| Revision as of 16:11, 2 December 2017 editYopienso (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,910 edits →Should discussion of the controversy over her stated Native American ancestry be in its own subsection?: TFD's assertion is factually incorrect← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:58, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,882,811 editsm →top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search==yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum|editors' personal viewpoints or political talking points}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes |class=GA |listas=Warren, Elizabeth |politician-work-group=yes |s&a-work-group=yes |politician-priority=high |s&a-priority=low|activepol=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=GA|importance=low|MA=yes|MA-importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=GA|subject= Person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=GA|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Houston|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women|class=GA|importance=}} |
|
|
| activepol=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
| action1 = GAN |
| Line 25: |
Line 18: |
|
| itndate = |
|
| itndate = |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
|
| otddate = 2017-06-22 |
|
|
| otdoldid = 786877602 |
|
|
|otd2date=2022-06-22|otd2oldid=1093739324 |
|
|
|otd3date=2024-06-22|otd3oldid=1230374611 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|collapsed=yes|class=GA|listas=Warren, Elizabeth|1= |
|
{{Not a forum|editors' personal viewpoints or political talking points}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|s&a-work-group=yes|politician-priority=high|s&a-priority=low}} |
|
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Mid|subject=Person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Oklahoma|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|MA=yes|MA-importance=mid|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Houston|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Red|150|184}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Dec 30 2018|Mar 1 2020}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 8 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-06-22|oldid1=786877602}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Native American Controversy == |
|
|
She's NOT Cherokee, even partially, and she's not from any other Native American tribe either. It does not matter that her brothers claim that older relatives say that they thought they had a Native-American ancestry. Many Americans who have a purely European background like Warren does have heard such claims from older relatives that they were related to Native-Indian tribes and very few of them actually really are, and even if they mistakenly believe that they are native they do not identify this way in order to get into law school or to get benefits, etc. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
On April 27, 2012, The Boston Herald reported that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had touted Elizabeth Warren as being a Native American faculty member. |
|
|
|
|
|
On May 1, 2012, according to a Boston Herald article, the Warren Campaign offered two pieces of evidence it said supported Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry. |
|
|
|
|
|
The first piece of evidence was a statement by genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society that Warren might be 1/32 Cherokee. That claim, based on a type of documentation which did not exist at the time in question, later was withdrawn as lacking any evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
The second piece of evidence the Warren Campaign offered reporters was an undated article from the Muskogee Phoenix about the contributions of Elizabeth Warren’s first cousin, Mrs. James P. Rowsey, to the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Oklahoma as proof of Ms. Warren’s Native American ancestry: |
|
|
|
|
|
The campaign also hastily produced an undated newspaper clip last night from the Muskogee Sunday Phoenix detailing a “Mrs. James P. Rowsey” — who they said is Warren’s cousin — and her involvement with the Five Civilized Tribes Museum, which is dedicated to preserving Native American art. |
|
|
|
|
|
“Mrs. James P. Rowsey was Elizabeth’s first cousin — shared the grandparents in question,” a campaign official said in the statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bit misleading on her Native American controversy and Trump == |
|
Investigative reporter Michael Patrick Leahy traced Ms. Rowsey to a book titled ''Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole''. In the Pow Wow Chow cookbook were recipes allegedly authored by Warren, as reported by The Boston Herald. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren#Ancestry_and_Native_American_relations |
|
It was later discovered that three of Warren’s recipes appeared to be plagiarized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Throughout his presidency, former president Donald Trump mocked Warren for her assertions of Native American ancestry, and called her the slur "Pocahontas".' |
|
<strike> elizabethwarrenwiki.org/pow-wow-chow-cookbook/ </strike> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I struggle to see how it can be justified to refer to that as a "slur". Maybe some left leaning publications do, but does a majority of publications? From what I've seen the answer is no. |
|
<strike> https://www.amazon.com/dp/9996688445/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me= </strike> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'At a July 2018 Montana rally, he promised that if he debated Warren, he would pay $1 million to her favorite charity if she could prove her Native American ancestry via a DNA test. Warren released results of a DNA test in October 2018, then asked Trump to donate the money to the National Indigenous Women's Resource Center. Trump responded by denying that he had made the challenge. The DNA test found that Warren's ancestry is mostly European but "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor", likely "in the range of 6 to 10 generations ago".' |
