Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Major weight and notability issues with Native American controversy section

I'd like to repeat what was said above by LK: A persistent campaign by partisans to include every negative thing ever written about a person into the person's biography, regardless of weight, reliability, notability, or BLP issues. This has to stop. I fully agree with this statement. The rather awkward truth about Wikipedia editors is that we have no credentials and yet we can "publish" our views in a widely-read source. By the amount of copy devoted to the Native American incident presently included in Warren's article, about the same amount as devoted to her entire career, one would think that it is a major part of her life. As unknown editors, of unknown political leanings, or any sort of expertise at all, we have no right to allow politics to influence our articles. In Warren's most recent book she does not devote more than a mention of this incident and when I searched for reviews of her book, I did not find reviews that criticized her shocking, just shocking!!!, avoidance of fraud!!!, etc. See, for instance: [1] [2] [3] No mention at all. What we really should be arguing about here is whether or not the incident deserves more than a few lines at most, or even that - certainly not an entire section. Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys probably have a point generally, but specifically, you are mistaken in this case.

"Polling conducted after the story received nearly daily coverage in the Bay State’s most prominent media outlets for about a month showed – somewhat surprisingly – that Warren was largely unharmed by the scrutiny her heritage received. Brown’s camp chalked the numbers up to being outspent on TV by the Democrat. For Warren, much of May was spent on defending herself and the heritage debate was still a distraction from her message, if not a clear negative in the polls." This is on the Washington Post political blog by a professional journalist.

The Boston Globe gave heavy coverage to the issue. MotherJones reported, "The Boston Herald has been going after Warren for identifying herself as 'Native American'. . ."

Nor was this merely a local spat. On the national scene, the issue was covered by:

The NYT, noting, "The still-simmering controversy over Ms. Warren’s self-proclaimed American Indian heritage has chased her from the campaign trail in Massachusetts to the convention hall, resonating with a small but vocal constituency: American Indian Democrats."

The CS Monitor, which notes it was a big enough deal that Warren went to the trouble of making a 30-second video to respond.

The Atlantic: "Despite a nearly three week flap over her claim of "being Native American," the progressive consumer advocate has been unable to point to evidence of Native heritage. . ."

And many, many more, virtually the entire MSM.

A review of her book in USN&WR mostly agrees with you, Gandydancer, that the press is giving her a pass on the issue.

"In a new book released today, Massachusetts Democratic senator and potential presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren attempts to rewrite history regarding the controversy surrounding her “Native American” ancestry that emerged in the 2012 Senate campaign. What’s remarkable is that, at least in the initial book reviews, the press largely allows her to get away with it. In fact, it’s virtually ignored that to this day Warren still refuses to release any law school records that may shed light on this controversy."

But just because the furor has died down doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal at the time. It's historical and was important, not trivial. In fact, despite what reviewers highlighted, Warren dealt with it in detail in her book, pp. 235-259, plus copious endnotes.

Bottom line: the controversy does merit a section. Yopienso (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand - are you saying that Warren devoted around a third of her chapter on her senate run to covering the Native American controversy? Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say that it was not well-covered during her run? Of course it was. Please read my post again. What I am saying is that if mainstream media has not continued to see the controversy as a major incident, neither should we. The fact that Brian Walsh, a political strategist who wrote an article, says that "the press largely allows her to get away with it" in no way suggests that WP editors, who are supposed to be editing without a biased POV, should decide that, by god, we're going to see to it that she doesn't "get away with it" too. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You did not say it was not well-covered during her run. You said, "What we really should be arguing about here is whether or not the incident deserves more than a few lines at most, or even that - certainly not an entire section." I argued that yes, it does deserve an entire section. What I should have said--what I meant--was that it deserves its present subsubsection.

You said, "In Warren's most recent book she does not devote more than a mention of this incident." You are mistaken about that, as I point out above.

You said that this article includes "about the same amount [of copy] as devoted to her entire career." You are very mistaken about that. Excluding titles and footnote numbers, the "Career" section has 545 words; the "Native American controversy" subsubsection has 256. The subsection "2012 election" has 468 words besides the subsubsection on the controversy. For clarity: by "section" I mean a title set off with double ==. "Subsection" is set off with 3 ===. "Subsubsection" is set off with 4 ====. I think the headings as used in the article give proper weight to aspects of Warren's life.

I would not support trimming the subsubsection on the Native American controversry to less than 150 words.

I am not the least bit partisan; I have no agenda of not letting her "get away with it." I quoted Walsh simply to show some support for your assertion that the MSM has largely ignored that part of her book in their reviews. What I won't meekly abide is throwing history down the memory hole. Yopienso (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not count the words, however the career section and the controversy section both contain the same number of copy lines. Almost identical. Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously grasping at straws; a simple glance at the page shows the Career section is longer. I copied the mark-up text including refs, links, and titles into Microsoft Office and got almost 3 full pages using Calibri font size 11 with 1-in. margins. Using the same parameters, the controversy section yielded about a 1 3/4 pages. That's misleadingly long because the controversy section is chock full of refs that contain many characters.

Please address the arguments Collect and I present. Yopienso (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A "simple glance" at the article shows me that both sections contain the same number of lines of copy. If there is some sort of "Calibri font size 11 with 1-in. margins" method that I should be using, it is news to me and beyond my level of competence and I will need to ask for assistance in understanding it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The material gained very wide national coverage, and as long as we seek NPOV in a section, we should also abide by WP:BLP which states:

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

In the case at hand the allegations were very widely covered; there are a multitude of third party sources; and the material is not on the level of rumour or the like but is "well documented." This has nothing to do with liking or disliking Warren, but with abiding by policy. Collect (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect; in this case the subject addressed the incident head-on in speeches, interviews, a brief video at the time, and just now more recently in her book. It's Gandydancer who dislikes mentioning it. Yopienso (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I have not suggested that it was not well-covered during the campaign. Please see my above posts. This is a discussion about the weight of the issue. Gandydancer (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war (or even, edit at all). But one thing I don't understand is why the fact that she listed herself as a "racial minority" in an employment directory (used by law schools for recruitment) keeps being removed. This comes from the WaPO RS. She did not list herself as Native American in the law school hiring directory; she listed herself as non-white/a racial minority (her justification for identifying as non-white/a racial minority was that she is Native American). That was the source of the controversy. 159.63.167.133 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about weight. Even at the time of the controversy, polls showed that "the vast majority of voters did not feel it was a significant story", and since that time Warren has frequently been in the news but not once has there been mention of it that I'm aware of (other than as noted above). It is only Wikipedia that still believes that it is a significant event to the point that, judging by the amount of copy devoted to it, it is as significant as her entire career history. Gandydancer (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please drop the mistaken argument that as much space is devoted to the issue as is to her entire career history. I don't know what you mean by "copy," but I explained to you 3 ways I measured the texts: word count from the article, word count form the mark-up, and simple eyeballing. The space devoted to the issue is less than half as much as that of the "Career" section. It's just over half of the "2012 election" subsection. Furthermore, the "Career" section ends before her career in the Senate began. The "Senate" section is longer than the "Career" section, which is due weight since she's more widely known as a senator than as a professor and advocate.

It doesn't matter that few voters or media outlets care about the Native American issue at present. Barack Obama doesn't use illegal drugs anymore and it's not an issue of public interest, but our article mentions his former use of marijuana and cocaine. Ted Kennedy eventually recovered from the Chappaquiddick incident (which I vividly remember happening), but his bio has a whole section on it and there's even a separate article on it. Thank God controversies die down! But they're still part of the story. Yopienso (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think recent edits to the section made it more readable, so I pretty much restored them after Gandydancer's near revert. I also trimmed a bit, mostly just to reduce word count. The last sentence, however, I removed because it was cherry-picked from the source, which goes on to say, "But that does not guarantee the controversy will end for Warren. Voters appeared divided over whether she has satisfactorily explained her assertion of Native American identity, with 42 percent saying she had not adequately explained it and 37 percent saying she had." I think we need to have both statements or neither, and since I'm aiming for brevity, choose neither. Yopienso (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Coming back the topic of appropriate weight, I would like to emphasize that when considering appropriate weight in a BLP, it is not enough to say 'look at all this stuff that's been written'. Notable people like Warren have a lot written about them. We must consider the universe of what has been written about them, and what proportion of that coverage has been devoted to this one issue. Also, never forget that this article is a (very short) biography. We should consider, in a well researched biography, what % of such a book would be devoted to this topic — and follow accordingly. Currently, by raw word count, about 7% of the article is devoted to this. I very much doubt that in a future biography of Warren's, that 7% of such a book would be devoted to this non-issue. LK (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too detailed. I cut it down a little but think it could be reduced to about 5 lines. On purely stylistic grounds, I disagree with Gandydancer's perception of "a better flow". Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion here; I made a hasty and off-base edit and comment. Yopienso (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-Natives may not see this as all that significant. I can assure you, however, that Native communities have not forgotten this. It was a huge factor during the campaign, and still is when it comes to who will and will not support her. - CorbieV^☊ 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the assurance, and I'm not saying you are wrong, but it may be helpful in this discussion if you could provide reliable sources conveying that same assurance. It is also not uncommon in American politics for a vocal tiny minority to express manufactured "outrage" against a political candidate on behalf of an aggrieved demographic group, while the vast majority of that group is quietly face-palming themselves in embarrassment. The "outrage" then quickly dissipates after the elections. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The concern about undue weight is valid. The subject matter is definitely significant enough to warrant mention in this article, but not at great length, and certainly not with its own subject header. As noted by another editor above, even the Barack Obama BLP mentions his former drug use as a youth -- but it is equally important to note that only a sentence and a half is devoted to it in that much longer article (and it doesn't have a section header dedicated to it, either). The text should consist of just what is necessary to convey the basic significant facts of the matter: She claims distant Native American ancestry; can't effectively document it except for word-of-mouth family history; mentioned it in a law school association directory; political opponents tried to use the situation to question Warren's character. Even the cited sources refer to the matter as only a "sideshow", "a squabble", "the ancestry kerfuffle", and are almost apologetic about having to "nevertheless" report on it. Perhaps the subject will warrant more than just a couple sentences after it is inevitably revisited during future elections. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversely see Mitt Romney dog incident which has 18K devoted to a much more minor "incident". Collect (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Warren claim to Native American blood more than 5 generations ago is of less significance (and less media prominence), but that said, I couldn't argue for an 18K dedicated article on Romney's dog with a straight face. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect: FTFY. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Look again. Collect (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect: The much more media-covered dog incident has half a sentence on Mitt Romney's page, and is not even mentioned on the article about the 2012 election. Perhaps as a show of how even handed you are, you could go expand that to two paragraphs. Darx9url (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And it is 18K long as an article. Sorry -- that line fails. Collect (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The law directories

These were directories were basically lists of racial minorities--who only listed their minority status, and did not identify their specific race--on the law teaching market. Warren listed herself as a "racial minority" on the directories. The sole purpose of these directories was for law schools to recruit minority candidates. Pro-Warren forces on this page keep deleting these plain facts, and adding vague text that obscures the context in which she made her identification. See the Washington Post's fact check blog for documentation of these facts. Steeletrap (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC) One can see a digital copy of the original directory on the WAPO article. Warren is on a list of "minority" law professors. Her specific race is not mentioned. WaPo puts my point more succinctly: "The American Association of Law Schools directory doesn’t specify which professors are Native American, but instead clumps all the “minority law teachers” together in a distinct section. As such, it’s no surprise that Warren didn’t connect with American Indians through the listing — they wouldn’t have known she was one of them." Steeletrap (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The sole purpose of these directories was for law schools to recruit minority candidates.

I'm not seeing that in the WaPo article. They do mention that the professional directories are "commonly used by recruiters", which I do not doubt, and elsewhere one person says it also "served as a tip sheet for administrators", but your definition seems overstated. Do I understand your position correctly that you desire the Warren article to state or imply she is getting jobs at law schools because of listing as a minority in that directory? Is there a source which states that, without your synthesis? I see where your same WaPo source states:

The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.” For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

Pro-Warren forces on this page keep deleting these plain facts...

I can't speak for "Pro-Warren forces" (who were they, again?), but speaking for myself, I delete unsourced "facts", per Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We cannot state or imply that she got a job because of her racial minority status, because there is no proof of that. We should state that she listed herself as a racial minority in a directory devoted to recruiting minority professors. That she didn't check the box in her application to Rutgers is irrelevant to whether she did check a box in applying for law teaching positions. Steeletrap (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my concern from above: "she listed herself as a racial minority in a directory devoted to recruiting minority professors" needs a source, and your WaPo source isn't conveying that.

Your latest edit summary says (the directories were used by employers to recruit minorities. Warren says she listed herself in the directories. Read the source.)

I did read both sources. (Duh.) Neither said what you claimed. Your WaPo source cited above, however, did, so I added it to that paragraph. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

After recent edits, I also made the following changes:

• Removed the bold insertion of a subheader, per above discussion. The assertion that it was "*by far* the most debated issue" is unpersuasive (as well as unsupported beyond speculation) as a reason for spotlighting that sideshow.
• Removed "After her election to the Senate, political opponents have continued to criticize Warren for identifying as a racial minority in the law directories" as not in the cited Politico source.
• Changed "members of the Cherokee Nation" to "four members of the Cherokee Nation", per the more specific (and less potentially misleading) source.
• Removed uncited sentence, which also happens to be technically problematic and partially false: "Because Warren could not document her claimed Native American ancestry, and because the law directories were specifically used to recruit minority professors, her minority status in the directories provoked controversy; many conservative pundits speculated that Warren fabricated her minority status to improve her odds on the legal teaching market."
• Reworded the association "listing" sentence to be more clear.
• Returned wording about what NEHGS actually said, per cited sources.
• Reference formatting.

Xenophrenic (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming your version is clearer? It makes no sense whatsoever to the reader unacquainted with the scandal. The fact that she has no documented ancestry--the crux of the criticism--is now buried halfway through the paragraph; the fact that the directories were used to recruit minority professors is omitted for no reason (though this comes directly from the WaPo article). If you were my student, I'd give you a D+ for your edits. Steeletrap (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are also using Elizabeth Warren's talking points. The allegation are of credentials fraud; they are not 'attacks on her family,' which does not have any documented Native American ancestry, and so cannot be attacked for being Native American. Steeletrap (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Far more than four Cherokee people protested. Some of the protests were by a group of four Cherokee women, who Warren refused to meet with; then there was a different group that picketed at the primary, whom she also avoided; and another group at the convention, who also sought a meeting and were snubbed. Those are just the in-person pickets and press interviews, there were additional protests and writeups online. Anyone who actually followed the campaign - including how it was covered in Native American news sources - knows this. - CorbieV^☊ 01:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Warren pretends that this scandal is about moronic conservatives making fun of a multiracial person who looks white. Of course, there are plenty people who look white but are actually multiracial, and identify as racial minorities. But Warren isn't mocked for being one of them, which would be outrageously stupid and racist. Instead, she's being mocked for saying she's Native American while not being able to point to a specific family member who is Native American. (She has speculated that a great-great-great grandparent who lived in the 18th century was Native American, but that is a tenuous (and unsubstantiated) connection.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a BLP - consensus first

I'm returning the article to the stable version that existed before all the back and forth that erupted yesterday. We have a lot of issues here that are controversial, and a lot of edits that are being objected to. Since this issue is so controversial, people should get consensus first, here on the talk page, before making serious changes to the article. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. You either didn't read the text or are engaged in tendentious editing. Why, for example, should we cleanse from the article the demonstrable facts that the "law directories" were lists of minority professors, used by law schools for recruiting purposes? Consensus is less important than what RS say. Steeletrap (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll like to remind everyone of the unanimously passed arbitration committee decision on BLPs:[4]

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

So let's have no more shooting from the hip. Darx9url (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. You make vague, general statements about how the additions to the article violate BLP and will lead us to be sued by Warren. (Even though it is almost impossible to defame public figures under US law.) But you have never specified a single part of the new additions that is inaccurate or questionable. You are engaged in TE and an effort to suppress facts you don't like about Warren. Steeletrap (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)`

2012 Election Description Should Be Shortened

There was a Request for Comments on the description of the 2012 election, which was archived to Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 5. There was rough consensus that the current text on the 2012 election is too long, but there was no consensus on whether to replace it with a specific short version or with something in between in length. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015

Any persons with Native Ancestry in Oklahoma who belong to any one of the 38 federally recognized tribes can apply for a CDIB card, which processes their birth certificate showing they are at least 1/32 native American. 77unionstation (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, people with lower blood quantum (BQ) than 1/32 can enroll with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), as long as they have ancestors on the rolls. I think 77unionstation's point is that, if Warren's stories were true, she would be able to enroll with the CNO. The fact is the ancestors she reported as Cherokee were thoroughly researched and documented, and every single one of them was thoroughly white. The quote from the New England genealogist in the article, saying it's hard to document Native ancestry, only applies if it's very distant, miniscule, and not Cherokee. The quote is actually misleading and inaccurate as the Cherokee have kept excellent records, and a New England genealogy group is not really the appropriate source for Cherokee history - the Cherokee are the authoritative source on that. That said, the issue around BQ would only fit into the article if she claimed to have been rejected from CNO, or similar. But, if it can be well-sourced, say to the CNO's official documents, it might fit in in place of the New England genealogist quote. Propose an exact source and wording and we'll consider it. - CorbieV^☊ 01:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've added a bit about this ^^^: "However, the tribes keep their own records, and no Cherokee tribe has a record of Warren's family members. The members Warren named were all found to be white."[5] I'm pretty certain the news articles who quoted Cherokee genealogists and record-keepers used to be in this article. I don't have time to go back through the revisions and find the sourcing right now, but this is not controversial from the Cherokee side. Warren may have sincerely believed her family stories. But that doesn't change the fact that the stories have been proven to be untrue. This is a common thing in America, especially among frontier families. She's not the first time the tribes have had to deal with false claims. It happens literally every day at the tribal offices, usually from non-Natives who are hoping to get some kind of benefits. - CorbieV^☊ 20:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

☊, If she truly identified as NA, it is curious why she only identified as Native American from 1986 to 1995, when she was climbing the ladder of legal academia. Why didn't she check the box when she applied to college or law school? And why did she stop checking the box immediately after she got tenure at Harvard? Part of being Native American, I imagine, is knowing that you're Native American before you're 35 years old. Steeletrap (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please specify specific problems with my edits

Fans of Warren are trying to cover up inconvenient facts about the NA scandal. A lot of work I've done on this issue--adding information about the type of directory she added her name to, and its purpose (to help law schools recruit minority professors)--has been reverted. I am happy to discuss the merits of the content I added. But the bare-bones assertion of "non-NPOV," bereft of any specific argument, is not grounds for a reversion. Indeed, users who fail to provide evidence or argument for their removal of content risk having their motives called into question.

I have asked User:Darx9url to specify what was wrong with my (exceedingly well sourced) additions. He failed to provide a single specific example.

I am opening this thread to offer him--and other pro-Warren users--an opportunity to explain which assertions about the scandal I added are problematic, and why they are problematic. Vague, conclusory condemnations of edits as "biased" are impossible to assess. If users fail to specify what specific assertions in my edits were problematic, I will (within a week or so) revert my changes back in. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to accuse others of being fans of Warren isn't going to convince people to listen to you. -- Calidum 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The tone of my message is of little relevance. The problem is that people, for whatever reason, refuse to provide any reason for their removal of well-sourced content. That is a huge problem. And because I have no arguments to engage, I am left to speculate about motives. Steeletrap (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you got it backwards. It's not the job of people who object to your large scale-edits to specify what is wrong and to defend themselves. It's up to the person who wants to insert material (you), to specify what you want to insert, and to provide reliable sources, and thus gain consensus that the material should be inserted. If you want to go forward, I suggest moving one step at a time. Make a proposal about one thing you would like to change, and let's talk about it. LK (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have 'specified what I wanted to insert and provided reliable sources.' I described the content I added above. Specifically, I added the facts that 1) the list to which Warren added her name characterized Warren as a "racial minority," not a Native American 2) that list was used by law schools for the specific purpose of recruiting minority professors. These two assertions are sourced to a WaPo investigative article. I have gotten no specific feedback on their accuracy; they have been reverted without explanation. I am going to readd my content unless people provide reasonable arguments as to why the content is inaccurate. Steeletrap (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well sourced content notwithstanding, Scott Brown's speculation is not suitable per WP:BLP. I have removed that sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unproven allegations are in tons of BLPs. There are no problems with including them, so long as they are notable and are presented as allegations or conjectures rather than as established facts. There is a whole sub-section of Bill Clinton's article devoted to unproven allegations of sexual impropriety. Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a bio, and that section should be a summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz Warren thinks this story belongs in her biography. She devoted a section of her autobiography to it. We should defer to that precedent. Steeletrap (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Per an admin, this page systematically biased suffers from systemic bias

Pro-Warren editors should be aware that this page has been listed, by an admin with expertise in Native American issues, as an example of systematic bias on Wikipedia. The allegations of bias arise from the repeated attempt to whitewash the Native American scandal, which arose from Warren's decision to list herself as a racial minority in directories used to recruit minority professors, despite the fact that she has no documented non-white ancestors. I encourage everyone to set aside politics and try to cover the Native American issue neutrally, according to what RS have said, and in proportion to the (intense) amount of coverage the story received and continues to receive from RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Each admin is entitled to an opinion, which is just as valid as other opinions. Many, many Americans have no documentary evidence for ancestors about whom their parents have told them stories; I note, too, that my previous question about the records of Leni Lenape marriages (and births out of wedlock) in the 18th and early 19th centuries has gone without response. I'm a Massachusetts resident, I follow state politics, and haven't seen much coverage at all since Scott Brown lost his election. All the sources currently in the article date for 2012, with the exception of one recent historical interview concerning Warren’s reaction in 2012. Most Mass. political observers see this as a minor story which Brown’s campaign thought might possibly dovetail with the anti-Harvard messaging with which he briefly experimented. It received little traction. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It has received huge traction in terms of past and ongoing RS coverage, including coverage in Warren's 2014 autobiography. Has Warren been hurt politically by the scandal? Not really (at least, not yet-- many RS have speculated that Hillary Clinton would attack her on the NA issue in the 2014 election). But that's no argument for excluding it. Bill Clinton was not hurt politically by his affair with M. Lewinsky or his impeachment; his approval ratings went up and he remains a highly popular figure. That doesn't mean we should exclude coverage of these issues from his article. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The real issue here actually is right-wing bias; the Native American thing is just a red herring that keeps being stirred up by Warren's political enemies in an attempt to discredit her. The article as it sits now covers the issue adequately and with appropriate balance. I see no need to either add or subtract from it. CorbieVreccan has no "expertics on Native American issues that I know of, at least he's never shown up at WP Indigenous peoples of North America, which is where I got notice about this article. Montanabw^(talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the two editors you are criticizing (myself and Corbie) are both people of the Left. It is the other side that is ideologically motivated. Steeletrap (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I know of no reliable source that has recently speculated that Clinton might raise the issue against Warren in 2016 because I know of no reliable source that envisions any scenario, however remote, in which Clinton and Warren both seek the nomination in 2016. (I assume "2014" above is a typo as neither Warren nor Clinton were candidates for office in 2014). The issue is covered in the appropriate place and currently appears to be a minor footnote. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

NYT != reliable source? [6] At the same time, a groundswell of support for Ms. Warren among liberal activists has aided Republicans’ behind-the-scenes efforts. In December, the liberal group MoveOn.org said it would spend $1 million on a campaign to draft Ms. Warren into the 2016 race. looks like speculation in a reliable source from here on 29 Jan. [7] Leaders of New York’s Working Families Party on Sunday urged Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic nomination for president next year, formally calling on her to enter the 2016 race for the White House 9 Feb. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Academic section needs expansion

A central argument against the Native American sub-section is that it is disproportionately long compared to other sections relating to her career. I actually agree with this. But the solution is NOT to whitewash well-sourced and highly notable content (the NA scandal), but instead to add more information about other aspects of her career. It is ridiculous that one of the most cited law professors in the country only has 3 paragraphs devoted to her career. That section should be doubled or tripled in length, by someone who knows about her scholarship. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Go read and edit United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, where that material should be placed. Here, we need just a summary of that article per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We need better coverage of the law work here, and the question of Warren’s Native American heritage is best addressed in the campaign article. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Native American issue continues to be prominent in Warren's public life. A google search indicates that it has been mentioned dozens of times in the last month by mainstream media, in articles discussing Warren. Therefore it deserves mention in her biography, as an issue of ongoing relevance about her. (Warren herself appears to agree: while she states that the allegations are false, she also believes they are sufficiently notable as to deserve mention in a biography about her; hence she devoted a section of her own biography to addressing them, post-election.) Steeletrap (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This was beaten to death in the campaign and in this article during the campaign. WP:UNDUE applies and this is a distraction. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will this never end? During the latest onslaught, based on this: 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.’”, someone, I believe it was Steeletrap, added this to the article: "According to former AALS chairman David Bernstein, "if [law schools] were looking for a minority faculty member, they would go to [the AALS] list."[59]" This is just plain dishonest. I've removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You think the quotation was out of context? It seems clear to me, from the quoted excerpt, that the AALS list was used to recruit minority professors. Do you disagree? Also, User:Gandydancer, Please makes specific arguments rather than engaging in name-calling. Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC) I am also happy to find another source for the fact that the AALS list was used specifically to recruit minority professors, if you think the WaPo source isn't clear on that. Steeletrap (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Name calling, such as "You have no idea what you're talking about" and "If you were my student, I'd give you a D+ for your edits."? Quit calling the kettle black. Gandydancer (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit that I've grown frustrated with the tendentious editing here, and I apologize for personalizing things. Steeletrap (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And I admit that I now see my mistake - there was no internet when this all took place. I was wrong. Sorry. Gandydancer (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence re heritage/others in her relationship again. We have been over this again and again - you yourself did not seem upset that it was not present in your previous string of edits in mid-December. I ret'd the sentence re the directory that I deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor Montanabw seems unaware of the inherent bias of this comment: "This was beaten to death in the campaign . . ." What the comment actually means is that the issue received significant coverage. Montanabw seems to be criticizing the media's attention to the issue instead of realizing it makes the issue notable. Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, can you please provide an argument as to why we should remove the fact that members of Warren's extended family have said her grandmother is not Native American? I will have to revert if you fail to provide an argument. It seems one-sided to remove that while including the account of Warren's brothers, who say the grandma was Native American. (As an aside: granny was blonde.)

Incidentally, WP:Consensus says that mass opinion does not constitute a consensus. There have be arguments given in defense of a view. Otherwise, decisions about content are determined by the personal biases of users. (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Pro-Warren users have consistently failed to provide specific arguments as to why the Native American scandal should be purged from her page. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeltrap, you are failing to follow WP:UNDUE - the issue is in the article, it's discussed in a neutral fashion, it is in an appropriate part of the article and there is zero need to move it around or change it at this point. It was an issue in the 2012 election - or at least it was an issue in the eyes of her opponents - and it is not a significant issue now. End of story, Drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 08:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeltrap, please again read the source [8] placing special attention to the fact that at that time it was not so popular, shall we say, to be able to claim Native American heritage. Also note that they could only find around 3 or 4 relatives who were not aware of any NAs in their past. That is a very small number to use to call Warren and her brothers liars. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap's original suggestion in this section was that more should be added about her career, not that more or less should be written about the Native American issue. Do you think the part about Warren's career should be expanded? Yopienso (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The context was after Steeltrap's insertion, reverted by others, of yet more on the "native-gate" issue. The new material was phrased in a condescending manner. I'll seeif it can be salvages and phrased neutrally. Montanabw^(talk) 08:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it condescending? It accurately reflects the source. She's a brilliant woman who rose to the top in legal academia, despite going to a second tier school, because of her substantive scholarship. That's what the source says. My summary captures the source material in an evocative matter. Yet this was reverted without satisfactory explanation. I encourage you to rewrite it. Steeletrap (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

One person's "evocative" is wikipedia's WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. I just read the entire Globe article - which was pretty solid - and, in order to get the full citation in properly so everyone else can use is, (people aren't formatting citations very well here...by the way) I added a small bit from there using the Ref name of the author's last name (We could wind up using multiple Bostonglobe.com articles, best not to use that as a ref name). What has to happen is that the tidbits there need to be added in-between the stuff that's already here... the existing sections are a bit clunky and frankly, it's late and I'm not up for it. I would suggest using the Globe article to expand each academic post, comparing it to the CV source that's already there, and bring the academic section factually and neutrally from her first job up through at least Penn. But you were going wayyyyyyyyy beyond what the article stated, particularly in the first paragraph of your edit - you cannot attribute motive nor synthesize the material yourself. That's why they call us "editors" not "creative writers." Montanabw^(talk) 09:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

False statement about Harvard Law School

Warren graduated from a public law school; as of 2011, she was the only Harvard Law professor who had done so. (This becomes even more striking when one notes that Warren graduated from a second-tier law school, not a top public like Berkeley or Michigan. But this information has been cleansed from the article, because it is "condescending." Oddly, it actually makes Warren look better, since she had to rise to the top on pure substance/scholarship.) The current version of the article, which keeps being edit-warred in, misrepresents this statement. It says that Warren was the only HLS professor to have graduated from an American public university. This is false. While all HLS profs other than Warren graduated from elite, private law schools, many graduated from public universities for their ungraduate degree. For example, Alan Dershowitz graduated from Brooklyn College before going to Yale Law School. And Robert Sitkoff graduated from UVA (public) before earning his JD at UChicago. I don't know how User:Gandydancer is incapable of grasping this. But he needs to revert his latest edit, which inserted false information into the article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap, must you constantly attack editors with suggestions that they are not very intelligent? I reverted to Montana's version because your edit summary said: "replacing clunky phrasing with concise phrasing" and I did not agree. Nothing had yet been said about the following disagreement. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The law school clarification was helpful, the Boston Globe article just said something to the effect of "getting her training" and was fuzzy that it was the law school, though that was implied. I did not want to exceed what the source material said, but this clarificaation is useful That said, I'd hardly call Rutgers a "second tier" school, it is a fine law school with a good reputation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rutgers is a second tier university as far as elite academics are concerned. Trust me on this one. It isn't even ranked among the top 50 law schools in US News and World Report. With the exception of Warren, who was tenured at Harvard, Rutgers law has literally zero graduates who currently hold tenured positions at any law school apart from their alma mater, which has hired a few of its own. Steeletrap (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Warren's achievement is extraordinary. If you take a few minutes to look at HLS' website, you'll see that most professors there come from Harvard or Yale. And the minority who come from other schools overwhelmingly come from Stanford, Chicago, or Columbia. These are all top 5 schools.

Warren rose to the top through incredible persistence and productivity. From the beginning, she was handicapped by her Rutgers JD. See the following quotation from the Boston Globe story: “Growing up in rural Oklahoma and going to not-the-best schools and becoming successful -- the odds are all against that happening.”

Since, as RS indicate, it is extraordinary for a Rutgers JD to rise to the top of academia, this belongs in the article. Emphasizing that she graduated from a public law school radically understates things. It would be much less extraordinary for a Berkeley or Michigan or UVA JD to rise to the top. Steeletrap (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of what 'tier' a school belongs in is unimportant and irrelevant. I see no supporting evidence for any of your claims here. --Padenton (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, my opinion is irrelevant. But your ignorance of what Harvard Law School faculty think constitutes a good school is a problem. Facts, as established by RS, are all that matter here. Read the cited sources. Steeletrap (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You can also take a look at the list of faculty at Wikipedia's page for Harvard Law School. All earned their JDs from one of a handful of law schools; the majority are Harvard or Yale JDs. That's how elite academia works.

No one comes from Rutgers. Exempting Harvard, which had Warren, nowhere, apart from Rutgers, hired a single Rutgers grad. See the Washington Examiner link above. Steeletrap (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Searching through a handful of Wikipedia pages for professors doesn't show that Harvard only hires professors from certain schools. "That's how elite academia works" is not a fact. Here ya go, I found one in about 5 minutes: [9] JD University of Michigan. Must this continue? --Padenton (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It must continue until you learn a bit about the subject you're pontificating on. Michigan is a top 10 law school; it is ranked higher than Cornell, an Ivy League law school. It is, to put it mildly, in a different league than Rutgers. Moreover: the Michigan JD is highly anomalous among the HLS staff. As I said, most are from Harvard and Yale. And most of the minority who aren't from H/Y are from Columbia, Chicago, and Stanford, the other top 5 schools. That is how elite academia works. It is very closed minded. Steeletrap (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That Warren managed to break through into HLS is nothing short of extraordinary. Steeletrap (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory over academia's hiring practices have no place here. You're making this up as you go along. It's obviously not as clear cut as you thought. And judging from your presence in every single one of these talk page discussions, it's clear you have an axe to grind here. --Padenton (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are completely clueless. You'd be embarrassed if you spent 5 minutes looking over the Harvard Law faculty page, or if you went to the Wikipedia page and looked at where the notable faculty went to law school. Everything is exactly as I said. And it's not a "conspiracy theory": it's quite open. See this data. As I suspected, most law professors at top schools come from one of 5 law schools. Though I am not a law professor, I am an academic; and the situation is the same in all other fields of academia. Virtually no professors at elite schools come from Rutgers, or schools like it. Please read the data I cited and try to educate yourself on this. Doing so will spare you future embarrassment, if you ever talk to a professor at a top school.

This page has been reported for systematic bias. It would benefit from the work of smart, neutral, and informed editors like myself. I am done editing it though, at least for awhile. The stupidity and ignorance and tendentiousness is getting to be too much. Steeletrap (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the Harvard Law faculty page. The only thing I found you correct on is that a lot of people went to Harvard, which is a meaningless conclusion, as most schools hire their own alumni. You are full of yourself. You claim to be an academic yet you've been edit warring on this page injecting a non-neutral POV for over a week. Your contributions (including pages other than this one) are full of edit wars, original research, and comments on talk pages are full of condescending statements and "I'm right, you're wrong" BS, claiming to be above the need to provide supporting facts. "trust me on this one", "smart, neutral, and informed editors like myself." "The stupidity and ignorance and tendentiousness is getting to be too much" do you even hear yourself? --Padenton (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you capable of reading data? The data I cited plainly demonstrate that only a handful of schools produce a significant number of law professors at top schools. I also cited a source that shows that Rutgers has no alumni teaching anywhere other than at Rutgers. If you admitted your ignorance, I would be more polite to you. But you embarrass yourself, and open yourself up for criticism, by characterizing my accurate description of elite academia as a conspiracy theory. Bye now. Steeletrap (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

NA ancestry controversy

@Montanabw: Please restore the topic sentence under the NA controversy section; it's not clear or proper without it. Also, I don't know why you wrote,"link in second sentence fails verification," since the quote is right there in the article that's linked to. We could discuss here whether or not the sentence is needed. Please undo your entire last edit until consensus is gained. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to say "a controversy arose" when you go on to explain that a controversy arose. That was wikignoming. If you want to restore that other sentence, check the link - it was dead when I went to take a look at it. IF it's up now, I won't remove it until the matter is resolved. Shall we split the difference? Montanabw^(talk)

Well, if we're going to split any difference, I'll take the topic sentence; every good paragraph has one. (See the Purdue OWL.) But I really don't want to give up the other sentence, either, although I appreciate you collegiality. If you copied and pasted the link, you didn't get to the Wayback Machine; you have to actually click on the hypertext. Without that sentence, there's a gap between the first sentence and the third that makes the narrative fairly unintelligible to a reader who doesn't already know the story. Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored that, plus did more rearranging for greater clarity. Yopienso (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo

Clearly WP:OR and violates WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On a different tack wrt this controversy, we may want to consider adding this photo of a dark-haired 29-year-old Warren in that section. It makes her NA ancestry claim seem less absurd. Yopienso (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC) This may not be a good idea. Lots of people have all kinds of ancestors, and their ancestry does not always accord with their appearance. Many African-Americans have light skin, many Americans with predominately European ancestors have dark complexions. Nor do Native Americans share a common appearance. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That photo appears to be copyrighted, the Boston Globe attributes the photo as "Tarlton Law Library/University of Texas School of Law/File 1986". Darx9url (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)The media have reported Scott Brown's comment, " I think what you’re referring to is the fact that Professor Warren claimed that she was a Native American, a person of color, and as you can see, she’s not." Yes, he took heat for that. But we don't have to make any comment one way or the other--just post the photo if there's no copyright problem. Btw, the light skin of those many African-Americans does, in fact, reflect their ethnic heritage, as does the swarthy skin of some Europeans. I've never seen a picture of a full-blooded blonde Indian. Not that Warren ever claimed to be full-blooded, but apparently she's not naturally blonde. In any case, the article would be improved with a picture of a younger Warren. It's normal to have photos from different times in a subject's life. Yopienso (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Darx, is attribution enough? Yopienso (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Yop, you are simply misinformed on Native American issues. People who are a quarter or less Native American are often blonde; that Warren is blonde isn't the issue. The issue is that Warren said she was Native American on minority recruitment forms even though she is not Native American. We know she is not Native because the Cherokee keep great records, not because of her physical appearance.Speaking of which: Why are no Cherokee sources in this article? A white genealogist is cited, who also said she has no ancestry, but the Cherokee are shut out. The fact that many Cherokee were actively protesting Warren has also been cleansed from the article. And her absurd explanation for listing herself as a "minority" (without specifying she is a Native American), namely to "meet people like me," is presented as fact, in WP's voice. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Back already to insult more users? If you were a little nicer to people, maybe they'd respond more favorably to you. A lot of people explicitly identify as a minority to meet people like themselves. It's the entire purpose behind any group or organization about a specific culture or ethnicity. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that you can add credible Cherokee sources to an article yourself, it's not anyone else's duty to do so. No one is removing citations based on the author's supposed ethnicity. You're just complaining here. I find no issue with Warren's reasoning for listing herself as a minority. Whether you think her being a minority is accurate or not, it's her reasoning and appears to come from a credible source. It seems to me you're having difficulty remaining neutral on this topic, perhaps it might be helpful to take a step back for a day or two and calm down. --Padenton (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC) As Warren eventually acknowledged, the directory was not used to invite minorities to luncheons or other events; it was used to recruit minority professors. Moreover, what would Warren have to contribute to a meeting of 'minorities'? She is white, as is every member of her family; she has, by her own admission, never reached out to any tribe or had any sort of 'minority experience.' Moreover, many Cherokee protested her claim to have checked the box so she could 'meet people like me.' We are silencing their voice in favor of a naive white male/female perspective. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) As MarkBernstein said, there are plenty of people who look white who have 'non-white' ancestors. It's not our place as editors to conclude whether she is or isn't (WP:NOR), nor is it our place to say what she may or may not have to contribute to a group of 'minorities' she identifies with. You do not decide who can or can't identify or contribute to one ethnic group or another. The existence of Cherokee protesting her claim does not invalidate her claim, it only makes it contested. The article already mentions that her claim is not backed up by any known documentation. No one has been silencing anyone. Your claim that there is only a "naive white male/female perspective" is preposterous and irrelevant. You are capable of (and have not been prevented from) adding credible sources by Cherokee authors if you wish, provided that your edits comply with (WP:NPOV). This is not your soapbox to complain about issues that have nothing to do with this article or its subject, a living person. (WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:BLP) --Padenton (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Photo 2 Disclaimer: I've never imported a photo into Wikipedia. The most I've done is swapped out a couple from Commons. I've just read the page on photos but am not sure I can apply the principles correctly. Request: Can we add either the college photo I linked to above or one here that looks like a high school photo? It would go in the "Early life, education, and family" section. Yopienso (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I know you are writing these things in good faith, Yop, but your claim that Warren's skin or hair color calls into question her claim to Native ancestry is offensive. On that logic, the racial identity of everyone who identifies as racially mixed but 'looks white' should be questioned. The difference between Warren and 'white-looking' mixed people such as Mariah Carey and Rashida Jones is that the latter have actual, identifiable parents or grandparents who are racial minorities (African American). On the other hand, all of Warren's ancestors are white. That is why she was and will continue to be criticized: She put her name on a list of 'minority law professors' used by job recruiters, even though her whole family--including distant ancestors--is lily-white. Additionally, even if we accept your argument, adding the picture you want to add will not add credibility to her claim of Native ancestry. She does not 'look minority' in that picture, or any picture that is not heavily photo-shopped. She looks completely white in all pictures. While some people who look white are multiracial, in her case, she looks white for a simple reason: she is (fully) white. Steeletrap (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Steeletrap, I saw the proposal you made on another talk page Talk:African_American#Picture, attempting to provide imagery to show how someone of a racial group can possess a wide variety of appearances, which was a fairly good suggestion that I thought would be a good idea myself, and you were unfairly attacked for it. But you were making the same implication there as you are criticizing Yopienso for here. It doesn't really matter who the subject is, and I don't see how you could claim to know the details for all of Warren's ancestors. The burden of proof isn't on Warren to prove that she is a minority. It's not really anyone's place to judge what her genetic makeup is based on what someone thinks she or any of her family look like. This isn't factual. As for the picture, I see nothing offensive about including a younger picture of her in the early life section, sounds like a good idea to me if you can find one that'll pass copyright. Would one of the second set of pics here pass the image use policy? [10] --Padenton (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I have no objection to adding the picture. But a better reason needs to be provided than what Yop has offered: namely, to make her claim to being Native American seem less "absurd" (his word). That is OR and, for the reasons I mentioned above, offensive. Steeletrap (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I've had some experience, and can relate my understanding (not a lawyer) about image copyright & WP policy. Any news site image you look at for an image to borrow, only goes to § 3.4 of the policy you linked, "Fair use," as § 3.1 to 3.3 are not applicable to a Boston Globe or Daily Mail image. From 3.4, you go to WP:NFC, read the nutshell. From there, you go to WP:NFCC, read the nutshell, then, finally, you answer all 10 NFCC questions below (preferably with live sacrifice), and fill out the form (Rationale Template) at WP:NFURG to upload the content. I've done this successfully a few times. The other times they (the NFC deleters) burned me at the stake while simultaneously burying me at sea. I should point out that all of the above, in my experience, has typically been an auto-fail on a BLP. The rationale is under NFCC #1, "...or could be created...". You see, since the subject is alive, it is always possible to take a picture of the subject. In the U.S., when they are in public, and you take the picture, you are then the legal author of that image, and can then upload it to WP under one of the original 3 criteria of your choice, any of 3.1 User-created images, 3.2 Free licenses, or 3.3 Public domain, applies, depending on how you want to donate the image to WP. Because you want an old image, to show a hair color difference, you may have a unique rationale. But I wonder if is it really an encyclopedic rationale (NFCC #5)? (BTW, this editor does not think Daily Mail is a citable source (RS). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• The next person to suggest an image as proof of the subject's origins without reliable sources to back it up will be blocked per WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 01:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your helpfulness. It seems to me both images I suggested pass muster. Note that the Daily Mail reprinted photos copyrighted by The Republic, whatever that is. The photo's from her high school yearbook.

Steeletrap understood me exactly backwards ("your claim that Warren's skin or hair color calls into question her claim to Native ancestry is offensive"--when I was saying it bolstered her claim), but never mind; I see that's not a good reason to add a photo. When I opened this "Photo 2" subsection I did not mention the hair color and suggested putting the photo in the section on her early life, not in the NA ancestry controversy section. Perhaps I should have clarified that I accepted the criticism but still think having a photo of her in her younger days--like we have for Nancy Reagan, John McCain, and Barack Obama--would improve the article. A quick look-around showed me we don't have such photos for most U.S. senators. Yopienso (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Wow, Dreadstar--please don't be so draconian. Yopienso (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This affects a living person, their family and friends, and considering how this discussion has been going, draconian is exactly what's needed here. Dreadstar ☥ 02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More whitewashing

Take a look at this tendentious editing from User:Darx9url! She has changed the section header, which now readers "Native American ancestry," lending Wikipedia's endorsement to Warren's undocumented claim to being Native American. Moreover, while Darx pretends that her edits were simply aimed at 'cutting' the article, everything that was removed was an RS-documented fact that is unfavorable to Warren. See this diff and examine Darx's whitewashing for yourself. The content she removed includes:

• The fact that members of Warren's extended family dispute the claim that her grandmother was Native American.
• The fact that Warren listed herself as a minority in the directory. (The new version misleadingly states that she 'was listed,' as if someone else did this for her.)
• The fact that the directories were used specifically to recruit minority professors.

Additionally, Darx's version is poorly written. And cramming the entire scandal--which drew intense media coverage and was the lead question at the debates--into one paragraph is a sight for sore eyes. The scandal is too detailed and notable for one paragraph. Steeletrap (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

None of your three points are true. 1. Her family backs her up, as do many of her extended family. Some of her extended family don't know about any indian heritage, but no one is calling her a liar. 2. Directories are made by organizations. She was listed by ALS based on a form she filled out, what the form said, we don't know. 3. Not since the internet existed (circa mid-1980s).

FYI, that's 'she' not 'he'. Also, you should know the meaning of words before you use them——read WP:TEND, seems to fit your style. Darx9url (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies on the pronoun. The rest of my statement stands. You are engaged in TE, by seeking to remove factually accurate/RS-sourced content that you don't like. If your edits were neutral, and you really were just trying to cut the length of the section, you would also remove the information that favors Warren. (For example, the statements from her brothers that she is Native and the statement by Charles Fried that she did not get an advantage.) Unlike you, I want to get the facts out; I think all the notable facts should be included. Steeletrap (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your counter argument to point three is preposterous, and betrays your bias. It's irrelevant that the directories aren't used to recruit minority professors today. They were used to recruit minority professors when Warren listed herself in them.

On point two, Warren disagrees with you. She has said, "I listed myself in the directory." So again--you're completely wrong and engaged in TE.

As to point one, no members of Warren's extended family called her a liar -- nor did my edition of the article indicate this. But they publicly disputed her claim that her grandma was NA. That speaks volumes. Steeletrap (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How are people listed in the ALS directory? The Globe says it's based on information supplied by the Deans of law schools: Darx9url (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

“Data in the directory is based entirely on the information supplied to us by law school deans and individual teachers on computer-generated questionnaires,’’ says the introduction to the 1986-87 book, portions of which were reviewed by the Globe.

Dean’s offices provided their lists of professors; those who had not previously provided a biographical sketch were asked to complete a new faculty questionnaire.

As for their minority status, the director states, it includes “those legal educators who stated they were members of a minority group.’’

Directories identified Warren as minority

Personally, I think Darx9rurl's edit is an improvement. One paragraph is a good balance. I added "controversy" to the heading. Yopienso (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems the deans compile[d] the info from questionnaires the profs fill out. From the same article quoted in the box: “The fact that she listed her heritage in some professional directories more than 15 years ago does not change those facts,’’ Harney said. (Alethea Harney was a spokesperson for Warren's campaign.) Yopienso (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm burned out. Bye guys. If people actually think this version--which borders on incoherent to the reader unfamiliar with the story, and is incredibly poorly written--is an "improvement," there is no hope to improve the page. Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue was that Warren's political opponents believed she faked it. I am sure she is telling the truth, lots of people claim Native heritage that they can't prove, I have extended family who have such heritage (I do not) and the courthouse with their birth records literally DID burn down! Yes, there are also people who have pretty weak claims, but as Warren never actually used this status to gain personal advantage as far as anyone has shown here, it's really just a leftover campaign issue from 2012. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conviction that she is telling the truth has no weight in editing the article; we just go with the sources. USN&WR had quite a bit to say about the issue when Sen. Warren's book came out in 2014, and predicts the issue "will surely re-emerge if she one day runs for president." Yopienso (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995 had listed Warren as a minority professor.[59] Her opponent Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated a native ancestry to gain an advantage in the employment market; the Brown campaign used Warren's claim in several attack ads." This is so amateurishly written. It isn't even clear which minority Warren identifies as from the topic sentence or the sentence that follows.

I am skeptical of your views on this, Montanabw. While I am not Native American, I am currently dating someone who is. The Cherokee keep superb records. Just because your family identifies with Indian ancestry without documentation doesn't mean it's OK to do that, at least as far as benefits are concerned. Steeletrap (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• WHOA! I am not making any kind of "benefits" argument for myself (I am 100% non-Indian) or any of my distant relatives (who have far too little blood quantum to qualify for any benefit from their ancestry, it's just family geneaology)! I'm not going to go into detail on my extended family members, let's just say that I raise the reality that a lot of people who have distant native ancestry and cannot prove it as a matter or law. In my case, there exists evidence of someone way back who was Native (not Cherokee) but the documentary evidence dead ended at a county courthouse that would have had birth records of a white man and native woman's child being born. In Warren's case, there may well be an ancestor who chose to live as a white person and whose identity may be unknown or whose white name does not appear on any historic tribal rolls. Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your speculations are unhelpful. The Cherokee keep great records. If Warren really was Cherokee, it's safe to assume she would have a family member on their roles. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your speculations are unhelpful. Why do you keep on stating things as fact when they are contradicted by reliable sources? Genealogists are on record stating that it is not uncommon for those with native ancestry to be unable to prove it. LK (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Section on political positions

A lot of politicians pages have a section on their political positions. Seems to be missing here. She's got some pretty strong opinions, and speaks about them quite often. Anyone want to take a stab at starting an outline? Any news articles we can use to crib off? Darx9url (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Found this article: Political positions of Elizabeth Warren. Made a link to it in the Senate section. Darx9url (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Source needed

Please provide the exact source quotes that back this statement:

"However, some members of Warren's extended family stated that Warren's grandmother was not Native American."

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)