advantage within government employers or programs (even if HLS conveniently says they did not consider her race) then her entire political position is fraudulent. She has a JD and should know better. Since there is an election and Wikipedia has the unique benefit of being timely and up to date, as long as the article remains encyclopedic in its fact content, there is no scarcity of paper in which to cover this topic. Truthsleuther (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Although politely written, the above is pure speculation and defamation of character. Please review our BLP policy which also applies to talk pages. FurrySings (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:PA and making false legal claims. There are no WP:BLP issues; Truthsleuther is making a cogent and WP:NPOV statement of WHY Warren's controversial and contradictory statements are so important.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

One aspect of this section that I find questionable is using a site like the Daily Caller as a source. A newspaper like the Boston Herald (also used as a source in this article) is clearly antagonistic to Warren's candidacy, but it meets the sort of minimal standards of attempted journalistic objectivity that a site like the Daily Caller (or DailyKos, for instance) does not. The credibility of sources is an important element of valid scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.195.148 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Daily Calller who have recognized journalists and the Kos which is a hit piece that both Britbart and MRC have exposed. No reason not to point out that Liawatha's claims are a fraud.32.178.48.196 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This section outweights biographical sections, disregarding historical perspective. Since it's election season changes to mention merely the essentials or sort it under the election section where it belongs are immediately reverted, so at least a maintenance template alerts readers to the undue weight. Hekerui (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Controversy section

Some of my changes have included: Noting in the first paragraph the source of the claim; as I read the article, it was very difficult to immediately ascertain where the Native American claim had come from. Was it on application forms? Her law school directory entry? Turns out it was the latter, which was in the next paragraph. I moved it to the lead. I cleaned up the central paragraphs and removed most of the non-relevant information. Discussion on difficulties of determining heritage, belong in their own article. I removed most of the second-to-last two paragraphs, and left in the Brown campaign claim. I can't determine any other real information here.

So to recap, it's been whittled down to mostly relevant facts; The media reported she identified, here is how she identified on forms for which we have record, and what they were, and here is the summary of what the campaigns said to each other (Brown: please explain this. Warren: here is my explanation). There's definitely more room for expanded study on an article focusing on this issue (see discussion in above two sections for more detail). I'm sure my edits are far from perfect (perhaps I removed too much, or too little), but what we had before was also an un-encyclopedic (and insanely difficult to edit through all the unnecessary sources)mess. Please share your thoughts... Jacotto (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was very difficult...but IMO you handled it very well. Something clearly needed to be done what with it almost twice as long as her entire Academic career section--you'd think that was the only thing she ever did. I will not argue it, however if there is agreement I'd skip the last sentence with the Youtube video quote. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree it's not notable (given that it's basically just a reaffirmation of her stance on an already articulated stance, which isn't really new information at all), but it's different enough that I'll wait a couple days and see if anyone else has thoughts on it before removing. Jacotto (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Youtube quote. Jacotto (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been a whole article about Warren in this past Sunday's Boston Globe, opart of which discusses this controversy. Can and should we update the section with this information? Sadly, it's by subscription only. I read it in the paper. Bearian (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on whether there is useful new research or information that materially adds to or changes the overall issue. However, if it's by subscription only we'd run into a problem with WP:PAYWALL. If you have the print version, that would suffice, although again, be sure there's actually useful information to put forward from it. Jacotto (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the article without difficulty and read it. IMO it presented the information a little better than some of their previous articles--less sensational in tone. I tend to hate to edit this article since the atmosphere has been so toxic in the past. I generally have the attitude that I will just leave well enough alone, though I sure would support anything that I believe to be an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job on revision. The article gives Warren's side - that she did not "authorize" Harvard to count her as a minority, but a sourced cite, the head of their program, said diversity reporting (statistics collected for the Feds) are based on self-reporting. His staff does not fill it out for professors. That seems something that should be included, as it relates to data after the 90s. It's in the article history.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This was in relation to HLS' diversity reporting (as opposed to press releases) from about 1995-2001. The content was: Alan Ray, the administrator then responsible for HLS' diversity statistics, said that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide". (Ray is an enrolled member of the Cherokee nation, and also has European ancestry.)Parkwells (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The link for source 63 is broken. Here's the correct link: http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/05/elizabeth_warrens_native_ameri.html. Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.164.6 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of back and forth has gone into this, and I feel bad adding to an overly long talk section about (what was) an overly long section, but as someone coming in after the fact, I feel like this section comes off very much "he said she said". In particular, Warren is quoted saying everyone who's hired her has issued a statement that she received no preferential treatment, but the citation given is evidence of her making that claim without any attempt to adjudicate truth. Also "law directory" is a term I'm not familiar with and should be explained (is it this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis_Martindale-Hubbell? If so, how about a link?). Finally the word "publicized" could perhaps use a little elaboration. I understand this section was once 15 paragraphs, which sounds insane, but perhaps it was shortened just a little too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.10.251 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012

In External links, the washpo parameter should be changed to have a value of gIQAZHDx9O because the current one no longer works. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done This appears to have been handled already. If there's another instance that I missed, please reopen this request. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NO, IT WAS NOT CHANGED! The value is still 'Elizabeth Warren' NOT gIQAZHDx9O . PLEASE CHANGE, and revert the so-called 'fix' to the Template (see below). 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Work as a lawyer

The debate just ended, and Scott Brown brought up her work for Traveller's Insurance in an asbestos case. The article doesn't mention her private work at all. Boston.com says this about the case:

"It is clear that Warren received a substantial amount of money to help the company win immunity from all future lawsuits, with the expectation that the company would have to pay the settlement. But Warren’s work on the case may also have helped Travelers indirectly lay the groundwork for its current position, a position Warren and several other lawyers involved on both sides of the case say they did not foresee: where Travelers has immunity from most suits without having to pay the settlement."

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-01/metro/31499452_1_asbestos-case-asbestos-victims-travelers/2

I believe that this should be covered in a balanced fashion, but it's not even clear where to fit it in. Homunq (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not an unknown one, but not widely reported; it was an issue earlier when the release of tax returns was proposed. Warren refused to release any returns that would include her private law income, and encountered criticism due to the coorelation of that non-disclosure with her controversial work against asbestos victims. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Would add that the amount of private law work she has done is not large, at least in relation to the rest of her career, and while there is absolutely NO issue with including this in the article on the United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, it may be a little WP:UNDUE here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, even though I find Scott Brown's "you make a lot of money" to be a total cheap shot, I also have a hard time seeing something that's made her hundreds of thousands of dollars in income as utterly UNDUE. (Though it would be UNDUE to mention how much it made her on the page itself; I'm just saying, here on talk, that that's evidence it's significant.) Homunq (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument that it belongs on the Election Article rather than here is just a comment on how important private practice is to her overall career. She earns millions as a professor, bureaucrat, speaker and consultant, $200,000 is small in comparison. Plus, her Asbestos litigation would not be very notable except for the election she is now in. Just FYI, her high salary isn't exceptionally notable; not that relevant to her overall career, relevant to the election only in the sense that her complaint about the high cost of University is a little disingenuous, given that she contributes to it; therefore WP:DUE in the election Article, WP:UNDUE here. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012

Well, now the Template has been changed so the link doesn't show up. Can you please revert that Template change? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what template you're talking about. The only change made to the article Elizabeth Warren made in the past day or so was this one, which added this link with this url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren/gIQAZHDx9O_topic.html. It is an active link and works fine. If there is a template-related change that I'm somehow missing, please be more specific about what it is, and I'll try to help. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Genetic testing?

Does anyone have a reliable source that Warren has had (or has had) any genetic testing done to prove or disprove her Native American ancestry? Bearian (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon further research, I am not sure that it would be of much help to validate anything anyway. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For further analysis, see thsi article from Slate. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)