|
:This has been extensively discussed, and is already covered in the article. You have not added any new reliable sources. ] (]) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very misleading, Trump challenged her to take a DNA test that "shows you’re an Indian". Clearly having the same amount of Native DNA as any random white American doesn't satisfy that. Also the 'Trump responded by denying that he made the challenge' is also misleading as fact checked here - https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/oct/15/context-donald-trumps-1-million-offer-elizabeth-wa/ |
|
Warren's claims of having Native American ancestry continue to be a matter of public controversy five years after they were first (?) made public. For instance, as of 27 Nov 17 Trump is referring to her as "Pocahontas" and she is accusing him of using a "racial slur." Does the continued controversy make the issue important enough to merit a separate section in the article? ] (]) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'The DNA test found that Warren's ancestry is mostly European but "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor", likely "in the range of 6 to 10 generations ago".' |
|
== "loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud" has nothing to do with Trump University == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is potentially misleading to viewers unless we note that this is the same amount of ancestry that a random white American is likely to have. ] (]) 07:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
{{tq|She also criticized Trump for his stance on the Trump University case, calling him a "loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself."}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:That's not the amount of Native American ancestry the random white American is likely to have. The random white Amarican is likely to have 0% Native American ancestry. However, since some white Americans have a lot of Native American DNA, the average is 0.18%, compared with Warren (0.10% to 1.56%). ] (]) 10:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
This sentence doesn't make sense. The quotation bears no relation to the first half of the sentence, except that they are both criticisms by Warren directed at Trump. |
|
|
|
::Hmm, noting her % of Native DNA would be helpful to readers then. ] (]) 20:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't see why. Warren said that her great-great-great-grandmother was part Native American, which is consistent with the DNA finding that she had a Native American ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago. This isn't a biology article. All that matters is the DNA test confirmed her claim. ] (]) 04:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well no, what she actually said is that she is Native American, not that 200-300 years ago she had one Native American ancestor. "being Native American has been part of my story" and "1986, Warren identified her race as "American Indian" on a State Bar of Texas write-in form". The DNA test debunked her claim. I feel like telling the readers the DNA percentage is useful because it's hard to put into perspective what one ancestor 6-10 generations ago actually means, the DNA test does that. ] (]) 05:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::When you start by making obviously false statements such as the average American has Indian ancestry, you immediately destroy any credibility. In your latest comment, you leave out that before saying she was Native American, Warren said that her great-great-great-grandmother was part Native American, which was confirmed by the DNA evidence. Instead of getting misinformation from unreliable sourcess and wasting our time with a rant, research what reliable sources say, compare it to what this article says and then comment. ] (]) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That was when she was challenged in an interview on why she identified herself as American Indian in the 80s. And 6-10 generations ago is further than that. Can I get a response on my point about the bet with Trump? ] (]) 04:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Can you explain why you made the obviously false claim that "this is the same amount of ancestry that a random white American is likely to have." ] (]) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I thought I read that when her results came out. Also isn't her results within that margin according to you? Average is 0.18%, compared with Warren's 0.10% to 1.56%. ] (]) 20:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::That's not how averages work. If Warren Buffet (net worth $101 billion) walks into a shelter with 100 homeless people, the average net worth of everyone in the homeless shelter is $1 billion. That doesn't mean that the random person in the shelter is likely to have a net worth of $1 billion. The vast majority of white Americans have no Native American ancestry. (See , figure S7.) ] (]) 21:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::For a sample of hundreds of millions of people an average is fair enough, the point is her claim of being an American Indian was false then when challenged on it her new claim of being 1/32 Native was also false. Adding her % would be useful to the readers, and fixing the 1 million bet statement is needed. ] (]) 01:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I have never understood why people like you, when you find an opponent who has misstated facts, instead of just calling them out on it, they misrepresent the facts in order to make them appear worse. The same thing happened with Benghazi. It only works with people who are already converted. Maybe they have difficulty in distinguishing facts from alternative facts. In any case, it doesn't belong in article discussions. ] (]) 03:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Pocahontas was a person. Using it as a nickname has been recognized as a "slur" by the reliable sources: – ] (]) 20:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::And if I show you even more reliable sources that don't refer to it as a slur, what then? ] (]) 01:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If I find reliable sources that pigs can fly, what then? It' a pointless question. ] (]) 04:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well I'm wondering why we describe it as a slur if some reliable sources do and some don't. ] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's time to stop trolling. ] (]) 05:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] is not ]. – ] (]) 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
Can we get a correction on the $1m bet? Trump challenged her to take a DNA test that "shows you’re an Indian", not "prove her Native American ancestry" as the article currently says. And he never denied that he made that challenge - https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/oct/15/context-donald-trumps-1-million-offer-elizabeth-wa/ ] (]) 14:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I have edited the article to include Trump's specific words. I think the problem here is that his challenge was ambiguous. He does say what you said, but also 'And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she ''is of Indian heritage'' because her mother said she has high cheekbones'. 'Of Indian heritage' is different to 'is Indian' so its not entirely clear what he had in mind. Her claim of course also changed over time, which doesn't help the matter. I suspect my phrasing won't be the final word here, but hopefully it can bring us a little closer. ] (]) 12:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
] (<small>]]</small>) 10:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Should changes be made to the section labeled "Ancestry and Native American relations"? == |
|
:I added a few words. ] (]) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The subsection "Ancestry and Native American relations" in the larger public image section seems a little weird to me. You have 5 paragraphs on her ancestry controversy, and then the section ends with two sentences about Deb Haaland's praise and endorsement of her. I have no objection to the information itself, but it just seems weird to have it in a section that is overwhelmingly focused on the issue of her ancestry. Why not move the Haaland endorsement sentence to somewhere in the section on her presidential campaign instead? ] (]) 05:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
==Locked== |
|
|
I find it frightening that pages like this are locked. Let the people edit this page, not just admins hiding under pseudonyms. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022 == |
|
:Your comments are misguided/misinformed on several points, but it appears that the semi-protection applied in July 2016 is no longer warranted and I have asked the protecting admin to consider removing it. ―] ] 06:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've lifted the semiprotection though am not optimistic about the results. Note that edits of this page fall under ] so caution is needed for all editors. ] (]) 17:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Elizabeth Warren|answered=yes}} |
|
:::I wish I had a nickle for every hour I've spent on this article related to the Native American stuff. ] (]) 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Warren started her second term in 2019, not 2017. ] (]) 00:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Nowhere does it say that she started her second term in 2017. It does say that she announced in 2017 that she would run for a second term . – ] (]) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Contentious category on this page == |
|
==Revisiting Native American section== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] has recently reverted me to re-add the ] to this page. Respecting ], but also keeping in mind the ] imperative that {{tq|contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion}}, I will restate my rationale here before re-reverting. |
|
The section as it stands is buried in the middle of her campaign article. Her spats with the President over the heritage question are intensely newsworthy--as measured by RS, which is how we measure news-worthiness or notability on Misplaced Pages--and so the controversy deserves a more fully-formed discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] states: {{tq|Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category '''must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources'''}}. The name of the category is "Academics who falsely claimed minority ancestry". The problem with this is that I haven't seen a reliable source which states that she "falsely claimed minority ancestry." Sure, I've seen reliable sources affirming that she is not a member of a tribe, and that she should not be considered 'racially' Native American. But I haven't seen any source debunking the idea that she had a Native American ancestor, which is what the category name is saying. Because of this, I feel that it's not appropriate for this category to remain on the page of a living person. '''<span style="font-family: 'Georgia';">] <span style="color: #000000"><small>(])</small></span></span>''' 10:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
I think that the Native American thing should be expanded and given a subsection under "career," since the allegations relate to alleged unfair career advantage, and have persisted far beyond the 2012 election. Here is my draft, which I will insert in the article in a week or two pending discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:She does not have any Native American ancestry. Tribal identity is based in citizenship, not race. Bustamante said it was ''possible'' she had a South American ancestor from way back, but the DNA cannot distinguish whether that ancestor's alleles were Indigenous to this continent or Spain. The commercial databases they used do not have any North American Indigenous DNA to match people with. She claimed Cherokee and Delaware ancestry. The test cannot, and did not, show that. Her claim was proven false. |
