Gandydancer (talk | contribs) |
CharlesShirley (talk | contribs) →High Cheekbones vis-a-vis someone is a Cherokee Indian: nope is not a response. It lacks any substance whatsoever. |
||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
:::CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories ''and language''? [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
:::CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories ''and language''? [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Nope. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
::::Nope. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::Thank you Yopienso for your response. Your comment is an example of the lack of intelligent dialog happening on this page as it concerns Warren's false claims. YoPienso does not provide an intelligence response to XavierItzm's excellent and insightful question, just a negative. It is pathetic. She tried to say she is Indian because she has "high cheekbones" (yes, her Aunt said it first, but she repeated it to justify her false claim) and that cheekbones comment is a stereotype based upon a what non-Native folks think Indians look like. It is a BS argument and many editors are choosing to ignore it. If Trump has made such a ignorant, backwards, stereotypical statement then it would be worked into the Trump article and every article that even mentions Trump in even a obscure way. Thanks, YoPienso for showing the world what a lack of intelligent discussion has been happening on this page and lack of rationale behind leaving out her false Indian justification which was based upon an ignorant, backwards stereotype. -[[User:CharlesShirley|CharlesShirley]] ([[User talk:CharlesShirley|talk]]) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
Revision as of 21:01, 2 February 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Elizabeth Warren has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Inclusion of Trump's charity promise
It's easily sourced to RS that Trump promised to donate 1 million to the charity of Warren's choice. He made this promise during a rally and later claimed that he would only accept the results if he could do the test himself. This fuller context of the Native American controversy should be explained. While the Cherokee Nation didn't like what Warren did, she did it clearly in response to Trump's demand and challenge, and his promise, which he seems to have broken as well. I don't necessarily think we need to include the fact that Trump hasn't yet donated the money, because maybe he still will one day. See this RS at Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/trump-dared-elizabeth-warren-take-dna-test-prove-her-native-american-ancestry-now-what/ Yetishawl (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted the addition of "junk science," this is obviously not relevant or an appropriate POV to include. Yetishawl (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yetishawl: I find your argument for removing Trump's comment about the DNA test as "junk science" to be without any support by reliable sources. Your argument is not an argument at all to support your removal of the comment, but actually just a conclusion which is based upon your personal opinion. Now, I have two points about your personal opinion: (1) It is your personal opinion and it is wrong and (2) your personal opinion is completely and totally irrelevant anything to do with Wikipedia. It is my opinion that your opinion is wrong, which is also also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Here, in Wikipedia, we don't put something in an article unless it is supported by a reliable source. You are not a reliable source. We can't remove something, which is supported by a reliable source simply just because you don't like it or you think is is not "appropriate", whatever that might mean. You need to supply a reason why the information that inserted into the article, which is supported by a reliable source, should not be in the article and you can't simply say: "I don't think is it 'appropriate'". That doesn't cut it. If you want to put in the article Trump's charity promise then it is completely "appropriate" for Trump's comment on it to be included also. The truth is that Trump's promise really shouldn't be in the article because it is undue weight. But since you insist that it be included that it is completely "appropriate" and proper to include Trump's comment, as long as it is presented in a neutral manner and supported by a reliable source--both of things were met in my edit. You need to provide a real reason for its removal other than simply your personal opinion, which is completely and totally irrelevant. --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whoa there, buddy. If you insist on including the "junk science" quote, I have added that it was conducted by a recognized expert and Stanford professor who we have an article about. It is not "junk science," it's a DNA analysis, which has been supported by reliable sources to be legitimate. "Alternative facts" and Trumpist spin have no place here. The facts are, as supported by RS, Warren is a very small percentage Native American, Trump promised to donate $1m, but he hasn't made good on that promise. Yetishawl (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yetishawl: Whoa there, buddy. You need to get concensus to remove tons of information from the article. Information that has been debated and discussed on this talk page over and over. You removed most of the paragraph that has been years in the making. I reverted your edits because you do not have any concensus to tear apart the paragraph that was the concensus paragraph. I removed Trump's response and I removed the reference to Trump's promise, neither of which were part of the original concensus paragraph. We will go back to that concensus paragraph for right now. Please seek concensus. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't remove any information at all! What information did you think I removed? This is crazy - you are the one who just removed a bunch of info. Yetishawl (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yetishawl: Whoa there, buddy. You need to get concensus to remove tons of information from the article. Information that has been debated and discussed on this talk page over and over. You removed most of the paragraph that has been years in the making. I reverted your edits because you do not have any concensus to tear apart the paragraph that was the concensus paragraph. I removed Trump's response and I removed the reference to Trump's promise, neither of which were part of the original concensus paragraph. We will go back to that concensus paragraph for right now. Please seek concensus. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whoa there, buddy. If you insist on including the "junk science" quote, I have added that it was conducted by a recognized expert and Stanford professor who we have an article about. It is not "junk science," it's a DNA analysis, which has been supported by reliable sources to be legitimate. "Alternative facts" and Trumpist spin have no place here. The facts are, as supported by RS, Warren is a very small percentage Native American, Trump promised to donate $1m, but he hasn't made good on that promise. Yetishawl (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yetishawl: I find your argument for removing Trump's comment about the DNA test as "junk science" to be without any support by reliable sources. Your argument is not an argument at all to support your removal of the comment, but actually just a conclusion which is based upon your personal opinion. Now, I have two points about your personal opinion: (1) It is your personal opinion and it is wrong and (2) your personal opinion is completely and totally irrelevant anything to do with Wikipedia. It is my opinion that your opinion is wrong, which is also also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Here, in Wikipedia, we don't put something in an article unless it is supported by a reliable source. You are not a reliable source. We can't remove something, which is supported by a reliable source simply just because you don't like it or you think is is not "appropriate", whatever that might mean. You need to supply a reason why the information that inserted into the article, which is supported by a reliable source, should not be in the article and you can't simply say: "I don't think is it 'appropriate'". That doesn't cut it. If you want to put in the article Trump's charity promise then it is completely "appropriate" for Trump's comment on it to be included also. The truth is that Trump's promise really shouldn't be in the article because it is undue weight. But since you insist that it be included that it is completely "appropriate" and proper to include Trump's comment, as long as it is presented in a neutral manner and supported by a reliable source--both of things were met in my edit. You need to provide a real reason for its removal other than simply your personal opinion, which is completely and totally irrelevant. --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
RfC about including Trump's promise to donate $1m to charity
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.
