Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Native American heritage controversy

I don't see a consensus has been reached on this question. The amount of coverage given to it in the media during the campaign, in Warren's book, and at present require us to cover it with about one paragraph in the campaign section as it is now. But the paragraph needs to be polished into a more summarized, detached style, eliminating the "he said," "she said," "they said" gossipy style.
Bottom line: We have the right quantity of text now, but need to upgrade its quality. YoPienso (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi YoPienso, I agree with you that the section as it currently stands is the right length. This is helpful for the RfC above because you're another editor who supports what is called Version A (to be clear, you only support the amount of material in that section). This will be useful information when it comes time to close the RfC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; the RfC is such a mess I didn't know how to comment there. I'm not saying I support any of the three versions. I'm saying the controversy must be included in the article in as professional and concise a manner as we can muster. YoPienso (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It is too conversational. I think the best approach with this type of thing is to say who made the accusation, what it was, why it mattered and what truth if any there was to it. TFD (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't much care about the length of the section, per se; I agree it needs to be as concisely-written as any other topic on WP. The problem is, we have two main factions here who appear to disagree on what the main, necessary points are. So far all efforts to cover the main points, and then also include the text that is inevitably inserted to counter it, have wound up being rather wordy. If we can get some agreement to include the relevant points, I think there are a number of us here who are skilled enough to word it concisely. Or, as concisely as is possible when there is an issue that is largely unfamiliar to a non-Natives audience. I'm going to attempt some compression. I'm starting from the version that was posted up-page as #Previous version of the Native American heritage controversy section - CorbieV^☊ 20:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The refs might need a bit more sorting. I made sure every statement is sourced, but there may be extra ones in that long list of them after the first sentence, in particular. - CorbieV^☊ 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Native American heritage controversy (round... three?)

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. Warren, who is not enrolled in any Native American tribe, defended her self-identification as a racial minority by asserting that she is Cherokee, and later, Delaware, and that she listed herself as such in order to meet others with a similar background. However, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Warren apparently did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her alleged heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign. Members of Warren's family issued conflicting statements on whether or not they believed their family has distant Native heritage. Native American reporters said they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign, and some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren's claim to Cherokee identity, as well as the effect public acceptance of her claims could have on legal issues of tribal sovereignty and the Cherokee's legal rights 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

Support Not the section I want, but far better than the alternative Section A, which is biased and incompetently written. Steeletrap (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you would support it. Nearly every sentence in there is biased to make Warren look bad. Darx9url (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not information makes someone "look bad" or not is not a metric we use to determine includability or excludability. Verifiably and weight are, and if you wish to discuss that, I'm all for it and that would be appropriate, but not that it makes someone "look bad". Marteau (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. These are sourced reports from a variety of WP:V and WP:RS sources, and then Warren's response to the reports is included. Whether the facts are "good" or "bad" is solely a matter of personal interpretation. Wikipedia is not censored based on fear of how the facts make someone look. - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment/Question Does this style of concensus building really work? Where editors are asked to up or down entire sections about otherwise allowed topics? I ask that honestly because I have never seen it succeed (but then again my participation here has been somewhat limited so what do I know). What I have seen work is, once a topic in general has concensus for inclusion (and this one does) that the details are hashed out by discussing a sentence or a handful of sentences as need be, not entire sections of non-trivial length. Marteau (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we've tried that some. Feel free to have at it. :) - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum. :) Popish Plot (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: ludicrous and partisan; if this were published, it would embarrass Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[redacted] :[1] - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense -- deplorable, despicable, and probably sanctionable. I said nothing of the sort. If anyone had any doubts that you are not simply trolling, this should put them to rest. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark, your attitude toward Corbie and Native American perspectives generally is disrespectful. Please reconsider your approach to these issues, and how it might be coloring your perception of Warren's claim to be a racial minority on employment-recruitment forms. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This comment was a bit over the line, so I've removed it. If editors disagree about the appropriateness and/or reliability of a source, please engage in civil discussion about it here or WP:RSN. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this portion of the article being considered biased in one form or another. It has devolved into something that is rather shocking. Reputable news sources are being labelled as biased simply because it is an indigenous owned news outlet. If editors are allowed to be obviously biased when it comes to race (thinking that they, not the indigenous people are the end all decider) then Wikipedia is seriously flawed.Indigenous girl (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are biased. As is any news source that writes about an issue for purposes other than an objective look at the news. If it was not biased, many other sources would be reporting the same. That's not to say it's unreliable as a whole, or that the information in the article is unreliable, but we need multiple sources, we can't just synthesize the claims a few individual sources make alone, especially when a source serves a specific population resulting in a possible conflict of interest, and especially when the claims are negative of a BLP. Also, to be clear, we don't exclude people from editing on a topic because of assumptions we have made about their race or ethnicity. ― Padenton|✉   19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Corbie was unfairly censored yet it's okay for an admin to personally attack me. Articles that support what Senator Warren did are biased. Articles that oppose what she did are biased. 72.79.214.55 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, yet again: This has little difference from the above ridiculous paragraphs you have suggested that were also shut down, and contains the same exact problems that were mentioned there. I am getting tired of the repeated inappropriate creation of new talk discussions on the topic when the old discussion was perfectly suitable to continue the discussion. ― Padenton|✉   17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:I think it doesn't matter if it is negative or positive if it has a reliable source. But what else comes in to play here? No need for wikipedia to deny a fact but there are policies about having a neutral point of view, if we give controversy and criticism too much weight on this BLP we'd being going against wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight So what is the prominence of the position that Elizabeth Warren had a native american controversy? I notice the washington post article, while a reliable source, supports Warren and gives her opponent in 2012, Scott Brown, 2 pinnochios meaning he lied. The Time magazine source says Scott Brown was wrong to bring this up. So we do have reliable sources but they are downplaying this scandal, in effect, reliable sources saying it is not notable. Does that mean give this a lot of weight? Meaning devote several paragraphs to it and give it it's own section in this wikipedia article? I don't believe so. I'd say a sentence or two at most. I think this is also related to a larger debate within wikipedia. Is wikipedia liberally biased? Maybe, maybe so, I have no idea really, but if it is, I see there are places to debate that other than here, I know politics by itself is just considered a controversial topic. Popish Plot (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm with Mark here; I think this process is mostly making you guys look foolish. Virtually every proposed version seems well over the line of undue weight and there is scant evidence of ongoing biographical relevance; this is most properly treated as a political talking point from the 2012 Senate race. The editorial motivations here appear clearly partisan, judging by many of the talkpage posts and by transparent edits like this one (fixed link) removing well-sourced material (from a reputable fact-checker, no less!) That said, I'm under no illusions about Wikipedia's ability to cover political talking points in an encyclopedic fashion, so you guys should do what you like. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am a person of the Left, as all my history illustrates. To associate my edits on this page with attempts to demonize Trayvon Martin is disingenuous. The other editors who are siding with me on this are Native Americans concerned with issues of tribal sovereignty. It's disappointing to see editors such as yourself--and you're someone I generally respect--advocating censorship of this issue for political reasons. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your claim to be a 'person of the left' is not a relevant argument for support of a revision. None of our personal political views matter here. But being on the left does not mean that you can't be negatively partisan of someone that is also "on the left". That being said, I am not sure I understand the point MastCell is making with that link...copy/paste mistake? Could you correct or elaborate please? ― Padenton|✉   18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's possible someone on the left supports Hillary Clinton moreso than Elizabeth Warren so therefore want to give undue weight to a minor criticism Warren received. But I think it doesn't matter. What if someone is far right, says so on their userpage, has a history of editting wikipedia to make far right politicians look good. None of that would matter. If they came to this page with reliable sources and showed the criticism should have due weight, we would have to sit down and take notice and admit he's right. But I just don't see the reason here to give the native american controversy so much weight. It just needs a sentence or two. And that has nothing to do with trying to push a liberal or conservative point of view. Hey. Are there more reliable sources we are missing here that would show weight? If so please show them. Popish Plot (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Shoot, my bad with the link; it was a copy-paste error and I've corrected it. Steeletrap, I was probably overly harsh in my assessment, or at least my wording, so I apologize for that. At the same time, I don't think of this as an issue of "censorship" (and when people start talking about censorship, it's usually a sign that discussion has broken down). This incident is notable and deserves mention, but it's a matter of appropriate weight. It's really only relevant to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, and should be covered there. I suppose a brief mention here would be reasonable as well, but to create a separate section which dwarfs much of the other, more relevant biographical content seems inappropriate to me. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I still have yet to see how this is an issue of tribal sovereignty. My sympathy for Native Americans who endured atrocities too numerous to list here (and various other groups who have endured similar throughout history) does not affect the editing of an article on Wikipedia, especially a BLP, and individual events should not be blown out of the proportion of their impact. That would be tabloid journalism. I also note that I see none of those victims here. What happened here? Elizabeth Warren (who is now a prominent politician) listed herself as a minority, and for a time identified as a minority, though since then (and since before it became public knowledge), she has not. No one in any WP:RS has made a credible claim that she benefited from the listing in any way. She identified herself as having Cherokee heritage, that is clear. But she never claimed membership to any tribe, nor claimed any official status. A small handful of Cherokee or other Native Americans do not get to choose who has family history or not. That's not what 'tribal sovereignty' is. This is an ethnicity, not a high school clique "hey we're in it and you can't join us nya nya nya". This is people trying to learn more about where they come from and how their ancestors lived, and you have no right to tell her she can't. Whether she's correct or incorrect isn't our call to make, and if she is incorrect, it has no effect on anyone but herself. [redacted]. And since you keep whining that anyone disagreeing with you is 'white-washing' or 'pushing a white supremacist version of the article', let me assure you: as a Jew, I would absolutely still call someone out if they were representing the Jewish people in the same way.

