Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Previous version of the Native American heritage controversy section

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995, a database used by law schools to recruit minority professors, despite having no documented minority ancestors. Incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown speculated that Warren had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in employment. Warren, who is not enrolled in any Native American tribe, defended her self-identification as a racial minority by asserting that she was Native American. She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background. However, Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus, did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.

Warren's brothers issued a joint statement stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage." However, some members of Warren's extended family stated that they had no knowledge of Native American heritage in the family. The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no proof of Cherokee ancestors for Warren, while the Oklahoma Historical Society (a non-Native organization) said that finding a definitive answer about distant Native heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration. Indian reporters said they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign. And some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren's claim to Native American identity, as well as the effect her claims could have on issues of tribal sovereignty and the Cherokee's legal right to determine their own citizenship.

Former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring. Warren’s 2014 autobiography devoted a section to the allegations, writing that "Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory." She described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

References

I've posted above a version that I consider to be a fair depiction of the controversy. Another editor has recently come along and, among other changes, entirely removed Warren's broad viewpoint on the subject (which happens to carry substantial weight) and subsequently created a serious neutrality problem that needs to be addressed. Discussion needed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think having both the opening sentence in the second paragraph, as well as the next-to-last sentence in the section, is a bit redundant. I'd prefer to remove one of those, but I can live with it as is. The two bits in question are:

1. "Warren's brothers issued a joint statement stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage."

and

2. writing that "Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory."

- CorbieV^☊ 20:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is what the section looked like before Steeltrap decided that it needed expansion:

In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995 in which she self-identified as a Native American, and that Harvard Law School had publicized in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.[47] According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[48] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage.[49] Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren's hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.[48][50]

If one looks at comparable bios in WP, this is just about right. I am really sick and tired of the relentless crusade to blow this incident into a major issue in Warren's bio, and I suggest that we return to a reasonable coverage of the issues such as we were using at one time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The old version is biased and poorly written. In the old version, is not even clear what the controversy is about, since the old version omits the crucial facts that 1) Warren has no documented heritage and 2) the AALS is used to recruit minority professors. The new version better reflects the importance of the issue, which continues to garner a large amount of press. Dozens of articles in the last week have made heavy mention of the controversy. The Boston Herald speculates that not wanting to invite attention to the controversy is Warren's motive for not running for president. Steeletrap (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is something comparable that we should be aware of. Compare the amount of article space devoted to the Rick Perry vaccine incident, which caused a huge uproar:

In February 2007, Perry issued an executive order mandating that Texas girls receive the HPV vaccine, which protects against some strains of the human papilloma virus, a contributing factor to some forms of cervical cancer.[75] Following the move, news outlets reported various apparent financial connections between Perry and the vaccine's manufacturer, Merck.[75][76] Merck's political action committee has contributed $28,500 since 2001 to Perry's campaigns.[77] The order was criticized by some parents and social conservatives, and a lawsuit was filed later that month.[78] In May 2007, the Texas Legislature passed a bill undoing the order; Perry did not veto the bill, saying the veto would have been overruled, but blamed lawmakers who supported the bill for the deaths of future cancer victims.[79] Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Perry vaccine issue is not comparable. One is a passing incident, the other goes to a long-term pattern of behaviour. While ethnic fraud or accusations thereof may seem like a minor incident to non-Natives, it's not minor in Indian Country. Again, countering systemic bias. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you have never heard of the vaccination controversy? That is truly surprising. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User: CorbieV, what do you mean by a "long-term pattern of behaviour"??? Warren was told that she has Native American roots; whether or not that is true is not up to us to decide. This isn't about "natives" verses "non-natives", it's about accurately portraying what has been presented in reliable sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea whether "Warren was told she has Native American roots." Her parents could have never talked about being Native American; or, alternatively, they could have discussed their 'native heritage' in a tongue-in-cheek and blatantly speculative fashion. All we know for sure is that the woman checked 'minority' on a forum used to recruit minority professors, allegedly on the basis of being Native American, despite the facts that she has no documented Native ancestors and all of her family (including great-grandparents) look completely white. Steeletrap (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is part of her explanation as to why she believed she had Native American roots, and I think her explanation warrants inclusion, along with her being told "at least a thousand times" by her aunt that her grandfather had "high cheek bones" like "all of the Indians do". Marteau (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur. The current version with the restored content is good. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

These massive deletions that are going on right now are against consensus. Claiming that Indian Country Today is not a reliable source is egregious, as is cutting the central concern for Native people around how this effects tribal sovereignty. - CorbieV^☊ 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed per WP:UNDUE. Nothing to do with sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: To be honest, the only one I see on that side of the discussion is you. I had no issue with Steeletraps edits that I discussed with her in the section above, but these changes you've made goes a bit too far. You don't seem neutral in this to me, it does not matter whether you identify as a democrat, you can still be non-neutral when adding negative material to a politician who's a member of the democratic party, and that seems to be the case here. Perhaps you might want to take a step back from the issue? ― Padenton|✉   00:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Last time I stepped back the section wound up whitewashed. So inadequate coverage is being called longstanding and consensus just because we were overruled by the majority and we got tired of arguing. There are very few people looking out for Native issues on Wikipedia, so of course these views are the minority. But WP isn't just for white people. - CorbieV^☊ 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying Wikipedia is just for white people. In fact, I doubt anyone in the history of this talk page has said that. I understand your desire to cure systemic bias, but singling out BLPs and injecting undue language isn't the way to help systemic bias. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being racist. ― Padenton|✉   00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Turning the section into a tea party attack platform is foolish and pointless. The controversy was ginned up, briefly, in a campaign ad and the failing Republican paper in Boston. It had no traction, Warren's seat will be hers as long as she wants it, there has been no subsequent interest, and this wiki tempest simply embarrasses the project. One brief paragraph and three refs would be ample. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Tea party?" I am a person of the Left, as all of my years-long editing history shows. Corbie is primarily concerned with Native American issues, esp. tribal sovereignty. We are just trying to stop people from suppressing the essential facts about an ongoing controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, there is a push to "draft" Warren to run for the Presidency. Several mainstream sources have just in the past week cited this issue as a political liability to her, and several have cited it as a reason she will not, or should not, run. Saying this issue "has no traction" and had "no subsequent interest" is, if not outright laughable, demonstrably untrue. Marteau (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it's very clear that whether CorbieVreccan and Steeletrap are being fair to Warren or not, neither are supporters of the "Tea Party". If you want to disagree with them, feel free, but their arguments clearly fit liberals better. ― Padenton|✉   03:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy, BLP sanctions, and the Native American heritage section

Per our WP:BLP policy, that any disputed controversial change should gain consensus before being introduced, I have reverted the section to what it was before the recent mayhem that occurred this last few days (when a user showed up again pushing a particular viewpoint). I am calling for a RfC to determine consensus. Please do not change this section before the RfC has run it's course. This article is under BLP sanctions, so introduction of potentially libelous disputed changes can result in user blocks. Please respect the process and not start edit warring. LK (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you state with specificity what you consider to be "potentially libelous"? If you refuse to be specific, I can't take your remark seriously. Steeletrap (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected this page for three days after observing an entirely unreasonable amount of edit warring in the last 24 hours. I'm hoping that three days will be enough time for some form of consensus to emerge above. Dragons flight (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting, for the record, that the page is protected on The Wrong Version. :) - CorbieV^☊ 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the version that's stood the longest, by far. It's also the most neutral, and this is a BLP. We are not here to make a political impact, there is no rush to reinstate a prejudicial version. If the consensus decides it is appropriate, we will go to it in time. ― Padenton|✉   06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, you might want to look at the link for The Wrong Version ;) BTW, I could edit it right now but I'm respecting the process. The truncated version is only the "most neutral" from your POV. To others, your preferred version is the "prejudicial" one. It only wound up briefly "stable" after the exact sort of slo-mo edit war and tendentious editing that is going on now. There was no consensus; people just got worn down. To others of us the censored version leaves out the central issue of the controversy, ignores Native sovereignty, is biased towards Warren's versions of events, as well as biased towards a white perspective. If it feels disproportionately long compared to other sections, maybe those other sections should be expanded rather than this one truncated. Warren is certainly notable and deserves a thorough article. - CorbieV^☊ 16:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you could edit, but it would be a clear abuse of administrator as anyone can easily tell that you are an involved-editor in this dispute. ― Padenton|✉   03:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* Padenton, please note that I used emoticons above, to make it abundantly clear I was being humorous. The pedia is serious, this article is serious, but that doesn't mean all editors are humourless. ;) - CorbieV^☊ 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article is an example of white supremacy on Wikipedia. I'm certainly not saying that the pro-Warren editors are white supremacists and racists; but the effect of their edits is to shut out (reliable) non-white perspectives from this issue. Steeletrap (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me on this section is racist but I'm saying that they're racist". That's a new one. I like it. Beautiful, elegant. ― Padenton|✉   03:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. The pro-censorship contingent here is not motivate by racism. However, the (indadvertent) effect of their censorship is to promote a whitewashed view of the controversy, and to stamp out out the Native view. Steeletrap (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written Native American section

I want to lay out the major problems--in terms of structure and clarity--afflicting the Native American controversy paragraph. As I show below, this inept writing serves to obscure the controversy surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry, which was the most-covered issue in her 2012 Senate Campaign.

Topic sentence

Competently written paragraphs have clear topic sentences that state the main point of the paragraph. The "topic sentence" of the current, incompetently written paragraph on the Native American controversy is as follows: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995 listed Warren as a minority professor."

This topic sentence is unclear; a reader who reads it would not see what the controversy was about. Being listed as a minority is not controversial. The issue is that Warren 1) listed herself in a 2) minority-recruitment directory for law schools, on the basis of 3) undocumented claims to Native American ancestry. A competently written topic sentence would convey those three main points. Here is an example of such a topic sentence: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it noted that Warren had listed herself in a directory of minority law professors, used by law schools for recruitment purposes, despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry." That competently-written topic sentence states the controversy in a nutshell.

I am willing to entertain any number of alternative topic sentences, including those that are unduly favorable to Warren. (I've given up on truly achieving NPOV for this article.) But I am not willing to abide unclear writing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I agree, the topic sentence should be more specific as to which minority, at the least, and I don't think that is what there was contention over. There at least is no contention from me on that front. My issue with the possible topic sentence you offered here is that the source does not appear to state that she listed herself. It's behind a paywall, so I can't read the full article. Is there a different article you know of off-hand? Another issue I have is with "despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry". People aren't regularly required to provide proof of their ancestry, whatever it is. ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's true that people aren't usually expected to document their minority status. But that's because for most people, their being a minority is discernible from their physical appearance.

If you look completely white and state that you are (for example) black, that's fine. Race-mixing has led to a diversity of phenotypes across all races. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect such a person to be able to point to a parent or grandparent who is black to justify their claim to minority ancestry. In the case of Warren, everyone in her family--including great-grandparents--looks completely white, so the obvious means of 'proof' (a picture of mom or dad) is not available to her. This shortcoming has led critics, including many Native Americans, to ask for documentation of her ancestors. However, all of the relevant documentation--the rolls of the Cherokee and Census Data--points to her being white. Therein lies the controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you have seen this photo[1] of a younger dark-haired Warren who looks obviously mixed. There seems to be a pattern of you saying things that you know not to be true, like 'she looks completely white'. Darx9url (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Darx, it's not for you or anyone else to decide if she is Native or not. It is up to the Nations she claims (who do not claim her). "IV. Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens

Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native? As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native.

There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe." http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ Indigenous girl (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

'native ancestry'

The current paragraph states that Warren's "opponent Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated a native ancestry to gain advantage in employment." At this point, the paragraph has not stated that she claimed to be Native American, so it is not clear what type of ancestry the term "native ancestry" refers to. I have tried to replace "native ancestry" with "Native American ancestry," but have been repeatedly reverted. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I have no objection whatsoever to this, and I don't think anyone else actually does either. I think the reverts (and mine was) were because of other changes. I've put this back. ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

'Brown attacked Warren's ancestry'

The current paragraph states that Scott Brown issued attack ads that "referred to Warren's ancestry." Whether made out of incompetence or malice, this statement constitutes a BLP violation. The statement indicates that Brown attacked Warren because of her ancestry or race. In reality, he attacked her for (allegedly) lying about her race to get ahead in the employment market. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I see what you're saying here. The current is "the Brown campaign referred to Warren's ancestry in several attack ads." Would "the Brown campaign referred to the controversy in its attack ads." be suitable? ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the attacks were based on the opinion she lied about her ancestry. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing on lack of involvement in Native community at Harvard

I know from OR and research by Natives that Warren never attended Native events while at Harvard, which is a direct contradiction of her statements that she listed herself as Native in order to meet others like herself. In one of the Herald sources she says, '“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened,”'[2]. The Herald also noted that she didn't attend other Harvard Native events while campaigning in Massachusetts[3]. She also avoided all invitations from Cherokee Nation reps at the primary, and at the convention to meet with them (these were different groups than the four Cherokee women who tried to meet with her in Boston and were covered by mainstream media, sort of). Unfortunately, the only non-Native, mainstream news source that thought to call up the Harvard Native center was from... Breitbart. "by Joel B. Pollak 7 May 2012. Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard."[4] I'm not sure what to do about this. I think the Herald cite is probably sufficient, but rather than edit war I'm putting this out there. The thing is, due to the political leanings in Massachusetts - the desire of left-leaning news orgs to help elect a democrat, any democrat - time after time the only news outlets that would talk to Natives were right wing ones that Natives usually have nothing to do with. Politics and strange bedfellows. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you do in this regard, let's avoid over-politicizing this issue in the bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. My POV here is neither democrat or republican, it's just the issue of who gets to declare themselves Native, and how that affects tribal sovereignty in the long run (The tribes' rights to decide who is and isn't a member of their Nations). Also, to a lesser extent, the issues around affirmative action and who does or doesn't benefit from it. I'm thinking of adding a very brief clause to the last sentence in that paragraph, after the current bit that reads "She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background." but am struggling with what wording can be adequately sourced in this case. The current source there also includes the "Nothing like that ever happened" quote. Working on it now. - CorbieV^☊ 21:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need Breitbart after all. The Christian Science Monitor and the Herald covered it. - CorbieV^☊ 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question Serious question: how can anyone know whether Warren did or did not attend events at Harvard, given that they don't take attendance at events like those? Also, is this Christian Science Monitor article [5], a RS on whether Warren did or didn't attend Native events at Harvard, given that the reporter apparently did not interview anyone at Harvard about it? Darx9url (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I say no, seeing as how its only certainty on the matter is an unattributed "Apparently"― Padenton|✉   15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course the Christian Science Monitor is WP:RS. It's as reputable as the Globe and Herald. Journalists for WP:RS publications do not need to only post direct quotes from people they interview. Investigative reporting relies on background and deep background investigation, along with fact checking by editors; reporters have gone to prison rather than reveal their sources. Though they don't name HUNAP and the particular individuals in the Cherokee and Massachusetts Native communities who were interviewed in this piece, other sources back that people were contacting the Harvard University Native American Program, and interviewing people in the communities Warren claimed membership in. Why do you say no one takes attendance? Of course they do. It's Harvard. And at purely social events, photos are taken and friendships made, if someone is really involved in the community. Indian Country is a tiny place. If you meet someone who's Native, you ask who their people are. Then with one or two phone calls you know whether they are telling the truth. While you can't tell someone's entire distant heritage from looking at them, I guarantee that someone who looks and acts like Warren attending Native events would be remembered. If she had made friends or attended anything, Natives would know. Inclusion of her lack of involvement in Native community is relevant given her stated motives for listing herself as an ethnic minority. - CorbieV^☊ 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of effort to draft her onto the 2016 ballot?

I'd like to add a mention of efforts to draft her into the 2016 race. Maybe something like this towards the end of the first section, before the statement saying she denies interest in running:

"MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are supporting efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race. and have created a website, Run Warren Run website for that purpose."

You can omit the website names and link if they make the text too promotional. There are likely other organizations involved, but the NYT article only mentioned those two.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'd be fine with a small, well-sourced mention of this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes; absolutely must mention this. MSNBC. Opinion in The Atlantic. YoPienso (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a revised version incorporating the references you suggested:

"MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and Ready for Warren are supporting efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America have created a website, Run Warren Run website for that purpose. "Ready For Warren," a group run by Erica Sagrans and advised by Billy Wimsatt has created a website, Facebook page and Twitter account. In an article in The Atlantic, David Frum argued that Warren owes it to the public to run so that she might be in a better position to take their causes to to the nation and that it would be remiss for such a dedicated populist not to do so." A ticket with Warren as vice-president may be a Progressive fall back plan. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article should really have a more efficient reference style. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

One sentence would be appropriate. That line from The Atlantic adds nothing, IMO. And the website, belongs perhaps in a reference, certainly not in the body of the article. Marteau (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the opinion piece in The Atlantic I linked to, it shows that influential media urged Warren to run. I listen to NPR on my daily commute, and heard speculations/encouragements about a possible Warren candidacy on a daily basis. Most editors here are aware Warren has been encouraged to run; it would be wrong to exclude that from the article.

It's an editorial endorsement. There is nothing remarkable about the text or anything about it that any other enthusiastic supporter might say. Also it seems to me who the adviser was, and who runs the group, does not pass the "ten year test" WP:10YT. Really, I'm not seeing a need for mention of a Draft Warren movement to take more than one sentence and three maybe four references. Marteau (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that a sentence, which = "some reference," is sufficient. That seems to be the consensus here. Yay! YoPienso (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Added another ref, tried to make more succinct.

"MoveOn.org and Democracy for America supported efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race, creating a website. "Ready For Warren," created a website, Facebook page, and Twitter account to support drafting Warren. In The Atlantic, David Frum argued that Warren owes it to the public to run in order to be in a better position to take their causes to the nation and that it would be remiss for a dedicated populist not to do so. A ticket with Warren as vice-president was seen as a possible Progressive fall back plan." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links:"Run Warren Run" website, "Ready for Warren" website Smm201`0 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific suggestion

Trim to this: In the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Warren's name has been put forward by liberal Democrats as a possible presidential candidate. However, Warren has stated that she is not running for President in 2016 and has urged Hillary Clinton to run.[92]
Yes, that's two sentences, twice as much as I just agreed to, but after candidates are nominated it can be changed. The fact that she was widely seen as a possible presidential candidate will always be relevant to this BLP. YoPienso (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really accurately describe the process though. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What process? Please explain your comment or write what you think is appropriate. YoPienso (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And again...

"MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and "Ready For Warren" supported efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race through social media campaigns. A ticket with Warren as vice-president was seen as a possible Progressive fall back plan." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences that include mention of the use of "drafting." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I think your suggestion is too specific, since not only those three organizations have urged her to run, and the campaign hasn't been only on social media. Not sure we should mention the possibility of veep nomination since it's not actually the "fallback plan" as presented in the British newspaper. I hope others will join here to craft wording that is acceptable to all. YoPienso (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, I hope others will weigh in. "Liberal democrats" can mean a lot of things. The sources spoke about those specific groups and their media campaigns. I like to stick close to the sources. Some may want her to run, but not all are part of the drafting effort. I was trying to think of a succinct way to summarize what the Guardian article said, and ended up going with something close to the title, which was, "Progressives ponder 2016 fallback plan: Elizabeth Warren for vice-president." Smm201`0 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention it, it gets discussed a lot, Hillary Clinton is considered a "consservadem" due to being pro war, supports wall st. Popish Plot (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that talk pages are for the improvement of the article, and are not forums. WP:NOTFORUM Marteau (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah just discuss the topic like we're doing. Popish Plot (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)