Donald Trump said he would donate $1m to charity if Elizabeth Warren had her DNA tested for Native American ancestry. Should Trump's statement be included in the article? Yetishawl (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Moved here: This appears in RS and is clearly a motivating reason as to why Warren released her DNA test. Trump's charity promise should be included. Note that I am not arguing to remove any information at all. Please look at the diffs and history. Yetishawl (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppet) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Could you please be more specific? What specific text are you proposing to add; where would you add it; and what reliable sources would you be citing? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The proposed text was added to the article and cites the Washington Post. I am proposing to include, in some form, the idea that Trump said he would donate $1m to charity. You can see several versions I added to the article history. Yetishawl (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Here is the proposed text you added: Trump had promised to donate one million dollars to the charity of Warren's choice; he has not done so. His press representative Kellyanne Conway called the test "junk science." You do realize that this is the Elizabeth Warren article, right? The information you are proposing tells us nothing about Warren, the subject of this article. Have you thought about introducing it into the Trump and Conway articles? Also, your assertion that the money offer is clearly a motivating reason as to why Warren released her DNA test", the sources you provided contradict that: it was "his racism" that prompted her. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes It's verifiable and an important part of the controversy. It's mentioned by many, many sources. R2 (bleep) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes The subject received significant coverage from many reliable sources. But it is a relatively minor issue. It should not be given disproportionate weight in a biography. So the verbiage should be sparing, mostly directing readers to sources if they want to know more.––Saranoon (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but - As Saranoon mentioned; we want to make sure we're not giving this WP:UNDUE weight. Frankly, I think the whole discussion about her native American heritage (real or imagined), should be pared down to 3 sentences. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, right now the section is only one paragraph in "Early life, education, and family", it would be undue to go into this much detail in that section. If it's moved to a sub-section of "2016 presidential and vice presidential speculation" (which should be expanded to also cover 2020 speculation) it might not be undue to mention this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Depends - as per Power~enwiki, it depends on the detail. If the entire text about this is brief (which I would prefer), it's not DUE. If lengthy, it's DUE. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but keep brief, per NickCT and others. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes; a single sentence, somewhere in the article when it otherwise mentions her political career and the Native American controversy/issue generally.Happy monsoon day 04:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. The proposed addition tells us absolutely nothing about the subject of this article, Elizabeth Warren. If you want to convey information that Trump doesn't honor his commitments, or that Conway appears clueless about an advanced science, there are two appropriate articles in which to do so. This article isn't one of them. Have you thought about introducing it here, instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not true, at all. It tells us that Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision. The current text does not include Conway or whether Trump has yet honored his promise, simply that he said it. I agree, that Conway or her junk science should not be in here at all. That was suggested to be added by Charles Shirley. There is clearly a consensus above that Trump's promise is to be included and I don't think one invalid argument matters at this point. Yetishawl (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- ... Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision..." - citation, please? That isn't in your cited sources. In addition, I highly doubt that Warren takes any claims made by Trump as a "motivating factor" for much of anything. I would wager that holds true for the vast majority of Democrats as well. As for your declaration that there is clearly a consensus above", that isn't for you, the originator of this RfC, to decide. You may request that the consensus be determined at this noticeboard, if you'd like: WP:AN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- It says here: CNBC article "Send them your $1M check, @ realDonaldTrump," Warren tweeted. She also mentions the $1million in her video released at the same time. There are other sources that she knew about and responded to the $1m pledge. Your feelings about whether Democrats take Trump seriously are not relevant. Yetishawl (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course she knew about Trump's $1M fake-offer. You, however, are claiming she "used this as a motivating factor for her decision" to take the test, which is not only unsupported by your citations (including this latest one), but is also logically unlikely. So, citation, please? You are correct that the fact that Democrats (or the general public) take Trump less seriously with each utterance isn't specifically relevant to this discussion. I only mentioned it because Warren is a Democrat, last I checked, and you were trying to imply (without source citation) that she was somehow motivated to act because of his comments. Hopefully that is clearer now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- You said earlier that Trump's challenge and promise are irrelevant to Warren, and tell us absolutely nothing. That's absurd. She explicitly called out Donald and name-checked him. She addressed his claim telling him to "pay up." Yetishawl (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course she knew about Trump's $1M fake-offer. You, however, are claiming she "used this as a motivating factor for her decision" to take the test, which is not only unsupported by your citations (including this latest one), but is also logically unlikely. So, citation, please? You are correct that the fact that Democrats (or the general public) take Trump less seriously with each utterance isn't specifically relevant to this discussion. I only mentioned it because Warren is a Democrat, last I checked, and you were trying to imply (without source citation) that she was somehow motivated to act because of his comments. