Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Criticism from widely red blog

The blog Legal Insurrection written by William A. Jacobson is severely criticizing the missing ethnicity controversy information [1] I put a notice about it on Jimmy's talk page. While what and how much should be in the article about it is debatable, the lack of any section at all looks really NPOV.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, but did you even look at this page? The Jacobson article is linked, and discussed. The section has already been restored. Sorry if I sound petulant but you are acting like nothing has happened.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The section has been removed again. Why not just make the paragraph covering that issue a subsection under the 2013 election section? It is significant enough to stand out, but it can stand out under the election piece. $0.02 174.50.99.112 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you really believe that any major encyclopedia would do that in an Elizabeth Warren bio? It should be obvious to anyone that is not politically motivated that this was a minor bump along the way, not the mountain that some here want to make of it. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not a news daily or weekly. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting a solution. Why so serious? 174.50.99.112 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer and others have been working hard to minimize this issue in the Warren entry and to knock critics like Jacobson as "partisan." But facts are facts and Wikipedia has no business shading them, especially not to favor an active politician who has been talked about as a future Presidential prospect. This was a major issue in the campaign, and this Senate race was among the handful most closely covered in large part because Warren is widely regarded as a comer. She did claim Cherokee heritage on more than one occasion over a period of time. Challenged, neither she nor anyone else was able to find a shred of proof of her claim, while significant facts were adduced that tend to undermine it, such as the fact that relevant ancestors were white. She says that she never benefitted professionally from the claim but neither she nor Harvard have been willing to back that up. Gandydancer says "this is an encyclopedia, not a news daily." Exactly. A newspaper is free to be biased or partisan. Wikipedia should be neither.Burke242 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Burke242

You're missing the point entirely. You and others keep saying "there's no proof, there's no proof", "it was over a period of time"—those complaints are true but they have *nothing* to do with this discussion. Wikipedia is not the battleground where we decide whether each subject is an honorable politician or a liar. That's not our job. Wikipedia's job is to report the mainstream perspective on a subject, and the vast majority of mainstream, reliable biographies of Warren do not go on for pages about her ancestry at the expense of all else. So we're not going to. —Designate (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Nonsense. I'm not missing any point. The only point is whether Wikipedia entries are honestly and fairly factual -- regardless of whatever the "mainstream perspective," whatever that is, might be. Indeed, your invoking a supposed "mainstream perspective" gives the game away: whenever Wiki confronts a contentious political issue, editors can claim that their perspective on it is the "mainstream" one. The Cherokee contretemps was a sigificant problem for Warren in her campaign, notwithstanding that she won. Frankly, it's impossible to imagine anyone attempting to minimize such an unsubstantiated claim of Native American ancestry if it had been made by Scott Brown. This is pure and simple a naked partisan effort to minimize the issue to help shield a liberal Democrat who is sometimes mentioned as a future national candidate from scrutiny on a matter deeply embarassing to her. I would not be the least bit surprised if some of the "editors" involved in this effort were Democratic Party operatives. This sort of thing inevitably will undermine Wikipedia's credibility and is in any case shameful. And not incidentally, no one is proposing that the subjecf of her supposed ancestry "go on for pages...at the expense of all else" but only that the issue as it was raised and responded to publicly in her campaign be described honestly and fairly, which can be done in a paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burke242 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the point is the issue was a larger part of the campaign than you are acknowledging. That's why "over time" is pertinent--this was not a one-time gaffe of Warren's, but a sustained claim, and one very likely made in good faith. Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013

Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html J2M2 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: Where are you looking to have this in the article? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What reliable source backs this up? Or is this just something you read in a blog somewhere? FurrySings (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment

I came here from the GA reassessment and have no other dog in this fight. To me the large paragraph on her Native American heritage comes across as easily undue. In its current form it doesn't meet the criteria for a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have a dog in this fight and am not at all satisfied with the entry either. The problem is, it was a typical political battle that one sees so much of these days in which the opponent's past is gone through with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything that can be twisted into a reason to sway the vote. I believe that now that the election is over with the whole episode should be dropped. But if it is kept, it must fairly state both sides of the issue and that takes closer to what we've got now. It seems to me that we did have a shorter version for awhile and then someone decided that information from a political blog was more accurate than this article and we went through a whole episode of edit warring once again. If you have an idea for a shorter version that remains fair to all concerned, that would be a good thing. Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would just go with what happened, Warrens response, and then a response from the most suitable critics (all neutrally worded of course). I tried an edit to this effect here. AIRcorn (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also edited the section in question, but let me make it very clear to you Aircorn, this article has many other issues wrong with it that would keep it from getting a "Good Article" title. So the implication from your comment that the only problem with the article is your belief that there is too much emphasis on her decision to call herself a Cherokee sometimes and to call herself a Delaware other times--a decision that she only did in the context of looking for higher paying law professor jobs and a decision that went on for about one quarter of her life and suddenly stopped when she obtain a Harvard law professor position--is, in my opinion flat out wrong. People that support her want to edit down the fact that she cannot provide one shred of documentary evidence that she is member of the Cherokee Nation or even the Delaware tribe. Her supporters, like you, just say, ok she said that one time, there is too much emphasis on that topic. Wrong. She made the claim several times, over several years, but only in a book put together by law deans to find new law professors. Also, her supporters say that ok it might be or might not be true but it is being raised right now by Warren's political opponents. Wrong. The most vocal critics are members of the Cherokee Nation who dislike the fact that she apparently has spent one quarter of her life claiming to be Cherokee but she has never participated in Cherokee Nation activities, not cultural, political, or spiritual. These Cherokee critics find her claims, without a shred of documentation, to be a huge insult to the tribe and its members. Yes, I understand, as an outsider you don't see what the problem is. However, you probably have not had to endure years and years of fake Indians (white folks who claim to be Indian for whatever reason) taking their jobs and opportunities. So, yeah, you think the focus on how she claims to be a member of race that she cannot provide even the least shred of evidence to being is undue. I expect that. You also immediately ripped whole pieces out of the article before you commented. I don't know if you actually read the talk page before you ripped out the information, but I would find such a claim suspect. It is false claim to state that just because there is mention of Warren's lack of documentation for the her Cherokee claims makes the article not fit for "Good Article." I would right here and right now that you have made a false equivalency. There are numerous problems with this article and many of them have to do with the fact that there are tons of other questions about her Cherokee claims are NOT covered in the article. If a white person claimed to black for over ten years to get access to better and better law professor jobs there would be no end to the references to that series of undocumented claims in a Wikipedia article. But if the white person claims to be Indian, with ZERO documentation to back up the claims and that white person happens to be a well-known Democratic advocate and politician then those years and years of claims to be another race are constantly trimmed down and sometimes completely whitewashed from the article. Please provide a much, much, much better rationale for ripping whole chunks of notable, reliably sourced information from the article other than the only claim that you have made so far, which is essentially, "I want to rate the article as a 'Good Article' but I can't do that with all of this pesky claims by her of being a Cherokee in the article." There has to be a better argument than that.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that wall of text. Seriously man, judging from that rant you need to take a step back. I have got no interest in this article (or any other American politics one for that matter) beyond the fact that it is labelled good. I sure as hell are not going to argue with you. Fix the paragraph and I will keep it as Good, don't and I will delist it. If someone disagrees either way then a community reassessment can be carried out. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Aircorn for making my point. If you have no interest in the topic why do you insist that your edits are better and why do you feel qualified to rip out huge pieces of information? If you are truly disinterested why do you feel like you need to attack my response to your comments (a response that I have spent a lot of time and effort thinking about) with the flippant "wall of text." If you don't want to hear others point of view don't ask for it. Also, if you aren't going to engage in conversation on this talk page then you edits to the article need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially if you have no interest in the article on top of it. Whether the article is assessed or how it is assessed is not dependent upon your opinion, just your assessment, which is the not the definitive assessment. Seriously if you are going to ignore all of my comments and blow them off, why did you even attempt to engage in conversation?--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you find it undue, when we define undue by source coverage, and the source coverage of her ethnic claims has been heavy. There is far more RS coverage of her ethnic claims than of her books, which receive multiple paragraphs, for example. —Designate (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't really though. I do a bit of work with referee articles, and the only time they make it into the news is when they make a mistake. Therefore all their articles would consist of documenting mistakes made in every game. I don't really see why the article needs ten sentences to describe something that could be explained in 3 or 4. It doesn't even rate a mention in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone else see why it is 10 sentences. You don't because, as you admit, have no interest in the article and do not see why the topic is important. Also, since you are not engaging in actual discussions based upon the substance of the arguments that disagree with you and your admitted disinterest in the topic, I have to wonder why you are still hanging around stating that want to rip out notable, reliably sourced information from the article? If you want to rip out information that you have no vested interest in, other than some vague notice that you don't think it belongs then you would want to explain yourself instead of simply flippantly blow off others who have given solid reasons why the information is still in the article. You have not responded to the substance you just repeated your opinion as if your opinion is enough reason to have notable, reliably sourced information ripped from the article. Information that was debated by tons of other editors that expressed real interest in the article, unlike you.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Current version

In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as a Native American. Harvard Law School had publicized the entries in the 1990s in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. In 1999 Harvard began to publish its affirmative action plan on its website. The report for that year lists a single Native American senior professor. Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had been promoting her Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper. The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Native American lineage. Warren maintained that Native American ancestry was a part of her family folklore, a statement echoed by her three siblings and several of her cousins, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background. The Brown campaign, called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record", and several Cherokee groups came out against her. Warren stated that she has not received any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry and colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she has worked have publicly supported her statements. There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements. Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision.

Is anyone disputing that the Harvard Law School publicised Warren as Native American? If not then we don't need to name the Boston Herald. The first three sentences of that section can easily be condensed to one. We can then combine Warrens statement that she has that ancestry with her saying she has not received any advantages for it, although you may wish to change that to Charles Fried as it probably carries more weight from him. The fact that it is echoed by her siblings and cousins does not seem that important if we have it from her and neither really is her reasoning (it is more important to say what she didn't do, not what she was planning to do with it). The Brown quote does not really add anything new to the controversy. They are simply asking her to come clean, it sounds like typical politician rhetoric. The strongest evidence against it comes from the New England Historical Genealogical Society and the Cherokee opinion is also relevant.

My version (after Designates edit)

In April it was discovered that Warren had self-identified as a Native American in a series of Harvard law directory entries, and that Harvard Law School had publicized the entries in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren maintained that Native American ancestry was a part of her family folklore and that she has not received any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Native American lineage and several Cherokee groups came out against her.

To me this says much the same thing in half the space. AIRcorn (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I wonder if we should just move it to her "academic career" section since it's not really tied into the election. —Designate (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying 'it was discovered that Warren ...' implies that Warren was engaged in wrongdoing. Also, that Warren's family and cousins back her claim shows that she is not just making things up. FurrySings (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you on the discovered, that was poor wording on my part (see below). I still don't think that having Warrens family also say it provides much extra proof. However it could easily be combined with Warrens statement "Warren and some family members maintain that Native American ancestry..." without too much effort. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the biased kind of comments that are all over this article talk page. The fact that a small number of cousins say she is telling the truth does not prove "she is not just making things up." That is FurrySings' opinion and nothing more. It is an opinion that is quite probably incorrect also. You can find more family members that say she is making the whole thing up. Also, did you notice that FurrySings is referring to "cousins" not parents or brothers or sisters. Her direct family members are not stepping up and defending her. Also, more cousins have stated that her Cherokee claims are total garbage than cousins who have defended her. FurrySings is jumping to a conclusion about the reliably sourced material and stating a conclusion that is not his/hers to make and his/her opinion looks to be quite wrong. FurrySings' conclusion is original research and it does not belong in the article. Now, the fact that Warren's own family members state that she is making the whole thing up is being ripped from the article by an editor who has admitted that he/she does not have an interest in the subject and who only wants to trim it down so he can slap a "Good Article" tag on the article. This really is not the stuff of good editing. It is a fact that Warren's own family members question her Cherokee claims is notable and no amount of opinions express by FurrySings and no amount of ignoring that fact by a biased editor who only wants to slap the phrase "Good Article" on it will change that fact. Warren's own family has stated that her Cherokee claims are rubbish and that fact is notable and should not be removed.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict--FurrySings and ExclusiveAgent's comments not yet read...):::Sorry, your (AIRcorn) suggestion won't do because it is not accurate. In the first place you say, "self-identified as a Native American in a series of Harvard law directory entries", but actually "she had been listing herself for seven years as a minority in a legal directory often used by law recruiters to make diversity-friendly hires". Also note how you have changed the wording to "it was discovered" as though it was something that had been hidden rather than the present wording "drew attention to". Then you do not bother to say that she says she was not aware of the Harvard listing. Then you completely skip any supporting information as is now in the article: "and colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she has worked have publicly supported her statements. There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements. Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision."

However there is wording that can be deleted such as, "..., a statement echoed by her three siblings and several of her cousins, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background. The Brown campaign, called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record", and..."

This information should placed right where it is, not moved to another section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to mention--this article is also being discussed here: [2] Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair points on discovered. "...attention was drawn to..." works much better. I did mention above that it would might be better to have Charles Fried in there. I don't think we need "and colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she has worked have publicly supported her statements" if we have Charles Fried though as they are basically saying the same thing and we can put a name to Fried. Maybe it could be "Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, and other colleagues say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry". This could be used instead of "and that she has not received any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry" as it is much stronger coming from someone else (thinking secondary source compared to primary from a Wikipedia point of view). To be honest "There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements" reads a bit like original research, plus it is always hard to prove a negative. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree on all those points. —Designate (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all points as well. "There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements" is a recent addition and I don't remember where it came from nor exactly what it means. I never actually was happy with most of this section but have been afraid to touch it for fear of starting another edit war. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Section trimmed per suggestions of "uninvolved" editor. No information re Cherokee reactions was removed, in fact almost all of the information removed was information that supported Warren's denial of the charges of deceit in the incident. Hopefully we have finally put this matter to rest. Gandydancer (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. For whatever it's worth I endorse this version of the paragraph. (I still think it belongs under "Academic career" since it is not tied into the election at all. Even if it came to light in mid-2012 it's still related to her career story more than the election.) But in any case it's a solid summary of the situation. —Designate (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Designate, I think best to leave it where it's at. I wonder what others think? It is true that it is more related to her Academic career even though, (IMO) it was brought out as a result of the digging that is now done on every politician as opponents look for dirt. The whole idea was to show that she had lied about her heritage to get leverage to get hired at Harvard. We never will know her true status as far as the amount of Cherokee she is, only that legally she is not part Cherokee. She certainly seems to believe she is, even though she can't prove it. But we do know that the people that hired her deny that her claimed heritage had anything to do with hiring her. So in the end, nothing under the table or illegal was shown to have occurred. Should we dirty her career section with what in the end seems to have turned out to have been political mud slinging? That's the reason that I think it belongs where it's at right now. Gandydancer (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat WP:OR to characterize it as an election issue (and implicitly, not a real issue). As a comparison, Mitt Romney's college pranks and the dog thing are presented chronologically to when they happened, not all lumped in the election section. Barack Obama's drug use is presented chronologically and George W. Bush's rumored drug use is presented under "Personal life", even if these didn't become public information until their elections (and are easily forgotten outside of an election context). I think this is the right way to do it. Otherwise the election section can become a de facto "Controversies" section under a different title. It's also guaranteed that this issue will pop up again if she ever runs for the White House, but we obviously wouldn't mention it a second time, right? —Designate (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound. Let's see if others have any thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

sub committee

Senator Warren is not chair of any of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions subcommittees. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, thanks for pointing that out. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013

In the last full paragraph of her "Early life, education, marriage, and family" section there are two consecutive sentences beginning with "however." I think "However, she states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true. However, she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate," should be "She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate." My justification is that the paragraph contains too many contrary conjunctions and seems awkward. 174.50.41.10 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of her first bill

She has introduced her first bill, the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act, and set up a petition at SignOn.org. (http://pac.signon.org/sign/give-students-the-same)

I do not know enough about the subject to do more than suggest someone update the article with information on this new bill. Thanks!

67.1.71.42 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

How's that? ...that the gov't is making so much off student loans may well be added too...? Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits removed

Using "Vote Smart" and "On the Issues" a long list of positions has been added. I question both sources. From the web:

Jesse Gordon, co-founder of OnTheIssues.org, the website that provides Americans Elect with its thumbnail representations of where each prospective candidate stands on the issues, said they base their analyses on past statements and actions and what he acknowledged were "inferential leaps that some readers might consider too large a leap."

Re Vote Smart:

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2012, are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Political figure's articles in Wikipedia must not contain anything that is not only very well-documented, but anything that goes above and beyond information that might be found in the bios of similar political figures. And, when it is included, even the wording must be carefully considered--for instance, the statement, "Warren is a staunch opponent of gun rights and has openly expressed her intent to limit second amendement rights" is one example.

Re abortion, this terminology has been added, "Warren is a strong pro-abortion advocate", while the correct terminology is "pro-choice".

The issues have been picked from a list--why some and not others?

For these reasons, and the fact that some new additions aren't referenced at all, I am removing these recent edits. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Vote Smart and OnTheIssues both engage in synthesis of existing information and original research, which are two things we strive to avoid. Just because they did it and not a Wikipedia editor doesn't make it okay to use. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle has again added information. It should be discussed, but s/he has not brought it to the talk page. I believe that it should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed for the reasons originally stated, but I question Muboshgu's understanding of SYNTH and OR. Sources are allowed to use synthesis and original research, which is obvious if you try to think of a source that uses neither. The problem with the sources is one of speculation, which is problematic to begin with, but exponentially more so due to BLP. We can't launder speculation (or what might be speculation) as fact, but we could in a non-BLP cite PVS for the proposition "Project Vote Smart claims..." In a BLP, even that level of speculation is suspect, and not worth the bother in political bio. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a second issue here: presentation. User:DaltonCastle created a series of one-sentence sections, most starting "Warren supports" or some such. Stylistically, this is terrible. If all that can be said is that Warren supports X, then it probably isn't worth noting in that form. These things either need to be developed to at least a few sentence each or worked together, perhaps describing her brand of progressivism, which in broad principle could be gleaned from media reporting. -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I added the original sources as requested to the sections I created. Now what's the problem? Style?? How about you try actively fixing it yourself instead of just delete delete delete?? What's the REAL reason you don't approve of this being up?DaltonCastle (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see this as a problem of undue weight. Which issues are important to Warren? Which issues are important to the media who are observing Warren's career? None of these questions can be answered by Project Vote Smart or On The Issues because they try to discern the politician's position even if the politician has not clearly stated their position. The cookie-cutter approach they use does not lend itself to intelligent discussion about a politician's positions. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That is helpful, but this still doesn't prove to me that her stances should simply not be listed.DaltonCastle (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So none of you have any intention of continuing this discussion? I should just unquestioningly accept that this info doesn't go up?? Her views, on what are publicly deemed important issues, just dont matter??? I wouldnt be upset if you guys were actually working to improve this, but you are just blindly deleting.DaltonCastle (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try to add one section at a time, waiting a day in between? MilesMoney (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not trying to have an angry tone answering this...but why? How will adding one item at a time make it ok?DaltonCastle (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you add one item at a time, with a gap in between, it'll give editors who have concerns a chance to share them. If you make too many changes at once, faster than anyone can share their concerns, you're more likely to have your changes rejected. Try it; what do you have to lose? MilesMoney (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

comma needs to be changed to semi-colon

Under "Elizabeth Warren" (the 1st topic), in the 3d paragraph, in the last sentence there should be a semicolon after "Aging" instead of a comma. There are too many commas in this sentence and this would be proper usage of the semicolon to fix the problem. Lady Privatier (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PrairieKid, here's a quick grammar lesson from the Writing Center of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Semicolons can be used to:

• Link lists where the items contain commas to avoid confusion between list items

"There are basically two ways to write: with a pen or pencil, which is inexpensive and easily accessible; or by computer and printer, which is more expensive but quick and neat."