WP:BLP is clear that we must write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." ― Padenton|✉   19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't engage in that kind of namecalling. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk)

You are correct: I crossed the line there. I apologize. ― Padenton|✉   23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow.Just wow. Senator Warren made a claim that she has yet been able to prove. If you somebody can provide me with something to substantiate her claim I would appreciate it. Clearly there is little understanding of sovereignty and that's okay. Disappointing but okay. It's more than clear that 'unbiased' is in the eye of the beholder and that the relevancy of the issue is the collective opinion of the dominant culture. I find it highly unnecessary however to be told that I'm dishonoring my culture. Far from it. My ancestors and contemporary Elders value honesty and integrity.72.79.214.55 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When someone marks down their race in some form, are they asked to prove it? Is a DNA test done? No. Maybe that's wrong but nothing we can do about it. It comes down to the reliable sources. You say she made a claim and she hasn't proven it. Ok. Is that the basic fact here? Let's say that, should just take one sentence. Based on wikipedia guidelines on undue weight it doesn't warrant more than that. Let's also compare this to other prominent politicians. Most don't show any criticisms politicians have gotten! Now I disagree with that and have some opinions as to why that is so but those opinions aren't relevant here nor do I have reliable sources to back em up, so no need for me to mention them. Popish Plot (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not asked to "prove it" because it is assumed that either 1) they either look like a racial minority or 2) one of their parents or grandparents clearly looks like a racial minority. Warren's entire family, going back generations, looks lily-white. She had no reasonable basis for claiming to be a racial minority, even if she believed she was technically 1/32nd Native American. If she took a DNA test and it said she was 1/32nd black, I don't expect that she would check that box on the next job application she filled out. She just got away with checking Native American because Natives don't have much of a voice in our society--a state of affairs which Wikipedia is perpetuating through this discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? You'd need to show a reliable source showing that is what happens, that someone just does an eye test. And how do you know what her entire family looks like, going back generations? I think Liz Warren clearly has native american features. For both of us though it'd be an opinion, no reliable source to back it up. This does remind me of the birthers thing with Obama. Where is the proof of where he was born? I don't know and you can't even do a dna test for that kind of thing. Popish Plot (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've posted links previously to the federal definition of Native American and what the three Cherokee bands require for somebody to be considered Cherokee. It has nothing at all to do with what a person looks like. It has everything to do with that individuals ability to either enroll or show actual decendancy. It is far more complicated than simply self-declared ethnicity. I'm really confused as to why most editors on this page refuse to see that. I never said a word about white washing or white supremacy. I actually have no problem with this particular sectioned being shortened. What I do take issue with is people who are not from Cherokee community or Native American community in general stating that it is a non-issue. It sets a precedent that could in fact have a negative impact on federal law and sovereignty (sovereignty meaning the specific Nation deciding who is of that Nation). Paydenton, your analogy of being Jewish doesn't apply. Being Jewish doesn't require citizenship. (Also, apologies for my previous comments that only showed my IP. I was on my Kindle, not sure why that happened) Indigenous girl (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment wasn't entirely directed at you, but also towards CorbieVreccan and Steeletrap. I believe it was Steeletrap that made the whitewashing and white supremacy claims. I'm not sure I see how this precedent could have a negative impact on federal law and sovereignty, can you elaborate? I agree that all nations have the authority to choose who is of that nation. But that is more a question of citizenship, not heritage. For example, someone whose ancestors are German, but have been in the US for generations, they can still identify as German, but their application for German citizenship would still require them to go through the full naturalization process that any non-German would need to go through. ― Padenton|✉   23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now many colleges and universities require that an individual either fill out an additional 'heritage form' (Dartmouth is an example) or present documentation supporting ones claims. If that were to be eliminated it would adversely affect the actual indigenous population when it comes to federal funding. Schools that historically have a strong Native population would be financially impacted. States already violate constitutional law(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) by recognizing new tribes so it's not a far stretch to see federal guidelines as to who is or is not Native American violated.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the group of cherokees say that only 3 tribes can be recognized cherokee, if they are federally recognized. http://www.cherokeesdemandtruth.com/p/about-us.html Who is the one to make the rule for wikipedia? I saw on a list of "lamest edit wars" they have many disagreements about what particular famous people's ethnicity is. I'm surprised they call that lame because it seems like it could be offensive. Many see this as a not a big deal because Warren looks kind of native american, at least it's plausible she's 1/32 native american anyway. If you are worried about sovereignty, that seems like a bigger issue than this page, and I don't think it would set a precedent. Well who knows with the supreme court, they might try to use wikipedia as precedent to take native american rights but if that happens we'll have worse problems than this page. In any event I think we're actually on the same page here, in that we agree this is a notable scandal for Warren but it doesn't need to take up too big a chunk of this page.Popish Plot (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish, you are making the same irrelevant speculations over and over again, which is a waste of your time and ours. We are not here to speculate on people's citizenship and nationality based on something irrelevant like physical appearance. Wikipedia does not decide who is a citizen of France, or Puerto Rico, or Italy. We do not look at someone's features and declare them, say, Jewish. It's actually rather offensive to keep doing this, whether it's noses or cheekbones. We cite sources to show what reliable sources have said about someone's citizenship, and if needed for people to understand what that means, we cite what the standards are of those nations (though this is generally done in the wikilinked articles on those Nations). That you keep repeating your personal speculations demonstrates that you either don't understand that Native American Nations are sovereign, and get to decide who is and isn't a citizen - just like any Nation - or you are just trying to waste time here. No Native nation claims Warren. She's not even a member of a fake tribe (yes, they exist) or heritage club. Before you go off on me calling fake tribes fake - again, it's not my call, or yours, it's the Nations' call, and a matter of tribal law that's been established over hundreds of years or longer. More to the point, this is not the place to discus whether or not you believe Warren has distant heritage. The issue here is how much space and detail, and which details, to devote to this controversy as it has affected her, her reputation and political career. We have cited the sources about the controversy and why it is relevant. Obviously some inclusion of primary sources on this page have been needed, solely to explain what most editors on WP either don't understand or want left out of the article for some other reason. Let's stop the offensive ethnic speculations already, that was settled years ago and at this point it's just derailment. This page is for improving the article. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here is because in America, issues of citizenship and ethnicity are often muddled. Many, say, Irish-Americans will just say, "I'm Irish." To Americans, this may just mean "I have Irish heritage; in the 1800's some of my ancestors came to the US from Ireland." To others it means, "I am an Irish citizen, born and raised in Ireland and have an Irish passport." Editors need to be clear on how these meanings vary, and not try to further muddle them. If you don't know the difference, please get up to speed. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to bring us back on topic. I think your bolded sentence outlines the key issue: how much weight to attach. I guess from my point of view, it's not clear that this controversy has had much effect on her reputation or political career. After all, the issue didn't really "stick" as a political attack; she went on to defeat Scott Brown decisively in the 2012 Senate election, and her standing as a popular spokesperson for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to have suffered. If anything, she is much more prominent than the average first-term Senator, so it's hard to make the claim that her political career is suffering, or has suffered, in any measurable way as a result of this controversy. Likewise, there is virtually no serious ongoing coverage of the issue; the existing coverage is almost all in the context of the 2012 Senate race, which is why I think that a huge standalone section in her biography is grossly undue weight. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell:, Do you have any thoughts on how to resolve the ongoing issue of this being a strongly-held but minority viewpoint - both in the world at large and on WP? The !votes on WP, and the mainstream coverage, will by nature focus on what the majority thinks is most important. And maybe all WP can do is go along with that. Aside from the very small WP:Countering systemic bias, and WP Indigenous, there really isn't a way to effectively address these issues on the 'pedia, as far as I know. As I mentioned above, the "stable" version happened from majority rule and attrition/fatigue. Which is why so many minorities give up on the 'pedia. This is both a general issue with WP, but is being played out on this article. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are not going to put how this affects sovereignty in this article, maybe we could decide where to put that. I still think a brief mention as to *why* the protests were happening makes sense. As it is, I think non-Natives read this and assume, "oh, you can't explore your distant genealogy, you can't talk about your family stories?" when that wasn't the reason for the protests at all. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Corbie I don't mean to make speculations I was just giving a possible explanation as to why reliable sources aren't considering this further and the list of lame edit wars shows many other wikipedians don't care about ethnicity and make fun of those who do. I agree it's offensive that people don't care but what can we do here? I agree you have shown sources showing it was relevant but the question is undue weight. This seems like it was important for that 2012 election with Scott Brown but hasn't been mentioned since. Some want Warren to run for president but she says she doesn't want to. I wonder why. Is it because she knows this scandal would come back and keep her from winning? That is pure speculation and can't be proven so no sense worrying about it. What do you want this wiki article to say, if not the current version? You say editors need to be clear about meanings. How about this. If Elizabeth Warren wanted to prove her 1/32nd cherokee heritage, how would she go about doing so? Is it impossible to do so? If so I'd say the article should mention that to be fair. Popish Plot (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered, many times over Popish Plot. Read the talk page, read the links, read the sources. Your refusal to do so is insulting to the dedicated editors who have posted about this already. Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article topic. Your continued posting of this has entered the realm of disruptive editing. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get away from the topic of native american soverignity, because this isn't the battleground for that, and to the topic of elizabeth warren's native american controversy. You had said you didn't care about the length of the controversy section. Do you agree it could be shortened from the current version? What if it was two sentences? What do you think they should be. Why do you think this has so much weight? You appear to be getting mad. Perhaps a cooling off period is in order? Popish Plot (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Corbie how about this. I found a possible source, please let me know what you think. This might be a source for showing this is an ongoing issue that deserves more weight. I searched these archives and didn't see this mentioned. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/karl-rove-iraq-veteran_n_7000158.html This says: "Earlier in the event, Rove seized the opportunity to slam potential Democratic presidential candidates, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The Republican strategist dismissed arguments that Clinton was a strong candidate, and took aim at Warren’s Native American heritage, calling her “Pocahontas.” Echoing an increasingly common conservative hope that Warren run in 2016, Rove sarcastically urged University of Connecticut students to draft Warren into the race." Popish Plot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(minor digression) That article cite by Popish, and that quote of Rove's attacking Warren, demonstrate clearly that this issue is not limited to the 2012 campaign, but is a factor in the upcoming one. It has variously been cited as a reason why she should not, or will not, run, and repeated many times in the serious press as a factor in the upcoming election and a thing which her opponents will bring up should she change her mind and decide to run. The move by several editors here to relegate this issue to the 2012 Election article, to deny its current relevance, or to limit it to "two sentences" is misguided. Marteau (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is getting old. " It has variously been cited as a reason why she should not, or will not, run, and repeated many times in the serious press as a factor in the upcoming election and a thing which her opponents will bring up should she change her mind and decide to run." Cited by everyone except the one person that matters....Elizabeth Warren herself. Stop speculating. ― Padenton|✉   01:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This article already mentions that many want Warren to run, but she herself doesn't want to. This could be considered one more source to back up the statement that many want her to run. Us editors don't need to speculate but many reliable sources are speculating about it. The issue here is the native american controversy and how much weight to give it in this article. We want to go by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight and you could say based on this huffpost source Karl Rove is a prominent adherent to this view. Just one more source to add to the conversation.Popish Plot (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not speculating about a goddamned thing. The press is, the politicos are, the blogosphere is, the man on the street is. This issue is hot, it is very much a "thing", people are talking about it, and people are going to want to have an objective source to learn about it. Whether their interest is contemptible or not, whether they should be interested in it or not, whether they should be interested in more substantive issues is beside the point... the fact of the matter is this IS a thing of interest, this IS a big deal, and to deny that seems to me to be wishful thinking or attempting a spin. And I'll tell you what is getting old is editors pooh-poohing the issue, saying it's not relevant, saying it belongs in the 2012 Campaign article, saying it only deserves two sentences. Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and at the same time Wikipedia is not a newspaper reminds us that breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Our goal should be to extract the enduring essence. The essence of the situation (IMHO) is that Warren identified as and claimed to be of Cherokee descent, and that this became an issue in the campaign.

