Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Elizabeth Warren claimed 'American Indian' race on State Bar of Texas registration card

documented proof she was misreprenting her heritage. #NOT MY PRESIDENT EVER https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/5/elizabeth-warren-claimed-american-indian-race-stat/ 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You will find that if you use reliable sources, that you will be a more informed individual and of more value here. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The news was also broadcast tonight on Fox News during martha maccallum TV show. Just found the cited, which includes a scan image of the document. News outlets?! Is it real news? or Fake News? 72.43.251.134 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Found some, looks like its still breaking news.[1][2][3] PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this is news. It seems no different from the previous instances with the Harvard faculty listing or the recipe book. She thought she had some Native American heritage (which is probably true), and when she was asked about it, she responded accordingly. What's new? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo article seems to have the best summary. Warren used "Native American" as her racial identity registering for the Bar in Texas, was listed as "minority" by the Association of American Law Schools, had her ethnicity listed as "Native American" while working for the University of Pennsylvannia, and listed her ethnicity as "Native American" while working for Harvard University. She has recently apologized for using that identity. According to the Post article, identifying herself as Native American had no impact on her career. So for a decent chunk of her professional life she identified as a Native American. It's past time our article had a decent summary of this. It is actually UNDUE to NOT describe that, as it occurred throughout such a long timeline in her life. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it's undue to exclude this info. YoPienso (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Near as I can tell, she was told she had Indian heritage and therefore checked the required marks exactly as she should have. Are we actually going to list every form she correctly filed in her life? I think this is reeling out of control. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

+1 HouseOfChange (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• • A person’s race or gender are generally included in some fashion in encyclopedic entries. We should not rob Warren of her ethnic heritage that she claimed for large portions of her life. As this article is biographic in nature, it should include relevant biographical information. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say there should be no mention. I said every form she ever checked a box on doesn't belong here. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This was added by BigJake54, challenged by me, and restored by BigJake54 in violation of discretionary sanctions: Enforced BRD. I have suggested a self-rvt which was either ignored or not seen. I would suggest someone else rvt before sanctions are applied. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: There's no danger of sanctions against an editor who violated 7 minutes before they received the DS alert. Not responding to your request for self-revert won't be sanctionable when they haven't edited since then—even if admins strictly enforced the restrictions, which they don't. The issue now seems to be under discussion, which is the goal of Enforced BRD, so I can't see reverting on those grounds. But I have removed the content on WP:ONUS grounds: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," and there is no consensus to include here as of yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a sentence relating the substance of the WaPo article should be in the page because the WaPo article demonstrates that Warren's 1986 Texas State Bar registration card, which lists her race as "American Indian," was filled out and signed by her. The fact of her signature is important. Also, note that several editors objected to the earlier reference to the PolitiFact article on the grounds that it didn't prove Warren signed the cookbook. Ebw343 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't add this information to the article while it is in discussion. This is a BLP and especially for a bio we should keep WP:Recent in mind. Gandydancer (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It almost seems to be a BLP violation to not accurately include Warren's identified race for many years of her career. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this story the definition of narcissism exposed? 108.12.52.29 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, again, no one has said don’t mention it at all. The article subject believed she had Native American ancestry and filled out forms as per her knowledge. The number of forms these days that ask this question is rather large. She has indicated that there are more such forms. Are we going to add a paragraph, link, and some sort of “proof” for every form? What is the purpose? O3000 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"What is the purpose?" The purpose to the proposed edit (i.e., a sentence relating the substance of the WaPo article) is that the WaPo article demonstrates that Warren's 1986 Texas State Bar registration card, which lists her race as "American Indian," was filled out and signed by her. The fact of her signature is important. Also, note that several editors objected to the earlier reference to the PolitiFact article on the grounds that it didn't prove Warren signed the cookbook.Ebw343 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Texas bar card

Should the article mention the fact that Warren listed her race as Native American on her Texas State Bar card? Instaurare (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes It is being widely covered by reliable sources and is an important aspect of the controversy over Warren's ancestry. Instaurare (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Ebw343 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon for RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. The discussion was started only 28 hours ago, and the starter of this RfC hasn't even participated in it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include, you can't hold the dike anymore. The news are now on CBS and NBC. XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include as notable and relevant and DUE, with excellent sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per WP guidelines: " Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. This RfC should be closed. Gandydancer (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, it's too soon for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, but please continue discussing in the normal manner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Per reports: Elizabeth Warren claimed to be an “American Indian” when registering for the State Bar of Texas in 1986, the first example of her personally using her "dubious accounts to further her career" own handwriting to officially indicate heritage. BarrelProof, this is "What's new?"!! 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP. Please keep your own opinions about motivations out of here. O3000 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Understand your concern... This is not my opinion, I copy/pasted that sentence from the article mentioned above. This is the first example, in her very own hand-writing. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What article? I can't find that, and can't imagine an RS would say such. O3000 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/5/elizabeth-warren-claimed-american-indian-race-stat/ , but I guess this is not considered RS by Wikipedia. But is meant to just share the significance of document as the "first example" reported by news media. I've also heard much discussion on radio/TV about her "accounts to further her career" over a minority class. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you know that the source (founded by the Moonies) is not RS, why would you quote it? And, what you "heard much discussion on radio/TV" without providing sources should never be included, even on a talk page. Please consider that this is a BLP and redact your unfounded accusation. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

redaction done. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Moonies? huh? 72.43.251.134 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon who claimed to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ. A claim that I would say is less likely than Warren having Amerind ancestry. O3000 (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how the handwriting makes a difference. AFAIK, there was never a dispute about whether it was her that reported that she had Native American heritage, so why would the handwriting matter? Did she ever deny that she had filled out forms saying that? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Exclude for now / too soon per the people above. We already devote two massive paragraphs to the subject, which edges towards WP:UNDUE on a biography; we should wait and see if this aspect has sustained coverage before adding it. Otherwise the section risks becoming a random collection of news cycles rather than a coherent summary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Once she announces candidacy for presidency, your concerns will be deemed over-protective and lacking real open reporting of facts. #EXPOSE_ELIZABETH_WARREN , #Expose Elizabeth Warren, #Expose_HER,72.43.251.134 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include a brief, sourced mention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude for now. She filled out a form. There is no reason to believe she did anything wrong. Tens of millions of forms are filled out a day. This is not WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The gauge of what is DUE is coverage in WP:RS; multiple leading national publications wrote detailed stories on this. So we add a brief mention, sourced to the Washington Post, which broke the story, and one other source, like CNN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hardly detailed stories on this. They mentioned that WaPo found this and then repeated stuff already covered by them and this article. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include It has now received widespread media attention. This is the first real evidence that Warren every claimed to be a Native American. Regarding the previous section, the Washington Times is such an obviously garbage publication that I would never use it as a source and the only reason I would read it is to understand how misinformed people see the world. TFD (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Proposal based on comments above: refactor the section as follows: 1) Warren was told she had Native American ancestry 2) On multiple occasions she reported herself as having Native American ancestry (e.g. cookbook, Texas bar, forms filled out at Harvard, etc.) 3) Starting in 2012 she was accused of lying about her ancestry to advance career 4) Investigation of claims showed zero evidence this advanced her career 5) Challenged to take DNA test, she took one, results showed some Native American ancestry 6) Attacked for DNA test, she apologizes and her apology was accepted. 7) Opponents continue efforts to focus on these claims as a way to "expose Elizabeth Warren." That is the story and that is the context. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's it, bounded in a nutshell. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, sure is. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent overview. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that it is all true. However, we now know that Warren claimed to be a Native American, which is different from saying her gg grandmother had some Native American ancestry. It was clearly a false statement. TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How is this a false statement and what RS says this? O3000 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If her genetic great-great grandmother had Native American ancestry, then she has Native American ancestry too (albeit probably less). She never claimed a high percentage or a precise measurement or a perfect state of knowledge, and AFAIK there is no specified percentage threshold at which people are supposed to stop reporting themselves as having Native American ancestry. The current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee by blood, and that's generally considered OK. If I understand correctly, the objection expressed by the Cherokee Nation was not a matter of whether her DNA percentage was too low – it was that they don't think DNA is the appropriate way to measure heritage. And that's OK too. Anyhow, she never asked them for recognition and they have no widely recognized authority to govern how people in the general public are supposed to fill out forms that contain questions about heritage. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Beside the word "Race," Warren wrote "American Indian." In fact, Warren is at least 63/64ths Caucasian and at most 1/64th Native American. She is at most mixed race. Whether or not a member of the Cherokee tribe should put down American Indian when their ancestry is only 1/32nd Cherokee is another issue. At least the chief is member of the tribe. TFD (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The current chief of the Cherokee nation is 1/32 Cherokee. What's your point? Look, we are all mutts. The entire concept is foolish. But, you have to fill out the forms to your best knowledge. O3000 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

To the best of her knowledge at the time, Warren was at most 1/64 Native American ancestry. Her grandmother never told her that she was a Native American, merely that she had some Indian ancestry. Warren herself has said that she never claimed to be Native American, but only claimed to have some Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So how the Hell does one fill out these forms? Does the chief of the Cherokee Nation say Caucasian because he's only 1/32nd Cherokee? Just how large do we make this molehill? This is why I am disgusted at the entire human invented concept of race. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the dominant theory of paleoanthropology for the origin of Homo sapiens involves a diaspora of anatomically modern humans emigrating from Africa (about 200,000 years ago), and that questionnaires are not generally accompanied by any clear guidance, perhaps we should all be identifying ourselves as primarily African. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear what these forms require and what it means to overplay a minor aspect of your racial identity. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It's sad that you are disgusted by one of the most beautiful things in the world. wumbolo ^^^ 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Support the proposed accurate overview by HouseOfChange. (It might need some clarification about what she apologized for and to whom, and who accepted it.) Actually, that doesn't seem very far from what the article already says at this time. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not support the HouseOfChange proposal, because it oversimplifies the situation and omits key facts. XavierItzm (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't notice any "key facts" that are omitted – what are they? – perhaps a need for clarifying that "some" refers to a relatively low percentage? (which is something she basically has in common with Mr. Baker) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, the Senator says she was told this as a child. The defective proposal skips over the "she says" part. For example, the weak proposal she was "attacked" for the DNA test. This is highly biased against the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation did not "attack" the Senator. Rather, the Cherokee Nation rightly complained that the Senator cheapened tribal membership and sovereignty. For example, the Senator apologized to the Cherokee a few weeks ago for the DNA thing, but did not apologize for the 1986 Bar association signed form. In February 2019, the Senator apologized for claiming to be "American Indian." The flawed and Cherokee Nation-prejudiced proposal is a non-starter. XavierItzm (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll grant you the "attack" question – perhaps that word shouldn't be used (although there wasn't any identification of who was said to be doing the attacking). But there is no cheapening of tribal membership and sovereignty if there is no claim of official tribal membership and not even a mention of sovereignty. These were not questionnaires about membership – they were only about some vague notion of heritage. Certainly there is a difference between being a recognized member of the Cherokee Nation and having some degree of vaguely Cherokee lineage. There was no clear need to apologize for any particular questionnaire that she may or may not have remembered filling out, and there was no clear prejudice; prejudice against a group usually involves wanting to not be associated with the group in any way. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include with more detail. By 1986 Warren was nearly 37 years old. At this point in her life she'd have surely would have known about tribal membership and active participation within one. There seems to be a total lacking of anything American Indian to her except for the claim to be one. She used this label simply to gain advantage. White people trying to steal others heritage... Bought the farm (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, none of these self-reportings contained any claim of formal tribal membership or active tribal participation (and no gain of advantage appears evident; indeed, her heritage claim seems to have been a disadvantage, despite being an accurate description of her personal understanding and her factual genetic background). If anything, she seems to have run afoul of the lack of any clear guidance provided regarding what criteria and thresholds should be used for self-reported ethnic categorization. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude as such, overdetailed; I think we need to avoid wp:Recentism and trying to be the news: is it of historical / encyclopedic significance to her overall biography to detail every form on which she gave what she had been told was correct information about her ancestry? No. There are indeed news stories mentioning this card ... like there are reliable sources about how she's voted on myriad bills, but we don't need to catalogue every form in her biography any more than every single vote. I would suggest the information about about the cookbook and the bar card (and apology for the bar card) be covered in one or two sentences saying she listed herself as Native American on some forms in the past, and later apologized. (In general, HoC's points 1-6 summarize things pretty well, IMO.) -sche (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

but we don't need to catalogue every form in her biography. So, Not even one document then? btw, she is now a Presidential Candidate and oh! wait, there is no proof that her Aunt Bea ever said anything about high-cheekbones. could all be a carefully crafted story. Bought the farm (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, all of the stories about her having a family might just be the product of a propaganda conspiracy from a secret cabal of the political elite. I've heard she has refused to provide her original long-form birth certificate too. She has even claimed that her parents weren't wealthy and that her mom worked at a low-wage job! Why hasn't she produced any recordings of her so-called Aunt Bea's stories? </irony> —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reminder - The following edits have been made to this page:

  "write about her fraud as a native american", "claims to be Native American - in ways that enhanced her career", "Is this story the definition of narcissism exposed?", "example of her personally using her dubious accounts to further her career", "She used this label simply to gain advantage. White people trying to steal others heritage", "this is certainly an element of this Presidential candidates fake fraudulent past", " misrepresentations of herself to gain advantage over others. She knowingly perpetuated the falisy", " let's document the truth here, not cover up her purposeful narcissism.", "#EXPOSE_ELIZABETH_WARREN , #Expose Elizabeth Warren, #Expose_HER".

Please remember that this is a BLP and that BLP restrictions apply to talk pages. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do not support the HouseOfChange proposal either. It is an over simplification and somewhat evasive account of the subject. Just read O3000's post above. 72.43.251.134 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You might want to read O3000's comments again, just in case. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• If insistence on suggesting some sort of nefarious motives continues to the point of adding such to this article; I should think this should be balanced by articles like this: [9]. Or, we can stop the efforts to flood this article with such. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

High Cheekbones vis-a-vis someone is a Cherokee Indian

Her claim that if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian is a significant comment, has aspects of racism to it, and should be included in the article. This claim by EW should not be censored or whitewashed from the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Please proceed with the edit. XavierItzm (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I also totally agree, this is explicitly racist and should be included. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor should it be cherry picked from the numerous reasons that she has stated that she believes point to her native american ancestry, and especially so if it has an aspect of racism as you suggest. It's one thing for someone's family to point out grandma's high cheek bones but quite another to put it in their Wikipedia article as if to prove a point. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not what she said and making that claim here is a BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RS cites her as quoting her aunt using the phrase : "And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do."[10] This sounds like a quote from Aunt Bea, in a conversation explaining that Warren had often been told by Aunt Bea that she had Indian heritage. Reading "aspects of racism" into this is quite a stretch. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

First it does not matter one flying flip if she said it originally or her Aunt Bea said it originally or if the Grand Wizard of KKK said it first. The important point is that she repeated the sentiment in her defense of her claims that she is: (1) Native American, and (2) Cherokee, both which claims are either flat out false or highly suspect. If Trump had made the claim that he was a Cherokee because he had high cheekbones there would be a ten page article in Wikipedia quoting every living source to their opinion on the ignorance of the claim and the absurdity of the claim. Second, it is not trivia. You only believe that her absurd claim is "trivia" because EW said it. If was Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro then the it would not be "trivia" but the most important aspect of those individual's particular lives ever. Calling her comment, which is "ignorant", "backward", "unscientific", "hillbilly", etc.", trivia is one of the few things it is not. She has spent her almost of her adult life claiming to be: (1) Native American and (2) Cherokee and her very first defense of those questionable claims is her she has high cheekbones and yet you think it is "trivia". Horse hockey. Hog wash. This is epitome of whitewashing the article. It is the very epitome of censorship. It is moronic claim that calls into question her understanding of racial issues and calls attention to her huge misunderstanding of her own claimed heritage. Calling it "trivia" is a laughable defense. Her justifying her claims of being Indian and Cherokee by pointing to her "high cheekbones" is a significant embarrassing event for her and it is not trivia. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to characterize the comments: it would be sufficient with just citing them and letting the reader be judge. Now, as to your whitewashing of the Senator's statements: what do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In order to include it, it must have significant coverage, which it does not. There is no point arguing that it is important or racist, because those are not criteria for inclusion. And including something and asking the reader to judge is tendentious, implied original research because it leads readers to a conclusion without providing the arguments for and against. TFD (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Significant coverage of the "high cheekbones" "like all the Indians do" statement.
CBS 2012.
CBS 2017 .
CNN 2018.
Washington Post 2012.
The New York Times 2012.
The Atlantic 2012.
USA Today 2018.
NBC 2018.
The Boston Herald 2018.
The Los Angeles Times 2012.
The New Yorker 2012.
The Boston Globe 2012.
The Wall Street Journal 2018.
There's lotsa more where that came from. XavierItzm (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, your claim that this is racist sounds racist. O3000 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not claim anything was racist and ask you remove your personal attack. Also, I did not say one had to show it had coverage in the press, but that it had significant coverage, which in this case means relative to coverage of Elizabeth Warren. Bear in mind the subject has received extensive ongoing media coverage since she first ran for senator. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to the claim in the edit summary by the OP that this is racist, the section heading (which is false and I’ll correct) and the further comment by XavierItzm that this is a “racist story” which are all BLP violations IMO. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I just read your claim that me calling her "high cheekbones" comment somewhat racist or mildly racist is racist in and of itself to be the first Orwellian type of comment of 2019. As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma I have to wonder if you have any idea of what you are talking about. Based upon the very little that I have read from you I currently believe that you do not. However this page is about making the article better and not debating (or actually educating you about racism) you about EW's racist comment about "all" "Indians" "have high cheekbones". So try to keep it to yourself and focus on the article. Her comment is significant. It was the first attempt by her to justify telling school administrators that she was "Cherokee" and "Indian". It is also significant because it points out how she has basic misunderstandings about the two cultures that she has spent her adult life claiming. It is (obviously) significant because not all "Indians" have "high cheekbones", which is just flat out scientifically incorrect comment. Also, it is significant because claiming that the way to find an "Indian" is to look for "high cheekbones" is a racist statement, regardless of the fact that you simply do not like me calling it racist. It is racist whether you like me calling it racist or not. --CharlesShirley (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a separate article about the Indian ancestry controversy, where all these issues could be explored in greater detail beyond what is warranted in this article. However, the big divide among editors on this issue makes me wonder whether a neutral article should be achieved. Some editors for example argue against evidence that she was hired by Harvard because of her ancestry or that the DNA tests do not support her claims. But there is mainstream consensus that her handling of the matter reflects poorly on her. TFD (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, please stop calling people racist based upon your own opinions. This is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, it is not just me that calls her originally justification racist. There are many member of my tribe that call her comments racist. You might not like that tons of people, people that are directly affected by her racist comments, are calling out her racist comment, but that does not make the comment any less racist. Please review the words of one of the members of my tribe:

In defending her supposed Native identity, Warren has drawn from both racist stereotypes and easily refutable stories about her family. At a 2012 press conference Warren stated that her family knew her grandfather was “part” Cherokee because “he had high cheekbones like all of the Indians.” Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

Rebecca Nagle from Op-Ed: I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not. in ThinkProgress, November 30, 2017.

(restart indenting) Warren, in a 2012 rambling interview with multiple reporters, used the phrase "high cheekbones" while directly quoting her Aunt Bea:

I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she though this was the bad deal she had gotten in life.

Warren is clearly not "claiming that the way to find an Indian is too look for high cheekbones" or "if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian." In that interview, she is giving examples of the ways she was told, growing up, that her mother's family had Native American ancestry. She is not, as an adult, claiming that these stories from childhood prove anything except that, during her childhood, she heard these stories. To include the full context of this two-word quote would require giving it much more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently, the article includes a citation that includes (in the reference {{cite news}} template) a part of the CBS News quote about "high cheekbones", but it has ellipsis ("...") instead of the sentences that say "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life." In my opinion, the part that was removed from the quote is important and should also be included in the quote for context (if the quote of the sentence before it is kept in the citation), because that part helps clarify that she was discussing what someone else said and thought, not her own thoughts, and is saying that the other person thought the described characteristic was desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @BarrelProof: that a simple improvement would be to replace the ellipsis in that quote with Warren's omitted words: "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She thought that was the bad deal she had gotten in life." They make it clear that EW is reporting her Aunt Bea's words based on Aunt Bea's admiring thoughts about Aunt Bea's father. If somebody who is an admin could make that change, I think it would be an improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The protection expired, so I made that edit myself. We can continue to discuss, of course, but I think that quoting the first sentence while omitting the second and third sentences would not be appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Although this ("cheekbones" issue) is mentioned by a relatively few sources (mentioned above), it does not seem to be given enough weight, looking at the totality of reliable sources about Warren, for it to merit space here, given the current (relatively, and AFAICT reasonably, short) amount of space devoted to the issue overall. The slant some editors above have tried to add it with in the past, as compared to what Warren said (as HouseOfChange points out), is also an issue. -sche (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Native Americans on average have higher cheekbones than European Americans just as on average African Americans have darker skins than European Americans. African Americans, European Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Australian Aborigines do have different appearances on average. TFD (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, assuming that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is racist because there are many Native Americans that do not have those physical characteristics. It is a racist sentiment. It is as simple at that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

She didn’t say it. A relative said it. And, I don’t see how it could be taken as racist in context anyhow. It’s an offhand compliment. It’s like saying all Swedish women are blond and I ended up brunette. Of course all Swede’s are not blond and it’s just an envious statement, in no way racist. You are trivializing the actual, massive, daily harm caused by real racism by insisting that this is racist. You want real racism, look at President Jackson and the Trail of Tears. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about the history of my tribe. You are no expert. Also, you are attempting to change the subject from her use of racial stereotypes. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What's troublesome here is not that CharlesShirley arrived at this page upset by a very slanted version of what Warren said, why she said it, how often she said it, etc. What's troublesome is that, even after having the opportunity to learn the truth from actual RS describing the TWO WORDS that upset him, he continues to promote the inaccurate beliefs that he arrived with. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have that opinion. But it is just your opinion. It is not fact. She assumes, incorrectly, that all "Indians" have "high cheekbones" that is a false assumption that is based upon racial stereotypes, as many reliable sources have pointed out over and over again. Just hoping and wishing and pounding your feet doesn't change the fact that she was engaging in racial stereotypes all "Indian" while claiming to be "Cherokee" when it is clear that she is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. She used a racial stereotype to justify calling herself one. That fact does not change because a few Wikipedia editors want to believe it is not true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's lecturing you about the history of your tribe. They're just contextualizing Warren's comment. The idea that high cheekbones are an indication of Native American ancestry was widespread until quite recently. Beware presentism. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you please stop exaggerating. It doesn’t help. She did not assume that all Indians have high cheekbones. None of your sources include a claim by her that she is a member of the Cherokee tribe. She merely claimed to have Cherokee blood. One of your sources says the current principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee. So what? Most people are quite confused about their ancestry. Further, what right does the Cherokee Nation have to say you can't call yourself Cherokee because you aren’t a direct lineal ancestor to someone on the Dawson or Baker roles, created centuries after the origin of Cherokee tribes? There are Christian sects that claim you aren’t Christian if you aren’t reborn. There are Jewish sects that claim you aren’t Jewish if you don’t subscribe to their level of orthodoxy. But, they don’t have that right either. Frankly, arguments about what part she is or is not Indian and what she is allowed to call herself reminds me of the Wannsee Conference. Forgive me Godwin. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No one is exaggerating. I am pointing exactly what she said. She quoted her Aunt who said that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". There are reliable sources that have said exactly what I said. I quoted one above, Rebecca Nagel. The long list of comments you stated above are all true and they are all beside the point. She tried to use the comments of her Aunt to justify calling herself an "Indian" and she flat out stated that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". This is a racial stereotype and Rebecca Nagel and others have pointed this out. Now, you don't like this fact, but it is true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OpEds are not, typically, considered RS for matters of fact and this one certainly is not. We know what Warren said about high cheekbones. Many reporters quoted it verbatim, and it is on tape. Rebecca Nagle in that article is misrepresenting what Warren said. The fact that other people before you have misrepresented what Warren said should make you dubious about believing other things they say, considering that it is easily proven that they are lying about the "high cheekbones" quote. The fact that Nagle gets upset when people talk about Native American heritage in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY people talk about Irish heritage or Polish heritage, is not the fault of Elizabeth Warren. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. YoPienso (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Yopienso for your response. Your comment is an example of the lack of intelligent dialog happening on this page as it concerns Warren's false claims. YoPienso does not provide an intelligent response to XavierItzm's excellent and insightful question, just a negative. It is a pathetic response. Warren tried to say she is Indian because she has "high cheekbones" (yes, her Aunt said it first, but she repeated it to justify her false claim) and that cheekbones comment is a stereotype based upon a what non-Native folks think Indians look like. It is Warren's BS argument and many editors are choosing to ignore it. If Trump has made such a ignorant, backwards, stereotypical statement then it would be worked into the Trump article and every article that even mentions Trump in even a obscure way. Thanks, YoPienso for showing the world what a lack of intelligent discussion has been happening on this page and lack of rationale behind leaving out her false Indian justification which was based upon an ignorant, backwards stereotype. There are tons of reliable sources that criticize her backward-looking justification but they have been whitewashed from the article. -CharlesShirley (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Surprise appearance

She was warmly welcomed at Tuesday’s event. She could barely make it through the crowd of about 150 people as she was trying to leave, with attendees swarming her for photos and hugs by the door. Before she left, NCAI President Jefferson Keel and National Indian Gaming Association Chairman Ernie Stevens Jr. greeted her and took several photos with her. Prior to the event, the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center also presented Warren with a Native American shawl to thank her for her work on the Violence Against Women Act.

“It’s important that we show our support for her. We’re not in the room yet,” said Brenda Toineeta Pipestem, a former NIWRC board member and currently a tribal Supreme Court justice. “We have to rely on our allies to fight for us behind closed doors and on the floor of the Senate to protect our Native American women and children.”

Haaland introduced Warren at the event, saying, “Indian Country needs strong allies like Elizabeth Warren, whose unwavering commitment to Native communities and Native American women and children is needed in this political era.”

Warren also spoke in a surprise appearance at the 2018 conference for the National Congress of American Indians and received a standing ovation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-native-american-conference_us_5c62ed73e4b00ba63e4ae657?fbclid=IwAR2LxrtjB6cPnPGqZmiRhpvLE9ASTSA-B_JhetlqMyaBDrYj_PdqdvLkmEM

PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Warren's claim of being Cherokee and Indian

The article is getting whitewashed again. Warren now admits she was wrong to claim Cherokee ancestry. She called the Chief of the Cherokee Nation and apologized for using a DNA test and claiming she was Cherokee when she was not. Objective3000 has removed the reliably sourced information from the article. No editor of Wikipedia can ever claim that this issue should not be covered in this article. Even Warren herself by apologizing to the tribe admits fault, as the New York Times has pointed out. Please stop the whitewash. Wikipedia is better than that.CharlesShirley (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's more complex than that; and I don't think your edit matched the cite. It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry. But, she does not share the culture and her ancestry may not trace to the current definition of a tribal member. I think more care is required; and I'm not convinced that Rebecca Nagle's quote is a good start. In any case, your continued use of the word whitewash is a personal attack. Please assume good faith. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No. No. And no. This is the type of reckless comments that take the discussion down a road that eventually leads to removal of significant facts about this significant aspect of Warren's life. Objective3000 falsely states, "It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry." There is ZERO reliable sources that support this claim by Objective3000. It is simply not true. If Objective3000 has a reliable source that makes that claim then Objective3000 needs to provide it on this talk page. This is false information. It is wrong. It is not supported by a reliable source. It is not supported by experts of any kind, type, or nature. Warren has not made that claim herself in over a decade. Now, Objective3000 is the editor that removed my edits, which is fine, but Objective3000 is spreading false information in the defense of Objective3000's edit. This is important. Warren does not have ANY proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. She can't name one ancestor who is a member. The Cherokee Nation has pointed that she has no ancestors in the tribe. There is nothing to support Objective3000's false claim. The spreading of false information on the talk page needs to stop. The ONLY thing that Warren has presented is a DNA test that apparently points to an Indian ancestor 8 generations before her, which would be her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent. She does not know who this person is 8 generations before her. She doesn't even know if that person is a man or a woman. And most importantly she does not know, in any way, of what tribe that person was a member. That ancestor from 8 generations before could have been a Cherokee, but also could have been an Osage or a Chickasaw, or any the other 530 or so tribes in the United States (he/she could have been a member of thousands of South American tribes also). It is a complete falsehood to state that Warren has "Cherokee ancestry" when there is zero evidence to support it and even Warren herself has stopped saying that over a decade ago. She has claimed being an Indian and she has claimed to be a "Woman of Color". But very recently she has even stopped making those two claims. That statement is false and indefensible. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, a whitewash is a whitewash. It is not a personal attack. I did not point the word at any one specific editor. It is a descriptive term for the editing taking place on the article, not any one personal. So that is cleared up. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

And one last thing, Objective3000, the DNA test is provided a wide range of possibilities for Warren's unknown ancestor. It says 6 to 10 generations so her unknown ancestor could be her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, who she does not know and will probably will never know. I only picked 8 generations because it is the half way point in the 6 to 10 range. And this is most important part, NO ONE knows if that great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent was a Cherokee or a Choctaw, etc. Your statement ("It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry") is false in so many ways. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Warren's claims of being a Cherokee Indian have been whitewashed out of the article. For example, this Washington Post citation:

She signed her entries “Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee

CharlesShirley's edit was quite appropriate. In any event, the article ought to spell out that the Senator for 34 years (1984-2018) fully claimed to be a Cherokee. XavierItzm (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That source is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It's absolutely not usable for negative material in a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So, you didn't like the The Washington Post as a WP:RS? Fine. How about The Atlantic:

she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."

Dat good enuf for ya? XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely belongs. When I said that we have to wait for further coverage and analysis, especially in light of her 2020 campaign, this has reached the point and should absolutely be included. Of course, it does not belong to the lead, which does not even mention her two notable books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Warren does not have any proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren has never claimed to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. She states that according to family lore she has a Native American ancestor. The article makes that quite clear and nothing is being "whitewashed". Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, when if you sign your name «Gandydancer - - Cherokee» in a book repeatedly, that's as strong a claim you can make that you are a Cherokee. Did you not miss the citations above from The Atlantic and from the Washington Post? XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed - please check the talk page. I'm not going to go over and over the same old same old. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This news from 2 Feb 2019 has not been discussed. You want to avoid discussion of it:

Warren was touting her claim of Cherokee heritage as early as 1984, according to a cookbook titled “Pow Wow Chow” edited by her cousin that includes Warren’s recipes for a savory crab omelet and spicy barbecued beans. Warren is identified as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee” under each of five recipes.

XavierItzm (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a timeline by Boston Herald: [11]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have undone this edit because it doesn't reflect the cited source - which says nothing about the call being "brief" or "private"; additionally, the source specifically says she apologized to the tribe, not just the "current Chief." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• This looks pretty good, dropping the unneeded last bit of the rambly quote, and concisely (while still specifically, thanks to Corbie's edits) stating she apologized (and to whom) and the response (and from whom). I could see adding a few words to the start of the sentence to say something like "After calls by activists, Warren reached out..." (if there is consensus to do that), but including the long quote by one activist did seem excessive/undue. -sche (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed - this works for me as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, as there is no opposition to citing the new Boston Globe article cited by Wumbolo, I'll be adding it. Thanks XavierItzm (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo is citing the Boston Herald, not the Boston Globe. Big difference. Fortunately, the story has advanced quite a bit since February 2 when it was new, so we can add the Texas law signature and the apology with better context. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Removed for discussion

I have removed this information for discussion:

According to public financial disclosure forms filed with federal election officials in February 2019, Warren and her husband have a combined net worth between $4 million and $11 million, and her Cambridge home is assessed at $1.9 million.

Perhaps I need to do some research, but is this standard for our bios, to include their net worth and the cost of their home - unless for example they said, "oh I have very little wealth" while the facts proved otherwise? If this is standard I have no problem with including it, but is this the norm? Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, but Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton address their net worths. What's a "norm" that isn't covered by a guideline? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The note about net worth is common -- the note about the assessed value of a home is not.Ebw343 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, will add back the net worth, which if calculated correctly, should already included her $2mill primary home. XavierItzm (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding how to ascertain a norm that isn't spelled out in a guideline: well, putting "net worth of" into the site search turns up many articles that mention it, though paging through several pages of results, most seem to be on people who are notable partly for being the nth richest person in their country, which isn't the case here. Comparing other articles is similarly inconclusive: John McCain's lists his and his wife's erstwhile net worth, as does Hillary Clinton's, while e.g. Amy Klobucher's, Jeb Bush's and Jeff Flake's don't. 🤷. -sche (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fine for elected officials where this information is publicly reported. Election officials consider it important enough to require the information and to publish it and news media consider it important enough to routinely report. TFD (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong opinion on this. But, it seems that $4mm-$11mm is an awfully large range suggesting it’s more like a guesstimate, and I don’t think the federal disclosure forms accurately include net worth. The home makes no sense as we don’t know the mortgage, and, as said above, it should be included in net worth, unless she claims to live modestly and that contradiction is pointed out by RS to avoid WP:SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the "Personal Financial Disclosure" form required by law to be completed by members of Congress explicitly states that the value of a member's "primary residence" is not required to be disclosed. See [[12]] Ebw343 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the assessed value of the home, which is a matter of public record and has been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If assessed value is the tax assessment, it is a strange term. The assessed value of Trump’s golf courses are far below their actual value. In some states, it’s just a relative value having little to do with actual value. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean the assessments are lower than what Trump says they are worth. But Trump has consistently exaggerated his wealth. In the past, some assessments used valuations that were decades out of date, but today most including Massachusetts use some sort of current market value. The assessed value of Warren's house is the best guess for what it would have fetched had it been sold on the assessment date. TFD (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(restart indent) Just for some context, I looked at some other politicians' articles.

• Kamala Harris: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
• Kirsten Gillibrand: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
• Cory Booker: "Since 2013, Booker has lived in a townhouse he owns in the Lincoln Park section of Newark's Central Ward, also known as "the Coast" for its arts, jazz, and nightlife history.[200]"
• Joe Biden: (no discussion of personal wealth, home ownership, etc.)
• Bernie Sanders: "In 2016 and again in 2017, Sanders reported earnings of just over $1 million, mostly royalties and advances for his recently published books.[367][368] He and his wife own three homes, two in Vermont and one in Washington.[369][370][371]"

Perhaps Sanders and Warren are singled out for special scrutiny because of their political/economic policy ideas. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2020 programs and plans

This article direly needs updating for her 2020 plans. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian ancestry again

There is a disagreement about including the text which is bolded in the following line: "Warren also identified herself in 1986 as "American Indian" on a State Bar of Texas form which she filled out and signed, for which she has also apologized.[13] I think including the words makes the writing sound partisan. TFD (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the added words are unnecessary and can be left out. -sche (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

I understand that issues surrounding Sen. Warren's ancestry have been debated ad nauseam on this page. However, the section on Sen. Warren's ancestry is disjointed and is missing crucial information. After one sentence on her ancestry, the text leaps forward into how her ancestry may or may not have affected her career without first explaining why this question is significant. In addition to being poorly written, the section appears to minimize the issue and to sanitize the serious impact it has had on the Senator's public image. Supporters of Sen. Warren may believe that the public attention to her ancestry has been unfair. Even if that is true, however, it can't be whitewashed out of the article.

Because of the inflammatory nature of the issue, I have not edited the section at all, but am instead proposing some edits here. I have drawn some (not all) of this material from 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts, which does a much more comprehensive job of discussing Warren's ancestry than this article does. I propose that the following be added:

During Warren’s 2012 campaign for U.S. Senate, her ancestry became the subject of public controversy. A report in the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as a minority professor. Warren stated that she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry in order to meet others with a similar background. Harvard Law School had listed her as a minority professor 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.

According to the New England Historical Genealogical Society, several members of Warren's maternal family claim Cherokee heritage. The society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of Warren's Native American heritage. Some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren’s claim to Native American ancestry and questioned whether she benefitted from it.

:In February 2019, following reports that she had self-identified as "American Indian" on a 1986 Texas State Bar card, Warren apologized for "'not having been more sensitive'" about "'tribal citizenship'".

SunCrow (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

While this makes sense in an article related to politics, hard to see that it requires this much detail in a bio as we haven't actually seen any effect on her career as yet. Also, please be careful with words like "whitewashed" in a WP:BLP as that assumes she did something that needs whitewashing. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

O3000, I did not propose to add the word "whitewashed" to the article. And frankly, I find myself dumbfounded by your assertion about the lack of impact on the Senator's career. SunCrow (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What impact? O3000 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Like it or not, her statements about her ancestry were a major issue in her first Senate campaign and are now a major issue in her presidential campaign. SunCrow (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. And it is in an article about those subjects. But, if there is yet no effect on her career or life; why does it belong in her bio article? O3000 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If there were no effect on her career or life, it would not belong in the article. But that would be a very different situation. SunCrow (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. And you have provided no WP:RS that indicate an effect on her career or life. Which is why it belongs in the political article -- not the bio article. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not so. See links below, all of which come from reliable sources. SunCrow (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in the sources that show an effect on her career or life. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Objective3000, your perspective seems skewed. This is odd, given that you call yourself "objective" in your username. SunCrow (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If that is supposed to be an argument, I fail to understand your point. It certainly does not convince that this had an effect on her career or life. O3000 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I think you understand my point quite well. Controversy surrounding Sen. Warren's ancestry has been national news for the better part of a decade. For a significant portion of Americans, that controversy is the main thing Sen. Warren is known for. You are an intelligent person. You know perfectly well that this controversy has affected the Senator's career and life in a huge way. It is dishonest of you or anyone else to pretend that it hasn't. You must have an ulterior motive. That means you're not being objective. SunCrow (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, talk pages of BLPs are also subject to BLP rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. SunCrow (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The current text in the article is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a long way from fine. SunCrow (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current three paragraphs in the article is sufficient. warren's claim that her ggg grandparent had some Native American ancestry turned out to be probably true, and she never received any benefit from claiming to be a Native American. Nor does it seem to have damaged her career. I would point out that different people will see different aspects of her biography as more important than others, but articles have to provide weight based on coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that articles have to provide weight based on coverage in reliable sources. Based on that, Sen. Warren's ancestry should be accorded significant weight in the article given the immense amount of media coverage regarding her ancestry over the past decade. SunCrow (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The coverage is not immense compared with her overall coverage. Of course in right-wing media, that may be true, but that does not affect weight. TFD (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The coverage IS immense, even given her overall coverage. Please see links below, none of which come from right-wing media. SunCrow (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It is trivial to note that all of those links you provided are dated 2012; that's seven full years ago at this point. Your desire to place undue weight on sources discussing something that happened seven years ago, and then receded into background noise, is noted, but not agreed to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, your comment is inaccurate on multiple counts. First, you said that all of the links I provided were dated 2012. Not so. The three sources provided regarding Sen. Warren's 2019 apology were not (obviously) dated 2012. Second, your comment that Warren's ancestry controversy happened seven years ago and then "receded into background noise" is obviously not true and not in line with reliable sources. The DNA test and the public reaction to it were far from background noise; in fact, they were national news. Third, your comment about my desire to place "undue weight" is a falsehood. I am attempting to make the article accurate and balanced, which I believe it currently is not. There is no need to impugn my motives, and it is not appreciated (although it is unsurprising). SunCrow (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to a Wikipedia policy and guideline is not a personal attack nor a falsehood. You certainly believe that you are attempting to make the article accurate and balanced, but this article and particularly its discussion of Warren's ancestry is the result of literal years of talk page discussion, argument, consensus-building and compromise. Believing that all of those people who have worked on this article are wrong and that "I alone can fix it" is, well, not on. Your proposed changes, in my opinion, both put undue weight on the issue and introduce pointless redundancy. For example, why would you include basically the exact same text about the State Bar of Texas thing in two different places? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that all of the people who worked on this article were wrong, or that I alone could fix it. On the contrary, I proposed some changes for discussion on this page and led off by acknowledging that there has been intensive discussion already on this question. As to the State Bar of Texas issue, you are right; I forgot that there was an existing sentence on that topic. I will retract that suggestion above. As to undue weight, we are going to have to agree to disagree. SunCrow (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added three sentences to the article for balance and clarity. SunCrow (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And I have reverted; the existing version is the result of extensive discussion, debate, compromise and consensus-building on the talk page - you will note the pages and pages and pages of archives. You will need to establish a new consensus before materially altering it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Content on her ancestry can be changed, but only with consensus. Wording like "became the subject of public controversy" is problematic by nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I broadly agree with TFD's comment (of 19:59, 10 July 2019). I've been struck by how, when this was the topic de jour/news-cycle a while ago, it seemed more important even to me even as I tried to be mindful that RECENTISM makes things seem more important, whereas ever since, with the spotlight off, it's been easier to see how little weight RS actually give it relative to everything else in her extensive life. I think we could probably even trim and condense the section a bit. -sche (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Suncrow that this section is disjoint and hard to follow. It sort of assumes that readers are already familiar with the topic. Senator Warren has repeatedly said that due to the racism of her paternal grandparents against the Native American ancestry of her mother that her mother and father needed to elope. This is a very specific claim and was an important part of one of her 2012 campaign ads. It should be mentioned to help people understand the intersection of this topic with her political ads. --LondonYoung (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. The section is a total wreck IMO. I've been with this article since I helped to make it a GA many years ago and this section has gone from bad to worse. Trump continues to bring it up at his rally speeches saying her false claims not only got her jobs but now even saying they got her into school in the first place, so the interest in her heritage will not be going away anytime soon. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, LondonYoung and Gandydancer. I suppose I should be happy that the entire controversy hasn't been whitewashed out of the article. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with sche, Moboshgu, TFD, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans, and O3000. There is no consensus to smear the Senator's good name with information that is intended to be oppositional and damaging.

@SunCrow, that is certainly not my concern at all. IMO when one has to deal with a very difficult issue such as this the section needs to be either very long or very short. Since adding even more copy to an already bloated section is not acceptable it should be very short but well sourced. One compact paragraph is what we should shoot for. Gandydancer (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@PunxtawneyPickle - I agree there should never be a reason to smear anyone. But this section needs help! Firstly, the information that I think is needed is information that the senator herself has presented in her ads, it is not a smear, but it is important to understanding her own position in her own words. Secondly, this section is disjoint and hard to understand. Even if no information changes, it badly needs some writing help. --LondonYoung (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

References

It seems that references 12, 52 and 61 are the same. The same holds true for references 16 and 44. In addition to that, I think that since references 55, 114, 115, 116 and 158 contain more than one source they should be split in as many references as sources they have. Thank you --Arnaurs (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Native American category

sigh Yeah. I know too much ink (metaphorical and literal) has been spilled on this already, including in this talk page. But it is about the category "American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent". She no longer self-identifies as Native American or as having Native American ancestry it seems. She has said it was a story that her family told and she didn't question it, but now seeing as how many indigenous Americans have called her out, she has apologized and stated she isn't Native American. Should we keep the category? I do know some categories stick even after people have changed. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

She said she wasn't a citizen of the Cherokee Tribes. Did she say somewhere that she didn't have Native American ancestry? These are not the same thing. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

She has said that she is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. That is her most recent point of view. However, years ago she said she was "Cherokee" and she wrote her name on a cookbook as "Elizabeth Warren (Cherokee)". FYI. --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That meant "of Cherokee ancestry". Gandydancer (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)