Semicolons are used for many things, and separating independent clauses is but one of them. Now that this is settled, I'm going to viciously edit-war to enforce compliance with my grammar Nazi tendencies. MilesMoney (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A) "Viciously Edit War...?" I am getting really POed...

B) Not in this case. Let me give you another example.

"Jim, Bill; Jeff and I are going to the movies."

Would be incorrect, because you can just as easily write "Bill, Jeff, Jim and I." In the example above, I could not move around pencil with computer, because the sentence would lose part of its meaning. You can't just replace every comma with a semi-colon.

Commas are used for lists. Sorry, but you're wrong here. It's a simple issue. Let it go. Don't edit war with me again. I am so tired of you. PrairieKid (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While I was rather obviously joking about vicious edit wars and grammar Nazi tendencies, I wasn't joking at all about the grammar. We have, on the one hand, a university-level guide to American English; on the other, we have you. Why should anyone put your personal opinions above this reliable source?

Here's how the article should look:

She was assigned to the Senate Special Committee on Aging; the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

We have a list in which individual items contain lists. We can't merge them all into one big list because there isn't any such thing as a committee that's in charge of all of these items. When you change the semicolon to a comma, you take away our ability to group these lists into sublists, making the whole thing ambiguous. Here's how you want it to look.

She was assigned to the Senate Special Committee on Aging, the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Some of the commas separate the three top-level items, others separate items within each of those. What a mess!

I tried to take a humorous attitude because, well, it's awkward teaching basic grammar to an ostensible adult. Your reaction wasn't adult: it was hostile and counterproductive. I'm going to let the error stand for a bit, then fix it anyhow, because grammar is not an area where your personal opinion is authoritative. MilesMoney (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of semis in the last sentence of the lead. They're correct grammatically and preferable in this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee heritage

Warren contends she only listed herself as native American to meet others of similar background, but refused to meet with Indian groups during the election, and since being elected has made no effort to serve on the committee for Indian affairs The article section regarding Warren's alleged native heritage still contains weasel words and an implied bias: "According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[49] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage, and several Cherokee groups came out against her." This is not only uncited, it appears to run counter to statements from the Chief of the Cherokee Nation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/cherokee-nation-scott-brown_n_1916404.html and http://watchdogwire.com/blog/video/chief-bill-john-baker-speaks-to-watchdogwire-about-elizabeth-warren/. At the least, the "several Cherokee groups" should be identified and quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrose909 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I'm removing it for now. Perhaps it can be replaced with something like "Cherokee groups xxx, xxx & xxx, came out against her, while yyy supported her." That is, if reliable cites can be found. FurrySings (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not a good point. It is very clear that we discussed the importance of the Cherokee groups total distaste for her calling herself a Cherokee when she cannot provide any written documentation that she is one. We discussed that over and over again way back months ago. All of that discussion has been archived and I have been watching as this so-called "reassessment" has been taking place. However, it is the same people that from months ago that attempted to whitewash the article of vocal, persistent and ongoing criticism of Warren claimed, but unproven, Cherokee ancestry are at it again. I will re-insert these well-known and ongoing criticisms of Warren and that information will stay in the article. No one owns the article. But there was discussion months ago that everyone agreed to and the complaints of the Cherokee groups will remain in the article. Wikipedia is not censored. Remember also that there was at least five (5) different reliable sources that supported the existence of these complaints against Warren. Over time those five reliable sources were taken out of the article one by one. And now the same people that took out the reliable sources now claim that the Cherokee group complaints about Warren claiming Cherokee ancestry when she has absolutely zero documentation to prove the claim state that the Cherokee comments cannot be supported by reliable sources. Look, we had this discussion months ago there was a consensus to refer to the Cherokee groups, FurrySings and Danrose909 cannot re-write the history of the Cherokee complaints. The Chief of the Cherokee Nation does NOT speak for all Cherokees. That is flawed, incorrect understanding of Indian Country. It like saying that Obama must be telling the truth because Joe Biden says so. It is like saying Bush was telling the truth because Dick Cheney said so. Warren and the current Chief are both Democrats. No one person speaks for all 250,000 Cherokee Nation members. That is a joke.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of talk and work has gone into this issue and agreement has been reached. Nobody is trying to rewrite history here. This is a Warren bio and it is not appropriate to go into great detail on this matter. This is not a decision for one editor to make--WP does not work like that. We make group decisions, which may not please some people, but we'd never get anything done if one person expects to get their way regardless of group consensus. 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Gandydancer (talk)

What is your point? You are right it is not a decision for one editor to make. It is also not appropriate to whitewash the article of the concerns of the Cherokee groups. It was discussed in long detail back in January and now it has been whitewash--under the false premise that it is not supported by reliable sources. I placed it back in the article with reliable sources to support it and FurrySings removed it again. This has been discussed by many, many editors. Wikipedia is not censored.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It is important because she lied about her minority status to get the job at Harvard.MagicKirin11 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's your word against the people from Harvard that hired her and we need to go with what they said, not what you think.Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-NPOV presentaton of Native American controversy

The account of Warren's colleagues, saying that her "1/32nd" Native American heritage made no difference in her hiring, is dubious and should be balanced with a critical view. Proponents and opponents of affirmative action should at least concede empirical facts; under-represented minorities get benefits in hiring and admissions at elite universities (it's true that Right-wingers exaggerate the extent of these benefits, but that doesn't mean they don't exist). Maybe her qualifications would've exceeded that of her peers without it, but she still should've assumed she would get an advantage by defining herself as an under-represented racial minority. Steeletrap (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for this late reply but I completely missed this edit on the article talk page. Steeletrap and I have have been having a conversation on my talk page. To reply to this post, I'm not aware that Warren or any of her colleagues have specifically said she is, or is not, 1/32 Native American. On my talk page Steeletrap said s/he would provide RS for this statement. It has also been suggested on my talk page that United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 is more appropriate for an extensive discussion of her senate run, and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

She didn't propose a $22 minimum wage

The intro said[3] that she "proposed raising the minimum wage to $22 (or more) an hour", but the references given disagree. Two of the four references had no mention of Warren, so I deleted those. The other two said she was in favour of an increase, and that she pointed at the stats that showed if if the minimum wage had been constantly increased in line with productivity, then it would now be $22.64. In fairness to whoever wrote that sentence, one article's headline did suggest the Warren wants a minimum wage of $22/h, but from skimming the articles I don't she where she proposes any law or even says "let's make it $22/h".

There's an occasional use of "it should be $22/h", but that's after saying "if it was raised in line with productivity", so the "should" is just giving the result of the calculation, not expressing a policy proposal.

I guess what happened is that someone took a sensationalist headline too literally and added it here without checking the details. Gronky (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Native American stuff deleted without explanation

This story was THE most covered in the campaign! It was the lead question in both the debates, garnered extensive discussion on every prime-time news show, and made the front pages of every major MA newspaper. I don't understand why this gets so little weight (just a few sentences) when far less notable things (as determined by mention in RS), such as Warren's role on the banking committee, get so much attention.

Moreover, the section as it is obscures the issue. The fact (per the Washington Post) that Warren was listed under federally mandated affirmative action disclosures as a "Native American" is highly informative, as is the fact that she doesn't (again, per the Post) meet the federal criteria for N.A., even if she's 1/32nd. Why should this be 'cleansed' from the Warren page? Steeletrap (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It certainly was a mistake on my part to discuss this on my own talk page and if I knew where it was leading I would not have followed that path. Your edits came right at New Years--I was quite busy and overlooked your talk page note. At any rate, I'm going to go back to the stable wording of many months while this issue is discussed. If you look at the talk page history you will find numerous pages of discussion that finally resulted in a compromise. To ignore the hard work of numerous editors and come along and replace it with your own version of what is appropriate is not at all acceptable. I think we need to first discuss MastCell's suggestion that any more detailed information should be proposed at the senate run between Warren and Brown article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change, Gandy. You aren't making an argument here, and it just seems like -- if you'll excuse the expression -- whitewashing. Why shouldn't we note that, per RS, Warren, does not meet federal standards for Native? Why is it irrelevant that, per multiple RS, she was (erroneously) cited by Harvard as a Native American in affirmative action filings to the federal government. These facts are absolutely essential to understanding the controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Warren's notability is inextricably tied to the NA scandal and this biography is incomplete without full coverage of the topic. I see no valid reason for removing the content, particularly when the argument seems to be "a bunch of us decided months ago to leave it out" without any basis in policy. Editors should be mindful that Warren is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and in such a case "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". Roccodrift (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Before I came, the entry on the NA thing was just awful. There was no explanation as to what the "law school directory" actually is, no mention of the fact that she doesn't meet the federal definition of Native American, and no discussion of how Harvard cited Warren as a racial minority in its affirmative action filings to the federal government. These specifics were substituted with vague assertions that fail to adequately summarize, and thereby acted to ameliorate, the charges of her critics. Steeletrap (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's some of the back story. For some reason Gandydancer wants to suppress this information. Obviously, I think it should be included with due weight. Yopienso (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Post was misquoted and their conclusion was left out of the section leaving it not NPOV. They give the Brown campaign 2 Pinochia noses for not having any evidence that Warren used her Native American status on her resume or employment application to try and gain a benefit. Alatari (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Pinocchio Test

Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her. The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university. Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job. But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired. The Fact Checker expects accusers to satisfy the burden of proof for their charges. That was the case when Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney tried to avoid taxes with offshore accounts. We awarded four Pinocchios to Reid because the senator lacked conclusive evidence — or much evidence at all, for that matter. We’ve also knocked the Obama campaign repeatedly for jumping to unwarranted conclusions about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital.

The outstanding questions about Warren’s directory listing — and her relying on family lore rather than official documentation to make an ethnic claim — certainly raise serious concerns about Warren’s judgment. But in the debate, the Republican incumbent conflated conjecture and sketchy information to make a claim not supported by the available evidence, and so he earns Two Pinocchios.

They did give Brown two Pinocchios for saying she "checked the box" on employment forms without "proof." They did not say he had no evidence for this claim, but merely that he shouldn't present it as established, proven fact.

They do not say there is no evidence Warren benefited from her alleged heritage. On the contrary, they say "Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job." They criticize Brown because he doesn't have "proof" or conclusive evidence for his claims. Steeletrap (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on this issue, per WP:UNDUE. I looked at the changes that have been made recently and they push this issue too hard. I reverted the section to its slightly smaller status from last year. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What's your argument that the attention to the issue is undue? Simply asserting it with no supporting rationale is meaningless. Steeletrap (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To begin with, your version had Warren saying she was a racial minority rather than Warren checking a box saying she had Cherokee heritage. Your version implied Warren trying to get favorable treatment as a minority when she has never done that. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have no proof that she tried or did not try to get favorable treatment, but we have good reason to believe she did. We do know that a Native American woman, identified by the WP as almost certainly being a Warren was included in Harvard's affirmative action filings to the federal government. We also know that she cited herself as a racial minority in a law directory which was used by law schools to hire racial minorities (Native American was not specifically listed as her racial group, just "minority", in the directory). You either

G haven't read or can't understand the issue. Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree we have no proof. The problem with your wording is that you were making her look guilty. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It is problematic when an editor reverts controversial information back to day one after many editors have hammered out a compromise and left. And it is a lot to ask of an editor to once again read numerous sources to find exactly what the arguments were about that resulted in a mutually acceptable compromise. Binksternet, if I remember correctly, Warren did not check any boxes. What she did was to say that she was part of a minority group in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty, which is used to hire staff (and NOT as Steeltrap said in her version, to hire minority staff). As far as I know, the directory had no definition of exactly what guidelines one must use to claim minority status, but if it does none of our sources ever mentioned it. Thus, while I'd guess we'd all agree that her explanation sounds pretty lame, it would be OR to suggest in the article that she must have lied. We do have numerous sources that insist that she was not hired because she was a minority. Should we suggest that they all lied as well?

That said, I still firmly believe that this information, other than perhaps a mention, belongs in the article about her senate run and not here. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Warren did not check any boxes"; that is speculation. We have no proof she did or didn't. Remember: she hasn't even denied 'checking the box' on employment applications, though she has denied doing it on college and law school applications.

My edits have not said she "lied." They have presented the facts -- that she listed herself in a directory of minority law professors (which was used to hire staff) before withdrawing herself right after she got her full professorship at Harvard, and that (per the Washington Post) she was almost certainly reported by Harvard in federal affirmative action filings as a "Native American." These are facts and they do imply she checked the box. (We also include the statements from the people who hired her that she didn't get favorable treatment.)

No, she did not list herself as a minority in a list of law professors. Instead, the book listed Warren as a minority based on information they obtained. The cited source, the WaPo Fact Checker, says that there is no proof that Warren tried to get preferential treatment. The source says that Warren's accusers get "Two Pinocchios" for failing to prove their point. This WaPo source was the main source for Steeletrap's changes, so it's very difficult for me to understand how the text got to be so damning to Warren. The main source is not damning. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeltrap, while never saying right out that Warren lied, you have clearly written your version to imply that she was "guilty as charged". Since she was never proven of any wrong doing, why devote so much copy to this incident? It was, not surprisingly, a locally popular topic during the campaign--this is the nature of political campaigns. There is no reason to mention the incident so prominently and in such detail in her bio. Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Bink, do you read sources before making statements about them? Warren herself admits that she listed herself on the "minority" (not Native American, minority) law directory that was used for job recruiting purposes. (She claims she did this to "meet people like me.") Steeletrap (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to take such a personal tone here. There are two issues involved that people appear to be conflating: the concept of "minority" versus the identification with Native American/Cherokee. The "minority" word is used to indicate Warren was trying to get preferential treatment. The Native American/Cherokee status is used to indicate that Warren thought of herself as having such heritage. Regarding the 1986/87 book listing Warren as a minority law professor, there is no proof Warren said to the book's publishers that she wanted to be listed as a minority. Instead, a number of plausible explanations exist, including Warren answering a question about her heritage not knowing this would place her in a separate list. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for being curt. But I really think you're just not reading or understanding the source. Warren listed herself in the law directory, which was a "minority" law directory, not a Native American law directory; it just listed the names of non-white professors and did note what their racial backgrounds were. Steeletrap (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are supposing that Warren instructed the book publishers to put her name in the minority section. There is no proof of this. She may have filled out a form they sent her, one with boxes to check for ancestry. The book publishers may have determined her "minority" status from other means. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the "shorter" version which is one fairly long paragraph. It's seldom a controversy needs much more than one paragraph in an article, particularly when it's one "incident" and not something that is at the core of their work. If we make a comparison to Bill Clinton's article which is a "good article", the Lewinsky affair and impeachment is covered in three paragraphs. That incident was clearly more politically important that the Native-American debate related to Warren, so we shouldn't need three paragraphs for the latter. And no, User:Roccodrift, the Native-American controversy is not Warren's main claim of notability. I can't understand how you can state something like that. Iselilja (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the paragraph a bit more because a couple of sentences were redundant. This is the shorter version. I think it has superior reading flow, and it contains the essence of the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I remain very much in favor of the version that we had previously worked out:

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

There is no reason to include more than this. She was, after all, not found guilty of anything, and to turn a campaign charge into a headed section which discusses the charge at length is not proper for Warren's bio. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here for your desire to suppress the controversy.

The Huffington Post reported,

Another Massachusetts Senate debate, another opening question about Elizabeth Warren's native American heritage.

Inside the Tsongas Arena in front of a raucous crowd of over 4,500, NBC "Meet The Press" host David Gregory opened with the contretemps over the ethnic heritage that the Harvard law professor listed in law directories in the 1980s that has consumed much of the attention in one of the nation's most watched Senate races. [Emphasis added.] [. . .]

The back-and-forth exchanges, consuming about a third of the debate, show that the contest has gotten increasingly personal. [Emphasis added.]

Our article needs to tell that this was a major story during the election." Was she elected anyway? Yes, and more power to her, but that doesn't change the story. At the very least, our readers should know about the TV ads.

Furthermore, it wasn't just the Boston Herald that carried the story, as the current paragraph implies; all the major outlets did.

• The Atlantic
• The Christian Science Monitor
• The New York Times
• CBS News
• The Rachel Maddow Show
• and many, many more. Yopienso (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't take but one more sentence to state that the controversy was a leading issue in the election campaign. The HuffPo article stating it was the lead question in several debates is telling. The current paragraph seems concise and accurate with each sentences carrying a nice size chunk with several sources. Alatari (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if a consensus is developing in favor of restoring part or all of the expanded section, albeit in a more concise manner. I hope that users who haven't chimed in yet add their comments. Steeletrap (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alatari so I added a short half sentence saying the Native American heritage thing became a campaign issue discussed by the media. I don't think the article needs more than this. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just a casual reader with no specialist knowledge of this issue, but it looks to me like a minor issue that newspapers and opposition tried to make a scandal out of. It happened, so it should be mentioned, but I'd compress it further. For example, the quote from the Brown campaign is unnecessary. It's a bland quote with no info, and opposition questioning each other isn't so strange. I've made an edit, but since I don't know the subject well, I can't tackle the content, I just made it less wordy: [4]

Also, what are "law directory entries"? A US Federal directory? A Harvard directory? Gronky (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If every politician's page had this much copy devoted to a similar campaign incident Wikipedia could turn into a campaign battleground. It was finally pared down to a reasonable amount of copy at one point but then grew back again. It should be cut to a short para of a few sentences. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Length of Native American section is ridiculous

I'm not going to edit again, because I don't care about this topic, but as an outsider I have to highlight that there's clearly too much space given to the Native American heritage section.

She's 64 years old. How many of those years were dominated by this controversy? I've no idea, but I'm guessing it's less than one.

Someone above said this is important because it was the main topic covered by the media for a certain time, but if that was a criteria for Wikipedia, then the Michelle Obama article should have a longer section about how muscular her arms are, and most celebrity articles should have sections documenting their weight gain/loss. Media coverage isn't irrelevant, but the media does have a habit of trying to make news out of nonsense. The controversy around this topic says more about newspapers than it says about Warren.

Wikipedia articles should focus on what people have done. Please focus on applying Wikipedia's standards rather than just filling half the article with stuff by pro-Warren campaigners and the other have by campaigners for her opponents. Other sections might also need reviewing for problems of undue weight. Gronky (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I attempted a trim. Homunq (࿓) 20:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Homung, I think the info is now at a more reasonable length. I did return the comments from the Oklahoma Historical Society because I believe that they are important. Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

$22/Hr

"Warren is in favor of increasing the minimum wage and has argued that if the minimum wage had followed increases in worker productivity in the United States, it would now be at least $22 an hour"

I think this statement should be revised a bit to emphasize the fact that it is hypothetical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.248.115 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Warrens family supports her on issue of Native American heritage

I hope everyone can agree that usually, when we speak of somebody's family, it refers to either a) parents & siblings (earlier in life, which is what's relevant here) or b) spouse & children (later in life).

From the Boston Globe source cited:

Warren’s brothers, Don, John, and David Herring, also issued a joint statement supporting their sister. 'The people attacking Betsy and our family don’t know much about either. We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage. They’ve passed away now, but they’d be angry if they were around today listening to all this.'

From the Washington Post source cited:

Warren’s siblings have all backed up the candidate’s statements. One brother told the Globe that his grandparents explained to him, after much pleading to get answers as a child, that “your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee,” according to the Globe.

So her siblings (her parents have passed) support her on this, and they all state that their family has told stories of their Native heritage throughout their lives. Darx9url (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the claim in NazariyKaminski's edit summary that "She has siblings that dispute the Native American claim." Siblings = brothers or sisters. According to some of the articles, some of her cousins don't know anything about native descent, this is not the same as "She has siblings that dispute the Native American claim", so that statement is provably false. Darx9url (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Darx9url (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Positions

A section describing her political positions is needed. --Drako (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's more appropriate for a political website like Vote Smart. Encyclopedias focus on biographical material. It doesn't matter what she claims to think about a subject; it matters what she's actually done in office. —Designate (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Policy?

The article needs to include a section on her views on foreign policy. She is a U. S. Senator. Furthermore, she is being discussed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

From what I have heard, my impression is that she shares for the most part the militaristic views of most mainstream democrats. This is extremely important for people to know. Readers of this article deserve accurate information. ---Dagme (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for "she shares for the most part the militaristic views of most mainstream democrats"? Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have heard her speak on these issues. I came to this article to find further detail --- in vain as it turns out. I do not have a source. That is why my comment is on the talk page and not in the article itself. ---Dagme (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No Controversy Section?

Wow! The Boston Globe ran the original "is she really an Indian" stories, it was very noteworthy. It was briefly covered in the national press. But the article has been scrubbed clean of it! Well done, Wikipedia revisionist historians. So much for NPV.

(For a counter example note that Rand Paul's page has a write up on his comments on the Civil Rights Act, which was a similar controversy). Leftists are treated with kid gloves around here, right wingers demonized. Look at the Palin page, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Senate election split

Darx9url (talk · contribs) moved most of the information regarding Warren's campaign to the Senate race article (United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012). I don't agree with removing the information so aggressively from this article, since that article is not a direct split from this one (e.g. "Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign, 2012") but a parallel topic.

Even when a split occurs, the page on article splitting (which is not a policy) does not say the remaining section must be "short", just that it should summarize the overall topic. Due weight still applies within this article regardless of whether there's a second article; there's too much detail on her academic and congressional careers to leave out so much information about the election. There's a lot of direct biographical information regarding Warren which still belongs in this article, even if there's an article on the Senate rate overall. —Designate (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are objecting to something that is common practice all over Wikipedia. The article linked to is the main article about the election, and it is common practice to leave only a summary when the main article exists. I quote from WP:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." In any case that much information about the election shouldn't be in this article. Just check out the other senators articles, they don't have a long section about the election. (For instance, check out the article on the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.) Darx9url (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Designate on all points s/he made. Darx9url, this information has been in the article for a long time without any disagreements. You should know very well that it is not proper to make such a drastic change to any article, but especially a political-related article where there is bound to be objections, without prior discussion and consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It may have been here a long time, but it's clearly violating the guideline about how articles are laid out. Also, it's clearly overweight, no other senator's page has such a long section about their election(s). Darx9url (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No pro-bono work

She did NO free work for poor people and non-prifits. All her work was to represent big corporations. Please include this. this article is controlled by socialsit warren supporters. --Jo (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Come up with some reliable sources and a short, encyclopedic summary of the situation. —Designate (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This type of politically-motivated allegation without any shred of evidence is exactly what BLPs should avoid. Darx9url (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Stay at home mother

Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom.

This is supposed to be a detached, disinterested encyclopaedic entry for a global readership about a significant and powerful US politician, not a political appeal to those with folksy American Mid-West values. The correct encyclopaedic term here is 'mother' or 'housewife' not 'stay-at-home mom', especially not 'stay-at-home mom' without inverted commas to indicate the use of an inappropriate stereotype. Further, I have checked and the term 'stay-at-home mom' does not appear in either of the two sources cited. Please amend this maple-syrupy statement accordingly.123.211.75.216 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huge NPOV problems on Native American section

The old biased version makes it sound like Warren "self-identified as Native American" in a casual conversation. Instead, she listed herself as a racial minority in a law school directory used by job recruiters. (The directory did not specify which race one was. An Arab American who does not identify as Caucasian would be listed alongside an Asian American, African American, and Native American, with no clarification.) She stopped doing so when she got tenured at Harvard. These facts are documented by the WaPo RS. These facts, paired with the fact that she has no documented Native American heritage (though claims to be 1/32nd Native American), has led Warren to be accused of credentials fraud. Let's portray these facts accurately and let the readers decide what they think of the allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given that United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 contains the information in both proposed versions, what should be in the '2012 Election' section of this article? The two proposed versions are: short and long. Darx9url (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• The material should be a short summary of the main article on the topic. Thus, I favour brevity in this article. Collect (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• This article is not overly long and the information is fairly brief. IMO it fits very well into this article and should be left where it is, though I would not feel bad to see the Native American controversy go to the other article. :) Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think the Native American controversy content deserves to be on her personal page. Back to the RfC–––the information should be briefly summarized with a link to the other page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• The false claims of Native heritage need to be on both pages, assuming there is a separate article on the election. - CorbieV^☊ 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, we should follow WP:Splitting, and leave only a short summary when the material is covered in a daughter article. Darx9url (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 is not a sub-article of this one, so "splitting" doesn't apply. It's an article about something Warren and several other individuals were involved in, and this article covers her part of it. The text is too heavy on Warren to just be plopped into the other article. By analogy, World War II is not a sub-article of Winston Churchill and we don't reduce that part of his career to two paragraphs just because the other article exists. Due weight applies to each article as a whole, regardless of what other articles overlap with it. The election section should be a little shorter than it was, but Darx's version is far too simplified. —Designate (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Undue weight is an issue here. Though the 2012 election is a very important part of why she is famous (and deserves a wiki page) this is a biography of her whole life. I'm in favor of a summary of the main article. JamesRoberts (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with JamesRoberts about the concern of undue weight and favor a short summary, especially since the same information is repeated in the article linked to in the hatnote. LK (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Designate; we want something a little shorter than the long version, but the short version leaves too much ot; if we needed to pick one I'd go with the long one. She's only stood one election, it's been an important part of her career. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Per poster above. The section is not just about a past-and-gone event but tells us much about Warren's whole political position and some of the reactions to it, and should be substantially retained in this article: Noyster (talk), 12:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• I favor a short summary and a link to the other article if readers want to know more about the 2012 election. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Issues raised in the election are very relevant to her career and positions, and need to be mentioned. However, as this is a large article already, and there is sufficient material for a standalone article on the election, WP policy is to concisely summarize the main points in the relevant section in this article, then link to the fuller article for more in-depth election coverage. - CorbieV^☊ 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I was picked by a bot at random to comment. The article is at 17kb of readable text, its not to big. The 2012 election section looks good as it is. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• The bot sent me. I agree with Designate and Gruban. It's needs to be shortened a wee bit, but the short version above removes too much. She's only stood one election and everything in that election is relevant. If we can only choose one, then I'd choose the long version. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't have strong opinions on the length of the description of 2012. But the Native American issue deserves a couple paragraphs, since Warren has been dogged by that continuously since the election. (She devoted a section of her 2014 autobiography to trying to debunk the allegations of credentials fraud.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed. -- Calidum 04:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Info on Real Estate career?

Neither her professional career section nor the campaign section mention her involvement in flipping houses for large profits in the 1990s. This has been widely reported Daily Mail Reporter (2 June 2012). "Elizabeth Warren accused of making a fortune from flipping foreclosed homes". The Daily Mail. No. 2 June 2012. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved 30 December 2014. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)Ritz, Erica. "Harsh Foreclosure Critic Elizabeth Warren Reportedly Made a Fortune…'Flipping' Foreclosed Homes". The Blaze.com. The Blaze. Retrieved 30 December 2014."Records: Elizabeth Warren Profited By Buying, Selling Homes". Huff Post excerpt of Boston Herald article. No. 06/02/2012. Huffington Post. 2 Jun 2012. Retrieved 30 December 2014.Rizzuto, Robert. "Elizabeth Warren dismisses GOP criticisms over real estate transactions". masslive.com. MassLive LLC. Retrieved 30 December 2014. Sexton, John (2 Jun 2012). "HYPOCRITICAL ELIZABETH WARREN TURNED PROFIT FLIPPING FORECLOSED HOUSES". Breitbart.com. No. Big Government. Breitbart. Retrieved 30 December 2014.

All those sources are junk and can't be used as reliable sources. Daily Mail and HuffPo are tabloids, while TheBlaze is run by Glenn Beck. And Breitbart is an absolute non-starter. -- Calidum 05:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This looks like it can be added to the article. The Blaze and Breitbart are not RS but HuffPo and Daily Mail are. Steeletrap (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that anyone would suggest that the Daily Mail is RS - it is generally really scraping way down to the bottom of the barrel if one needs to resort to it for a source. HuffPo may or may not be, depending on who wrote the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What we are seeing here, is something that has been seen on many politicians' and political activists' pages. A persistent campaign by partisans to include every negative thing ever written about a person into the person's biography, regardless of weight, reliability, notability, or BLP issues. This has to stop. LK (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Steeltrap does not realize that it took editors a very long time to finally come to an agreement that resulted in this long-standing version of the Native American section. I was never satisfied with the length of the coverage, but when one agrees to use consensus for our articles one must always be willing to accept that we can never expect to have our way and ignore the opinions of others. Lawrence was correct to restore to something similar to the long-standing wording. Gandydancer (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My recent revert

I just reverted what I consider to be an egregious POV skewing of the facts that breaks our policy on WP:BLPs. As an example of the skewing, the edit by User:Steeletrap introduces (as fact in WIkipedia's voice) statements that are only sourced to blog entries, one by a known political opponent of Warren's. If blog entries were suitable, I would suggest including this from a Chicago Law professor that explains why the 'Native American controversy' is not a controversy. LK (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edited down to reasonable levels - I found "POV smear" to be unartful in any edit summary, and the current version should be suitable to all. Collect (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted you. There was never a conensus for the changes made just three days ago. Todd Zwycki, who was cited in that editing for accusing Warren of credential fraud, is a political opponent of hers. -- Calidum 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That someone is a "political opponent" makes them a non-person? I suggest my compromise edit was correct and proper, made no unsupported contentious claims, and accurately represents facts as nearly as possible. Nor did I use Steeletrap's edit here -- thus reverting me because a prior edit had a problem not found in my edit is outré. I note the discussion about Volokh Conspiracy as follow:

The "blog" is physically on WaPo's site - thus it is "republished" by WaPo and is not a "personal web site" by a mile. WaPo quite apparently pays for this right (VK specifically gets a share of the WaPo ad revenue at least per LA Observed - if a publisher pays to carry something you wrote, it is clearly republishing what you wrote. Thus the "SPS = personal web site of a non-notable person" argument fails, as it has always failed. It is widely cited by lawyers, scholar.google.com shows it as being mentioned and used in many law journals including Virginia Law Review, HeinOnline , Washington University Law Review, Alabama Law Review, Drexel Law Review, Georgetown Law Review (actually a slew of law review journals), American Association of Law Libraries, and roughly one thousand other sites (scholar.google.com stops at page 100 of results). With such stature, the cavil that it is a "personal blog" fails with a resounding thud. Consider this from the ABA Journal[5]. "Volokh Conspiracy" is not a trivial "SPS blog" it is a major resources cited in over a thousand scholarly articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC) from WP:BLP/N Collect (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The tone of your response suggests that you have a strong POV on this issue. Suggest that this issue be taken to RfC, with input from people at WP:WPBLP, before you reinsert that material again. Darx9url (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on reading a "strong POV" into the comments of an editor who also supports using "Russia Today" (RT) as a source on the same basis. Perhaps I am a crypto-Communist as my POV? LOL! I endeavour to use the exact same standards for all sources in BLPs. And where in hell do you get "re-insert the material again" - I edited the objected material down very substantially, removing what I considered might have been BLP violations - but I was not the one to insert that material in the first place, nor did I support the full material as evinced by my edit of it. Cheers. - Collect (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you bother to claim something that's easily shown false? Here are the two times [6] [7] that you reinserted the material that was first inserted by Steeltrap a few days ago [8]. Take a step back, and look at the language you're using, you're not emotionally detached from this topic. Darx9url (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And you forgot to mention my major trimming of all the possibly objectionable material immediately following what you assert to be my second re-insertion -- note that proposing compromise language is specifically promoted by WP:CONSENSUS. And again - I do not give the proverbial rat's ass about Warren - I only care about following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You might also note that Steeletrap has most typically been adversarial to me <g>. And by the way, accusing editors of writing falsities is considered a violation of WP:AGF as a bare minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to side-step the issue. I didn't say anything about your not trimming the worst parts. You stated that you did not reintroduce controversial language. I showed that you did, twice. That is all I said. Darx9url (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote as I removed what appeared to be the contentious claims. Is that clear? In fact, I removed about half of the entire edit, seeking a compromise in accord with WP:CONSENSUS Is that also quite clear? Collect (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you want to be clear, let me be clear. You said you didn't reintroduce contentious material. You did, twice. You can't admit that you were wrong. Everything you wrote since is obfuscation. Darx9url (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)