|
''In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories. When asked why she listed herself as a racial minority (the directory did not specify what race a particular minority was), Warren stated that she was Native American. Her campaign declined to provide documentary or genetic proof of her heritage. |
|
|
|
:* - New Scientist |
|
|
:* - Indian Country Today "Elizabeth Warren has exhibited a wide-ranging pattern of dishonesty and contempt for Indigenous communities that disqualifies her candidacy for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination" |
|
|
:* - Critical Ethnic Studies Published by University of Minnesota Press |
|
|
:The syllabus has a long list of RS sources, along with more specialized discussion. - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I feel like there are two issues being conflated here: Native American (or Indigenous) ''ancestry'' and Native American ''identity''. If the name of the category was "Academics who falsely claimed minority ''identity''", this would be a different discussion because all the sources are emphatically clear that Elizabeth Warren does not have, and cannot claim, Native American identity, or citizenship, or membership. But again, what I'm seeing from the sources is that she ''might'' (or might not) have Native American ancestry. I also understand that there is strong resistance in Native American communities to DNA genealogy testing. You yourself have restated the consensus of the sources that, because the databases do not have samples of North American Indigenous DNA, no test can corroborate her claim. However, where we disagree is whether that makes her claim {{tq|false}}. To my understanding, if a claim cannot be proven one way or another, it is not true or false, but ''unproven'', or indeterminate. The question I'm asking myself is, would it be acceptable to have a sentence in the article saying 'Elizabeth Warren's claims to Native American ancestry have been proven false?'. Even in the section discussing her claims, nowhere ''in Misplaced Pages's voice'' is it stated that her claims were false, which is what the category name does. '''<span style="font-family: 'Georgia';">] <span style="color: #000000"><small>(])</small></span></span>''' 08:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] she claimed American Indian identity in 1986 on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/06/elizabeth-warren-american-indian-identity/2787055002/ "In response, Warren sent a 12-page letter to the Cherokee authors on Tuesday night. Her letter repeated past apologies, reiterated that she is a “white woman” and detailed a policy agenda that she said was good for Indian Country.", "The controversy started in 2012, when questions arose about her university listing. Barnes researched Warren’s genealogy and found that, despite Warren’s claims, she had no ancestral ties to Cherokee tribes." https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-26/elizabeth-warren-again-is-pressed-on-past-claims-of-native-american-heritage ] (]) 19:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::All of the RS sources for what constitutes Native American identity (and specifically Cherokee or Delaware identity - which is specifically what she claimed) are that her claims are false. She was told her Cherokee claim was false, by Cherokee standards, years before she announced her Senate run. She refused to stop claiming. She was told again during her Senate run. Ditto. This has been an ongoing cycle with her. She dropped the Delaware claim. I think you are looking for loopholes here in a way that ignores the sources. That is inappropriate. - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::All of that is true, but to reiterate, my problem is the ''name'' of the category. I still do not believe that it is compatible with what has been detailed in RS. However, I recognise that there is a consensus against my view, therefore I will drop the issue. I've still nominated the category for deletion, based in part on other problems I see with it. '''<span style="font-family: 'Georgia';">] <span style="color: #000000"><small>(])</small></span></span>''' 20:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "other geneticists" == |
|
''Because the AALS directories were used for minority hiring, and because she was unable to document her heritage or point to a specific Native ancestor, Warren's critics have alleged that she had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in the employment market. Warren denies the allegation. She has stated that she listed herself in the AALS because she wanted to meet others with a similar background. Former colleagues and supervisors at universities she worked at stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring.Her brothers said that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage", while members of her extended family denied any Native American ancestry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This recent edit has a misstatement of the source First of all it takes the "South American" thing out of context. The full quote is {{tq|Bustamante has said that due to limited Native America databases, he compared Warren’s DNA sample to recent samples from indigenous populations in South America rather than Native Americans in the U.S.}}, which does not say they weren't Native American. They were Native South American. Secondly the overall conclusion from the piece you gave was {{tq|'Not a yes or no answer' None of the experts and industry executives who spoke to ABC News -- including scientists who have worked with Bustamante -- directly refuted his conclusions. Instead, they contended that the underlying science is apt to be flawed because the Native American gene databases for tribes in the U.S. are so thin –- making conclusions like Bustamante's all but useless from a scientific perspective. "It's hard to say that there is a definitive conclusion, especially if someone has such small amounts of Native American ancestry," said Dr. Nanibaa’ Garrison, a faculty member in the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. "When you're testing someone who might have an ancestor more than four or five generations back, that's when it becomes very hard to piece out that ancestor from all the other ancestors that the person has," Garrison added. "It's not a yes or no answer."}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
''As a presidential candidate and now a the President of the United States, Donald Trump has repeatedly alleged that Warren lied about her heritage for professional advantage. His press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, repeated the charge on November 27, 2017. He has disparaged her as "Pocahontas," a claim that Warren and some Native advocacy groups characterize as a racial slur. Warren continues to insist that she is Native American but never benefited from her claimed ancestry.'''' ] (]) 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
:The wording implies that Bustamante said the evidence was definitive, when in fact he said it was strongly supportive of her claim. That's why there is a policy against using analysis by journalists as reliable sources. I support removing the text. ] (]) 10:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Andrevan, the point is that ] (specifically ] and ]) and ] and ] are not all interchangeable. |
|
:Because something was in the news today does not make it more significant to the subject, per ] And when we introduce criticisms we should explain who is making them and how credible the accusations are. ] (]) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::The point is that this, and other sources I can add, clarify that Warren claimed '''North American Native''' heritage, and the DNA test '''did not confirm that'''. But it's been misrepresented as if it did. That is the only point I want to make with these additions, as it continues to be a misconception about this incident. I can add other sources by geneticists that confirm the 23andMe database he used has no significant DNA from North American Native populations. That's why it was "useless" to confirm her claim; but she tried to do that, and people are still trying to do that. - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
:You lost me at ''sparked a campaign controversy''. Besides that, Misplaced Pages is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed. – ] (]) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The DNA test strongly supported Warren's claim of some small Native American admixture which gives evidence, but not conclusively, to her family story. Of course it doesn't prove that she was Cherokee or Delaware and I wasn't saying that all indigenous people are interchangeable, but that is how DNA research is done. They use stand-ins for different groups. But if there was something genetically similar to South American indigenous DNA in Warren's white European heritage, that gives some evidence (not proof) of her story. Beyond that you're veering into original research synthesis. The "useless" quote was taken out of context. It clearly states in the source that none of the experts refuted what Bustamante said, they simply said the science was flawed and inexact. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Read the new source I've added. I'm not not trying to be mean here but you don't seem to be understanding how these tests work. Please also check out the Warren syllabus: |
|
|
::::* |
|
|
::::- ] <sup>]</sup> ] 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: The claim is false, the science is "inexact" and "flawed", and even if (big if) it was evidence of something it is not proof of anything, least of which her claim of Cherokee, Delaware or any other North American Native heritage. It is by the very definition of the term "useless" in proving the claim. --]] 19:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The DNA test showed evidence that there was some historical basis for Warren's family story, which is not the same as a credible claim to Cherokee or Delaware tribal heritage. However the original edit I reverted was not as clear as the current article text. Right now it explains this complex issue in what I consider to be a reasonable and nuanced way. Before the implication was that the DNA test was useless - well, it's not useless full stop given the Donald Trump bet phrasing (which of course he did not honor). It might be useless for tribal sovereignty since that isn't how you get sovereignty for a tribe. But it has a usage. It shows that the family story that Warren grew up with wasn't just a fabrication, but based on ''something'' historical. Without weighing in on whether it was proper to talk about the way Warren did. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As far as I can understand it, you've addressed my issue. I'm fine with the latest edit as it seems to capture the issues that I was objecting to with the first edit, so I'm going to leave it alone and let it stand for now. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Native American" vs "Native American Descent" == |
|
:I agree with Steeletrap. Whether she likes it or not, the Native American controversy is a huge part of Warren's public image and notability. I have two suggested changes to the proposed paragraph. First, the sentence about "former colleagues and supervisors..." is included twice. Second, I believe the sentence that reads "In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful" should be moved to the second paragraph because it relates to the allegation that she used her purported ancestry for personal gain. ] (]) 14:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{yo|Muboshgu}} While Warren has more recently walked back her claim to be ''fully'' Native American, the category is for those who claim "Native American '''Descent'''". This is different. After the many meetings during the campaigns she admitted she's not a citizen of a Nation (which Native Americans already knew), and has no tribal ties (ditto), but she still makes the distant ancestry claims - with the disputed DNA test and her statements about her ancestors. The cat exists precisely for people who aren't citizens, and who have no proven ancestry, but believe they have ancestry "somewhere back there" (in addition to those who make what others believe are simply false claims). She fits the category. - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 20:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