I would suggest a brief mention in her personal details that she at one time identified as Cherokee, without further comment, and then in the campaign section an explanation that this identification was contested, became an issue in the campaign, and that no proof has been possible (on either side). HGilbert (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point Hgilbert that was a huff post article dated 4/3/15. Breaking news is not considered as reliable or should be given as much weight as other sources. I suppose then that this native american controversy should stay as being mentioned as part of the 2012 election with Scott Brown? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline We can wait and see how it all plays out. Popish Plot (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked for reliable sources concerning Warren's ancestry besides the disputed 1/32nd Native American. British, German, French etc? Many BLPs mention ancestry of a person's parents briefly but I suppose if there are no reliable sources that means just don't mention it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Really. You think that's how it should be handled here. Just saying that she identified as Cherokee, with no mention of any controversy or dispute, even in the Scott campaign, except in a sub article. Really. Combine that, with calling this "breaking news"... my head's about to explode. Marteau (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think he meant that huff post article I found is breaking news not this entire native american controversy. Maybe HGilbert could clarify. I think he is suggesting the wiki article could mention somewhere, maybe in her personal life section that she at one time identified with being cherokee. That is where such ancestry information normally goes. It might look odd to a casual wikipedia reader that it says she identified being cherokee, a bit odd language if it doesn't also mention why it was "at one time" and doesn't mention any of her other ancestries, although if that is because no reliable sources say what her other ancestries are, not much we can do about that. And then in the 2012 election section more info about why this was a controversy can be mentioned. Popish Plot (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, I hope your head doesn't explode! I said the controversy should be covered in the section of this article on the campaign. That's when it happened, and where it belongs.

My comment about breaking news does not refer to the original controversy, but solely to the suggestion above that recent news reports about this are worthy of mention. I don't see how these are remotely significant for this or any article. HGilbert (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All the fuss over the reference in Huffington Post is irrelevant: an extreme Republican partisan and career operative, asked for talking points against potential Democratic candidates, alluded to the half-forgotten campaign brouhaha which never gained traction outside the tea party and Boston’s Murdoch-owned tabloid. All sorts of people learn all sorts of stories about their distant ancestors; that's why they call it America. Note that the matter was scarcely raised in Warren’s 2014 senatorial race. The matter deserves a couple of sentences here, no more; it can be covered in slightly more depth in a page (if one exists) on the 2012 Massachusetts senatorial race. End of story. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

> "which never gained traction outside the tea party and Boston’s Murdoch-owned tabloid."