* IMO this all seems to suggest that we use the president's disrespectful remarks as yet one more excuse to expand this section. We have page after page of work on this section with almost every word disagreed about but finally agreed to using consensus. For example see Mast Cell's remarks on talk page #8. What we've got in the article is far from perfect, IMO, but it's the best we could come to after almost endless discussion and I'm far from ready to open this can of worms all over again. ] (]) 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*It needs to be a subhead - not because Trump, but because of the massive amount of news coverage the claim has generated,in what has now been a series of news cycles over many years. There has certainly been sufficient coverage to support a page on the subject, if somebody wrote one..] (]) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I self reverted. If we're only talking about partial descent, afaik she does still say that. – ] (]) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::I'm from Australia and came to this page today purely to find out about the Pocahontas nickname and the basis of it, but had to read heaps of boring, extraneous information before finally finding the details of her biggest claim to fame buried in the wrong section of the article. It should be expanded and moved to the "Early life, education, and family" section. As it stands, it seems wildly contradictory; first claiming that Warren didn't know she was calling herself native, then saying she did it to meet natives, then the brothers saying they really are native. Which one is it? (] (]) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
:that's like saying I must be old because I have some gray hair. I was 18. ] (]) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::*''"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"'' I couldn't find it at all. Which was when I googled and read about it at CNN . '''It needs to be on her page and it needs be in it's own subhead so that users can find it.''' Like ].] (]) 12:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So you're saying that if Trump says something derogatory about someone it should be prominent in their biographies? Funny when I can't find anything about Trump's hand or penis size, although they made the 24 hr news cycle too. ] (]) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::The status quo can still be cleaned up and moved to the correct section without including the president's insults. (] (]) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::Hear, hear.] (]) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I completely agree... it needs a subheading. People will in come to this article to learn about her heritage and currently readers will be unable to find what they are looking for without doing a search. It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent... it's an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and it needs to be remedied. ] (]) 16:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The current version is about as credible as Warren's claims to Native American ancestry. I just polished it up a bit, removing one outright falsehood (the retracted claim by the amateur genealogist--who later admitted she was mistaken--that the genealogist had found evidence of Warrens ancestry). I also removed the outrageous implication about Warren's "tribal roots" (which are the same as my tribal roots--nonexistent). It still needs a subsection. |
|
|
::: Gandy and TFD: I know you despise Trump. Me too as a matter of fact. But we go off of RS coverage in assessing notability on Misplaced Pages. By WP standards, this is '''clearly notable enough for a subsection'''. The story has gotten loads of coverage in RS over the course of many years. At this point, it's a trope of Warren's political opponents. There is no justification, in terms of WP policy, for burying this story halfway through the article. ] (]) 01:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Additionally, if people come here to learn about the issue and can't find what they're looking for, they are just going to go someplace else where they CAN find what they are looking for. And guess which sites are going to float to the top of the list on a search for this issue? Very likely not a site which uses reliable sources and at least tries to give balance, and very possibly a hate site. ] (]) 01:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I am committed to being balanced on the issue. In her defense, the claims from her former colleagues that she did not benefit need to be included. (And her brothers, saying they heard that she was Native American.) But we cannot obscure the fact that she listed herself as a racial minority in a directory that did not even specify what minority one was. Her claim--though this is for RS to say, not me--to have listed herself there to "meet people like her" is absolutely bogus. A convention of "minority law professors" would include Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, African Americans, etc. It wouldn't be a Native American thing (or a 1/32nd Native American thing, although she'd probably meet plenty of fellow 0/32nd Natives there). ] (]) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think it is best with controversies to raise them when the underlying events ocurred or then they came to attention. In this case, it should be mentioned in her Senate run, when her opponent made it an issue and during the last presidential campaign when Trump raised it. Steeletrap, I find it incredible that a highly qualified law professor would list herself as part Indian without any attempt to verify it, or think that if true it made her part of a minority. And as an educated person, she should have known that many families romanticize their past, connecting family. But there is no evidence she obtained any personal advantage. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::::: Yes, there is no evidence she achieved an advantage, and in fact evidence to the contrary. But the claim is that she sought it: i.e. that she committed attempted fraud. That is a plausible charge. Regardless, RS are covering the issue enough to warrant a sub-section.] (]) 05:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Four deuces. It is more accurate to say that this ''first'' surfaced during that Senate campaign. But it has now resurfaced many times. NO ONE is likely to look for it in the campaign section, because people - like me - who are hear it have no way of knowing when it ''first'' came up. '''This topic needs to be a subhead'''.] (]) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I just created a sub-section under career. It is balanced and provides adequate weight to the story. The old version had a lie (that a native ancestor had been found: the amateur genealogist who concluded this admitted it was a mistake) and a dishonest implication (that Warren has "tribal roots"). It was also incompetently written. |
|
|
:::: More evidence that this is a genuine controversy, and not just a conspiracy theory (like many of the other issues Trump raises). A Cherokee woman who describes herself as a liberal just wrote an op-ed criticizing Warren's claims. A leading liberal think tank published it. https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/ ] (]) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren was a diversity hire, she is the only Harvard professors till that time whograduated from a public college. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-21/from-oklahoma-to-harvard-elizabeth-warren-trod-a-tricky-path] (]) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
I have reverted Steeletrap's edits which show absolute disregard for WP's consensus building which is required for our pages, and especially our political pages where strong differences of opinion are certain to make editing difficult. I hope that s/he will show more consideration for his/her fellow editors as we continue here. ] (]) 01:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Will you at least concede the need for a subheading? ] (]) 01:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am open to ''discussion'' on everything though I may be off-line for a few days. ] (]) 01:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have been open to "discussion" on this issue for years, and it has been nothing but stonewalling. This is becoming ludicrous. ] (]) 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Well at least the old version--which was incompetently written (perhaps intentionally, to obscure the issue), and contained multiple pro-Warren falsehoods (that she was in a tribe, that proof of her genealogy had been identified)--is gone. If we can agree on the substance of the current version, then we can debate whether this deserves a sub-section. Someone please create an RfC. ] (]) 01:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: This new article from ] is not kind to Warren. I think we should cite this latest fact-checking in the article. There is no proof of her genealogy at all, and she listed herself as a racial minority, not Native American. (The basis of the claim to be a racial minority was NA, but no employers or law profs. would've known she was NA from the directories. Therefore her excuse, to "meet people like me," is bogus.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/ ] (]) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] violation aside, it's impossible for a single editor to "stonewall" anything; they simply lose to consensus. So form a consensus. Editing during a discussion is particularly out of line (and risky) at an article under discretionary sanctions. I've seen far less significant things go to ] without an outcry about misuse of the RfC process. There is no good reason we couldn't wait the usual 30 days to resolve this question in RfC, and that's what I would suggest as a disinterested observer. ―] ] 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Minor grammatical correction == |
|
== Dr. Phil == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Dr. Phil story, while not currently cited this way, was cited in several articles and biographical profiles of Warren. I'll look. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
"In August the political director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claimed that 'no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren.'" - no need for a comma between the subject and verb <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024 == |
|
:{{done}} Thank you. ―] ] 19:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Elizabeth Warren|answered=yes}} |
|
==Should discussion of the controversy over her stated Native American ancestry be in its own subsection?== |
|
|
|
In the area where the article lists children, it says "2, including Amelia". It is know that that Warren's children are Amelia Warren Tyagi and Alexander Warren. It would be useful to change the information to include Alexander Warren, as of current it is difficult to glean his existence from the current article. Thanks for reading, and have a great day! ] (]) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024 == |
|
'''Yes'''. The issue needs a subsection. |
|
|