... and the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor, and The Atlantic, and US News and World Report, and the New Yorker, and the New York Times, and CNN.com and Mother Jones and Snopes and the Huffington Post and the Boston Globe and ABC News and Politico and Slate and USA Today and nola.com and NPR.org and Time.com and plenty more all did stories about the issue, and I'm not counting anything referring to the Jeb/hispanic thing. The fact of the matter is, this issue is not trivial, is widely disussed, and people are going to want to find information about it here. I agree it does not have to go into exhaustive detail here, but it deserves enough covereage of the basic facts, here in her main article and not off at some "20XX Campaign" article, for people to gain at least a basic knowledge of the issue. Anything less would be a disservice to the user base. Marteau (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark, Shouldn't it not matter? I understand the source is no good because it is recentivism and wikipedia is not a newspaper but just because criticism is coming from conservatives that doesn't mean exclude it? I mean, what if the source just so happened to be from 2012 when the scandal was big. I do notice that most other wiki pages for politicians don't show any criticism. For example, Scott Brown's page doesn't mention this topic. I know that doesn't mean this page shouldn't show criticism either because maybe Elizabeth Warren, being a bit of a lightning rod, just gets more criticism than most politicians and therefore deserves due weight for it. Popish Plot (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Karl Rove's opinions have precisely no relevance to assessing WP:DUE weight to be accorded to this question, which has been forgotten by all save partisan extremists for years. It is precisely as significant as the Rove-inspired rumors of John McCain’s black daughter -- with the exception that the ruse Rove used against McCain was arguably successful, while this Karl Rove talking point has long been forgotten. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, Karl Rove's attack on Warren was widely cited, and many people are aware of it and are discussing it. There is, for example, a thread on Daily Kos about it. Most Kossacks are politically literate, but some may not be up to speed on the Warren heritage thing. That their interest in the issue was piqued because of an attack by a scoundrel such as Rove or not matters not one whit. The fact of the matter is, the heritage thing is still being discussed, and not just by "partisan extremists" or "tea party" types, and people are going to want to know just what the hell Rove is going on about from an objective source. People deserve to be able to easily find complete information here, no matter if was because they heard a Tea Partier was talking about it, or because they read about Rove talking about it, or because the town fool was talking about it. It is a "thing" in our society, like it or not, and a subject many people will undoubtedly come here to learn about. Marteau (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A thread on dailykos is not considered a reliable source though. I could make a thread there discussing it, would that mean you can use me as a reliable source? No. Maybe if someone prominent went to dailykos and used it to make an article though, not sure if that is the case but doubt it. And anyways the point is moot anyways cuz it would all be considered recent breaking news so not the kind of thing that really increases the weight to give this issue on this page here. Popish Plot (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat: WP is not a newspaper nor an online People magazine. That people are talking a lot about the Bible in Iowa does not deserve a section in the Bible article. We should mention the original situation. Basta. HGilbert (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Term

@MarkBernstein:, Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012, defeating incumbent Scott Brown. Since this is a full term, she wasn't on the ballot last fall. Markey won a special election to fill the remainder of Kerry's term, and Brown had won a special election to fill the remainder of Kennedy's term, so perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! You're right, I'm wrong. Mixed up the Markey situation and the Warren situation. Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof of voting record

Where is the evidence that Senator Warren voted Republican?

The article repeatedly states that Senator Warren voted Republican up to about 1996. Where is the evidence of this? As Senator Warren repeatedly lied about her "Native American" ancestry, her word on the matter of her voting for Republicans is worthless. Is there any evidence that, for example, Senator Warren donated money to Republican candidates? If so - which ones? 90.194.182.59 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference is Packer, George (2013). The Unwinding, an inner history of the New America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and giroux. p. 345. Someone with access to the book could check. However, it could be rephrased to just state that she claimed to vote republican. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You give no evidence that Elizabeth Warren was a Republican - I ask again where is the evidence that Elizabeth Warren donated money to Republican candidates. Show me the money.176.252.177.96 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be a Republican to support Republican candidates. It's not difficult. ― Padenton|✉   10:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion on Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry is not relevant here, it is baseless WP:OR, and wikipedia is not a tabloid. Her word is perfectly fine.― Padenton |☎  16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Putting lines over my words is about as brave as your kind get. As for Wikipedia not being a tabloid - I agree, for example it was the New York Times (most clearly not a tabloid) that covered up the murder of millions of people in the Soviet Union. A tabloid (out to find stories and get more readers) would not have done so - it would not have hidden the "vulgar" truth, in order to protect the "higher" truth of collectivism ("Social Justice") - the "noble lie" as Plato put it. Elizabeth Warren made up "native American" ancestry for financial (and other) advantage - if "her word is fine" I am a direct descendent of Alexander the Great and I claim his empire.176.252.177.96 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My kind, eh? I'm not the one who struck your comment. You are ranting now. The rights and wrongs the New York Times has committed are in no way relevant to this, especially if we're talking about murders in the Soviet Union now. Your claim that Elizabeth Warren lied for financial (or otherwise) incentive is pure speculation, which we do not allow on Wikipedia (Read more here: WP:OR). Your Alexander the Great hyperbole, while creative, is not analogous here. Aside from the claim here being of heritage and not inheritance, Alexander the Great's territory was divided and given away upon his death, and has since been conquered and re-conquered dozens of times. So his empire has long had nothing to bequeath to you. ― Padenton|✉   10:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Warren has no Native ancestry. Read the archived talk, and other diffs on this article. There has been POV pushing on this article to try and hide or diminish the protests from Native people about her misrepresentations. It keeps getting more and more minimized, not out of accuracy, but out of simple POV pushing. It wasn't just that her family was unclear and gave her misinformation. After the tribes checked and all the ancestors Warren claimed were Native were shown to be white, she totally disregarded Native sovereignty - the right of the tribes to say who is and isn't a member. By letting this POV push take root here on WP, people are privileging a white view (that these things don't matter) over a Native one. It's severe bias and rather disturbing. And... the issue of her misrepresenting her heritage and her voting record are separate, but it does show a pattern. - CorbieV^☊ 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, Why are you so sure that she has no native ancestry? She, her brothers, and some of her relatives, say their parents and grandparents talked about it. Are they all lying? There's a family research newsletter from 2006 that looks into the issue and talks finding a marriage application identifying one of Warren's ancestors as Cherokee.[2] Why would they make stuff up in 2006, before this became an issue? Darx9url (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again: The tribes keep excellent records. Everyone checked. She and her relatives were mistaken. Somewhere down the line, yes, someone lied. That doesn't mean she or her living family members knew it was a lie. Either way, no tribe claims her so she's not Native. These things aren't nebulous. The tribes have their own laws and rolls. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again: This is your opinion and WP:OR. Stop wasting our time with this personal vendetta you seem to have. ― Padenton|✉   21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've read a fair bit of each of them, they are quite long in each of the archives. And to be quite honest, I don't share your certainty. I see claims from people claiming to be knowledgeable on the issue, but rarely are credible sources provided. The NA controversy section seems fairly good to me as it is now, giving a thoroughly-sourced overview of the different PoVs in an objective tone. I'm not sure what could be added.