This is a huge part of Warren's public image. The criticism of her claim to be a racial minority/Native is persistently newsworthy. Almost everyone on the Right (not just Trump) criticizes her for it, but criticism is not limited to them. ], ] and a liberal commentator at USA Today have also offered critical commentary lately. The discussion of the issue goes well beyond the 2012 campaign and belongs in a sub-section under "career" or "early life, education, and family." ] (]) 03:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Elizabeth Warren|answered=yes}} |
|
*'''Comment''' - I have reworded the RFC question to make much more sense; not only is it more clearly worded, but it doesn't lead to the counterintuitive "no means yes" situation. ] (]) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
As a former chair of hiring and advancement at Harvard, I take exception with you ludicrous statement that Ms Warren received no preferential consideration due to her claims of indigenous heritage. You lose credibility when you cover for her. This site, which I have given substantial donations to,absolutely must show the good, bad, and ugly, otherwise you are nothing. ] (]) 07:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Comment''' - This not only lacks an {{tlx|rfc}} template but it is not in RfC format. Per ], it is not an RfC, and I have removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―] ] 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The article does not state that she received no preferential consideration. It does, however, attribute statements that she received no preferential consideration to other reliable sources. If you are able to provide other sources of equal quality stating the opposite, please do so that they can be included. Please also keep in mind that all Misplaced Pages editors are volunteers – while we appreciate your financial support of the site, none of us receive any compensation. ] (]) 08:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Yes,''' of course, for all the reasons propounded above on this page. It's notable. ] (]) 07:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' Controversy sections are inherently bad style. Controversies should be presented where they occur, in this case in Warren's senatorial campaign and Trump's comments. We might however have a section about Warren and native Americans that explains both her claims to Indian ethnicity and her positions on native affairs. ] (]) 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::It may be your personal opinion that "controversy sections are inherently bad style," but we have with controversy or criticism sections, and the template page for tagging NPOV sections says: |
|
|
:::"This template is meant for articles with Criticism, Controversy or similarly-titled sections that segregate a series of negative details into one section.<br> |
|
|
:::Note that criticism and controversy sections are ''not prohibited'' by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality." ] (]) 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
'Throughout his presidency, former president Donald Trump mocked Warren for her assertions of Native American ancestry, and called her the slur "Pocahontas".'
I struggle to see how it can be justified to refer to that as a "slur". Maybe some left leaning publications do, but does a majority of publications? From what I've seen the answer is no.
'At a July 2018 Montana rally, he promised that if he debated Warren, he would pay $1 million to her favorite charity if she could prove her Native American ancestry via a DNA test. Warren released results of a DNA test in October 2018, then asked Trump to donate the money to the National Indigenous Women's Resource Center. Trump responded by denying that he had made the challenge. The DNA test found that Warren's ancestry is mostly European but "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor", likely "in the range of 6 to 10 generations ago".'
'The DNA test found that Warren's ancestry is mostly European but "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor", likely "in the range of 6 to 10 generations ago".'
This is potentially misleading to viewers unless we note that this is the same amount of ancestry that a random white American is likely to have. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The subsection "Ancestry and Native American relations" in the larger public image section seems a little weird to me. You have 5 paragraphs on her ancestry controversy, and then the section ends with two sentences about Deb Haaland's praise and endorsement of her. I have no objection to the information itself, but it just seems weird to have it in a section that is overwhelmingly focused on the issue of her ancestry. Why not move the Haaland endorsement sentence to somewhere in the section on her presidential campaign instead? 2600:8800:4CE0:E400:7D60:3525:5CF3:500D (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
the Dr. Phil story, while not currently cited this way, was cited in several articles and biographical profiles of Warren. I'll look. Andre🚐 05:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
In the area where the article lists children, it says "2, including Amelia". It is know that that Warren's children are Amelia Warren Tyagi and Alexander Warren. It would be useful to change the information to include Alexander Warren, as of current it is difficult to glean his existence from the current article. Thanks for reading, and have a great day! Emrehozchan (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
As a former chair of hiring and advancement at Harvard, I take exception with you ludicrous statement that Ms Warren received no preferential consideration due to her claims of indigenous heritage. You lose credibility when you cover for her. This site, which I have given substantial donations to,absolutely must show the good, bad, and ugly, otherwise you are nothing. 2601:249:8780:6530:4D57:406:3A73:8FBD (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: Nowhere does it say that she started her second term in 2017. It does say that she announced in 2017 that she would run for a second term . – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Done