But I digress, forgive me. Even if we assume that it has been proven 100% that Warren has no Native ancestry, there is little evidence that suggests she knowingly lied about it for her own gain, and therefore, I'm not sure I agree that it shows a pattern. Based on IPuser's wording of the original request in this thread, I'm sure you'll agree, it's hard to consider his/her doubt regarding Warren's votes as an objective appraisal. I am also not sure what sources we could possibly find other than primary. Political donations are often private (especially in and before the 90s), and votes are of course always private. So, if we were to remove it, I'm not sure what justification we would have to leave up similar statements on other politicians articles. ― Padenton|✉   22:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither me nor Corbie is driven by an ulterior motive to harm Warren. In fact, we are both persons of the Left. We just want to detail the facts. Warren's supporters are, however, adamant that the facts of this controversy--namely, that she identified as a racial minority on a law school recruitment form based on false/undocumented claims to Native American ancestry--must be obscured and hidden from public view. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

One sentence stating that Warren, in accordance with stories she had been told by her family, indicated in some forms that she had some native-American ancestors, and that Republicans briefly seized on this during the 2012 campaign to no great effect, would be perfectly sufficient. But none of this is pertinent to the topic here, which is proof of voting record prior to 1996. The request for “proof” cannot be met, as the original poster likely knows, because the US Constitution requires secret ballots. However, Warren has written this several times, and as she is the only competent authority on the matter, that testimony is irrefutable. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What can we rule out?

Since we cannot seem to agree about what to write, let's work on what can be ruled out:

• When I asked whether Warren, her brothers, and cousins, who talked about stories of Native heritage when they were growing up, were all lying, CorbieV wrote: "... She and her relatives were mistaken. Somewhere down the line, yes, someone lied. That doesn't mean she or her living family members knew it was a lie. Either way, no tribe claims her so she's not Native." [3] So we can all agree to rule out suggesting that Warren herself made-up native ancestry to gain some affirmative-action-like advantage.
• Also, as YoPienso pointed out, there's nothing on the AALS website describing the AALS directory as a database for recruiting minority professors. If you google 'AALS directory' or 'what is AALS directory', and go through the descriptions, again there's no mention of using it for hiring. So we shouldn't call the AALS directory "a database used by law schools to recruit minority professors", like Steeltrap does here.[4]

Let's keep adding to stuff we can rule out. Hopefully then, we can agree about what should be in. Darx9url (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was being polite. It would be more accurate to say, "That doesn't mean she or her living family members necessarily knew it was a lie." It's quite possible that they knew full well it was a lie. It's possible the lie started with Warren. We simply don't know. As her relatives have given conflicting reports (and this is sourced), we don't know whether or not they knew, or when they knew, or when the lie originated. What we do know is that Warren was told during her first campaign, by a handful of different genealogists, that there was zero proof of her having any Native ancestry. This is in the WP:RS sources we have included. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I moved your comment because it accidentally split darx9url's comment. Feel free to verify.

Onto your comment: Our speculation doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. We definitely do not imply that she might have deliberately lied when there is no WP:RS to prove that claim. And what you said "we do know" is already in the section. ― Padenton|✉   23:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"What is unproven best remains unspoken" (Larry Wittgenstein, Principia Wikipedia). HGilbert (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Two changes and we'll have reached a compromise

I have cleaned up the ineptly-written paragraph. It now has a clear topic sentence and clear transitions from sentence to sentence. The pararaph now reads:

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories.[64] Scott Brown, her Republican opponent in the Senate race, speculated that she had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in the employment market.[65][66][67] Warren responded that she had self-identified as a minority because she was Native American, and listed herself as a minority in the directories for personal rather than professional purposes: she said she wanted to meet others with a similar background.[68] Harvard Law School had publicized her minority status in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper during the 2012 election.[64][69][70] Her brothers said that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage".[71] While the New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentation of Warren's claimed Native American heritage,[67][72] the Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration.[73] Former colleagues and supervisors at universities she worked at stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring.[69][70][67][74] In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.[75]

This version is not remotely ideal. It omits a number of material facts--such as the fact that the AALS minority listing was used strictly for hiring purposes (and not for meetings), and the fact that Warren never once attended a meeting of Native Americans or publicly spoke of her "heritage" until she was criticized for it--and does so for no good reason. Still, I am willing to accept it because 1) I know the pro-Warren contingent will not allow certain facts to be disclosed and 2) this controversy needs to be wrapped up in order to allow this page to expand in other ways. However, I will not accept this new version--and will continue my fight for my preferred version--until two changes are made.

First, we need to re-add the information from Native American sources about the Native American sovereignty problems implicated by Warren--who is not a member of any tribe and whose family appears on no Native American rolls--claiming she is Native American on employment forms. In the current version of the page, the Native American perspective has been squelched by a bunch of white liberals; this is exactly the sort of problem that holds Wikipedia back from being an inclusive community. (See WP:Systematic bias)

Second, the topic (first) sentence needs to make note of the fact that Warren's claim to Native American ancestry was undocumented. It should read someting like: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories, despite having no documented minority ancestors."

Make these two changes and I am willing to move on to other things. I expect many of my colleagues--particularly the Native American editors, who are concerned about the whitewashing of Native sources on an issue (Native American identity) where such sources should occupy center-stage--agree. Steeletrap (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You just seem to be unable to realize that others, myself included, have a our own ideas about what should and should not be included. If everything you want goes in I would insist on information that counters what I find to need further explaining, and on and on. "Make these two changes and I am willing to move on..." indeed. Quit reading orders to the other editors that do not agree with you. You have stretched this on long enough. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

the proposed changes are not compatible with NPOV, DUE, and OR. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm at the point where I have to conclude that it isn't primarily incompetence (though that, to be sure, is playing a role) but deliberate bias, and a commitment to misrepresenting evidence to promote a political agenda, that is motivating the inept editing here. I'm done with this page. I am saddened that you are so glib in the face of censorship and systematic bias. Steeletrap (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: WP:NPA Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations ― Padenton|✉   00:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:

1. Your commenting on the capability of the writer you modified it from is a personal attack, and you know it.
2. Let's be honest, your version needs work on that front also, that paragraph could use a good c/e for grammar and punctuation.
3. "such as the fact that the AALS minority listing was used strictly for hiring purposes (and not for meetings)" WP:OR
4. "the fact that Warren never once attended a meeting of Native Americans or publicly spoke of her "heritage" until she was criticized for it" Again, WP:OR. The CSM source said "Apparently, she never attended events" keyword there is 'apparently'. According to who? Someone who never met her? Some woman next door? Her department chair? The dean of law? Some random person that claimed to be best buds with her? Some crazy person on the street? We really have no idea who made this claim, and what evidence they have to support it.
5. " I know the pro-Warren contingent will not allow certain facts to be disclosed " When you refuse to back up your original research with sources, I'm not sure why you expect anyone to let you put negative information in a BLP article. Oh, and I'm actually not pro-Warren, thanks. I'm actually more of a moderate.
6. "However, I will not accept this new version--and will continue my fight for my preferred version--until two changes are made. " You're welcome to try, and we're welcome to report you for disruptive editing to WP:ANI, using as a source the numerous times you have attempted to re-insert your preferred version of this section.
7. Systemic Bias doesn't mean that you get to ignore everyone who disagrees with you based on their ethnicity. I also don't see where anyone in this talk page has identified as white, though of course, as I already said, that wouldn't matter because we discuss things like adults at Wikipedia. Also, using racism yourself, claiming to be working towards an inclusive community?
8. Don't call me a liberal.
9. "Make these two changes and I am willing to move on to other things." Your approval isn't required. You don't WP:OWN the article. ― Padenton|✉   00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, @Steeletrap. The two suggestions you make above are unacceptably tendentious, however. To say that Warren listed herself as having NA heritage "despite having no documented ancestors" implies that such documentation is normally required or expected in such a case. It is not; most people rely on their oral family history to know who their ancestors are. I have often described my great-grandparents' ethnic and regional origin, for example, but have never seen any documentation confirming this, nor thought to seek it out. (In fact, it may well not exist any more.)

Similarly, as has been noted several times already, for a great many people today (especially in the US) ancestry has zilch to do with membership in a group. My ancestry is European, and I identify it as such when asked about my ethnic background, but in doing so I make absolutely no claim of any current relationship to, and certainly am not claiming to be a member or citizen of, these countries. HGilbert (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Steeltrap, the two 'demands' that you make are relatively mild compared to the wild allegations that you throw in to preface them (briefly, as documented elsewhere, nowhere are the AALS directories described as 'used strictly for hiring purposes', Warren's native heritage was part of her persona as a teacher, none of her relatives dispute her family's claim, she did not indicate her heritage to employers). However, they are both problematic:

"Native American sovereignty problems" because Warren is not a member of any tribe, but claims she is Native American. First, claiming native heritage is not the same as claiming to be a member of a tribe, Second, no major news sources talk about 'Native American sovereignty problems', so having this here would be undue weight.

Note in the first sentence that "Warren's claim to Native American ancestry was undocumented." That her claims are undocumented is noted later in the same paragraph. The juxtaposition that you demand would violate synthesis, as it would imply that a claim to Native American ancestry, perforce needs documentation. In reality, people typically make claims about ancestry based on family lore, without documentation.

I understand where you are coming from, wishing to enforce native tribal wishes that only those enrolled in federally registered tribes can claim native heritage. A person who has suffered discrimination or disadvantage will naturally feel wronged when someone who has not suffered, claims affinity to the disadvantaged group. However, Wikipedia is not the forum for such a fight. LK (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

At this pont I think this tag should come off the section. I came very late, but cannot see this as a POV discussion,; it is really a WP standards discussion. HGilbert (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. ― Padenton|✉   22:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of ongoing relevance of Native American issue

https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=elizabeth+warren+native&ncl=dGT7MhV8m9bl_pMmftoJZSAhVzggM&cf=all&scoring=d

As the above link shows, the issue has been discussed extensively, in a couple dozen various mainstream media sources, in the last three days. The comparison was brought up repeatedly in the context of a comparison with Jeb Bush's apparent claim to be Hispanic on a voter registration form. Both liberal and conservative sources have noted the similarities and differences between the two situations--while neither has any documented minority ancestry, Warren, unlike Bush, could have gotten a tangible benefit out of her false claim to Native heritage. Steeletrap (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a momentary tempest of scant relevance to Warren, save for the happenstance that another politician may have done something vaguely similar. In contrast to Warren, it is inconceivable that the Bush family -- famously Brahmin in origin -- discusses their Hispanic heritage around the dinner table. Most of the sources here are highly partisan, like National Review Online. Your comment above, by the way, also approaches a BLP violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Silly season started earlier this year, <sigh>. We should not follow these back and forth and comparisons; they are irrelevant to this bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is a non-issue save for some of Warren's critics on the far right-wing and they keep trying to create a tempest in a teapot. No one else gives a flying f---. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've been paying attention to this talk page for a while. People on the far left are criticizing it a lot more than people on the right. ― Padenton|✉   03:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about this on the left? Any sources? For a BLP of politician I don't think most other wikipedia articles have large sections of several paragraphs on a specific criticism from the other political side. Does Jeb Bush's page have a large section on how he said he was Hispanic? Popish Plot (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My sources are every single talk discussion we've had on this page. Go look at who it is arguing for the longer section. To blame this section on the right is absurd. ― Padenton|✉   14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean it's leftwing editors that want the criticism for this to be longer? Hard for me to see if someone is lw or rw here. But that wouldn't matter anyway, it would have to do with the reliable sources not the editors viewpoints which can't be proven. Popish Plot (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. People assume certain political viewpoints of sources, but they're just as proven as they are in the case of editors. ― Padenton|✉   15:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1. How can you tell what a wikipedia editor's political viewpoint is? I know some may have an infobox on their userpage that says something like "this user is a conservative" or "this user is a liberal".

2. Why does it matter? Wikipedia articles should go by reliable sources and if an editor happens to have a liberal or conservative point of view, shouldn't they try to leave that out and edit based on reliable sources?

3. It doesn't seem to make logical sense that mostly far left editors want to add criticism to Elizabeth Warren's wikipedia article more so than any conservative editors. Not that I think it matters anyway but if it did I'd ask for some backup because it doesn't pass the smell test. Popish Plot (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you are:

1. Simple: They said so. Also, take a look at the arguments for the section's expansion, which is based on the alleged offense done to a minority group. That's typically a far-left argument, not a far-right one.
2. You're right, it doesn't matter at all. I don't care what another editors political views are, and they don't belong in an article just as mine don't. However, if someone's going to blame everything on the far right wing, I'm going to say something about it, and I did.
3. It's helpful to think of politics as a spectrum, which we do, but it's not. People have different views on different topics. So it's more of a grid. Most people are actually fairly moderate, not one or the other, and while a few radio personalities might take every cheap shot they can, on wikipedia, it needs to be in a neutral tone and reliably sourced, which generally gets rid of all the far-right comments that are so famous on Facebook and Tumblr. As wikipedia has a liberal systemic bias, the removal of poorly-sourced and undue far-right comments happens more frequently than poorly-sourced and undue far-left comments. Also, just because someone supports the democratic party, doesn't mean they support every candidate in the democratic party, or on every issue. ― Padenton|✉   19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well since it doesn't matter why bring it up. What does the article say right now. How can it be improved? Popish Plot (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Montanabw's comment.― Padenton|✉   20:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree montanabw's comment, which uses the f word is unneeded. However I think it is true only the right wing is criticizing Warren on this. That's what the reliable sources show anyway. And that makes logical sense, is the left wing really going to be criticizing the most leftwing senator more than the right wing? However, just because this is a criticism coming from the right, I am not saying that means don't mention it in this wiki article. I am saying though that it is not so notable that it needs such a large section of multiple paragraphs here. Popish Plot (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(Undent) Once again, some very weird stuff happened during Elizabeth Warren's campaign, and while I think the CSM, Herald and ICT sources are sufficient and relevant to include her lack of involvement in any Native community, along with her shunning of Natives and disregard of Native concerns, the way the coverage fell out has badly damaged the ability to source this to every single editor's satisfaction. However, I think there have been some very aggressive attempts to disallow sources that were completely uncontroversial prior to the attempts to censor this. Due to their desperation to get a Democrat back into Kennedy's seat, the left-leaning media outlets, and most Democrats, did triage and chose their priorities; they chose to largely ignore and even hush up the alleged ethnic fraud; they chose not to care about issues of Native sovereignty, because they just didn't see it as important as getting a Democrat elected. So they did not follow up on things and often refused to issue corrections when new info came out. The sourceable mentions of her shunning of Native journalists is only the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of other stuff that can't be sourced to WP standards. It was positively surreal to see only right wing news outlets talking to Natives about this. Totally unprecedented. Popish, please stop accusing others of plots and of lying. I think you would be shocked if you knew how totally wrong you are about the motives here. - CorbieV^☊ 21:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is lying. There is a dispute, let's try to solve it, get consensus. What are the cold hard facts here? What are the reliable sources? They seem to mostly be from Boston Globe and Boston Herald. I'm wondering if this is a Boston area controversy? Let's be honest here. Warren is pretty big in the news. Seems there's a new story every day about her making some statement. She's kind of a lightning rod. But should wikipedia keep a daily tally of news stories in real time adding them as references? We also want to keep the article short and concise. How often is the cherokee native american issue discussed though? And you have some sources but they don't meet wikipedia standards? What can be done about that then? No use worrying about that. Popish Plot (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a partisan issue this is a legal issue. While many people may tout ancestry there are actual requirements that must be met to tribally identify. Senator Warren an attorney, law professor and politician cannot by-pass legalities on a whim simply because a relative told stories. Enrollment requirements - http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=415&Itemid=626 If an individual does not meet enrollment requirements but can actually prove ancestry they can apply for a CDIB (Certificate Degree of Indian Blood) card. Whether a person is issued a card or not is up to the individual tribe, not the person who is claiming ancestry. This requires documentation not family stories and/or supposition. It requires fact and evidence of fact because it is a legal matter. That some individuals may feel that it is a non-issue simply because it directly affects a marginalized community is moot. Native Americans and Native American news sources are not less-than their dominant culture counter parts. To elude to that is showing personal bias which has no place on Wikipedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a legal issue until there's a credible lawsuit targeting her. She's not asking to enroll, as far as I can tell, she gave up years ago. Please remember the point of this section is the controversy, not whether she did something right or wrong. That's not our place to judge, this is an encyclopedia. We describe what happened from all significant perspectives in a neutral tone. ― Padenton|✉   06:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a legal issue. The legal question is: Is she Native American, according to the legal definition of the term? The answer is no. Steeletrap (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a legal issue. That's part of what I was getting at with the sourced Tribal sovereignty in the United States clause. - CorbieV^☊ 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've sourced federal criteria and tribal criteria regarding the issue. I'm rather stunned that you would say it's not a legal issue Padenton, it very clearly is. It doesn't matter if she was claiming status, applying for status or simply making a statement. She does not meet federal or tribal criteria to claim to be Cherokee. No one is judging her, I'm simply providing fact. She claimed and continues to claim to be Cherokee (and at time Delaware) but she has no rights to those claims. Unless you are the BIA or have the ability to rewrite the constitutions of the three Cherokee bands then I'm sorry she violated tribal and federal law. There-in is the controversy - she claimed something she has no right to claim both legally and ethically. It's really quite simple. No one is judging, it is what it is.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl and others: I would remind everyone that our policy on writing about living people generally prohibits making disparaging remarks about living people unless directly sourced to third parties. That applies to talk page discussions as well as to articles. In particular, a claim like "she violated tribal and federal law" should not be made here unless directly associated with references to reliable sources that say as much. If the Cherokee Nation (or some other reasonable authority) accused her of breaking the law, then we can report that accusation with attribution, but we shouldn't be making such accusations on our own. The discussion of negative events should focus on what reliable sources are saying about the issue and provide appropriate citations. When editing articles, it is generally not appropriate for Wikipedians to be drawing their own conclusions about right and wrong (or legal and illegal) but rather to be summarizing what the sources have been saying about the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To the best of our knowledge, Warren has never claimed to be a member of any tribe, and the repeated expostulations here about the laws for tribal membership are irrelevant WP:FORUM behavior, coming extremely close to BLP violations. Warren claims that her parents told her of Native American ancestry, which is a very different thing. Many people who are not eligible for membership in any tribe have undoubted Native American ancestors. Many other people have family stories about half-forgotten ancestors who were Indians, or who were thought to be Indians, or who passed as Indians, or who were remembered as Indians. Many individuals identified themselves in complicated ways; they lived in complicated times. Wikipedia is not a forum. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Whacked article

I propose that the GA tag be removed from this article.

The editing has resulted in an article that makes nearly no sense as to the historiography of the person who is the subject. The consistency and flow isn't even close to what I'd call "Good".

I'm not sure how anybody could have called it "good" in the first place.

Nevertheless, the trout-slapping around here indicates to me that the article has a long way to go before being called "good" in any sense of the word.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a process for that. Feel free to go through with it yourself: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment― Padenton|✉   00:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my GA. Aladdin, I'd be more than happy to work with you to attempt to fix the problems that you see. It would be helpful if you could provide a list so we could get started. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)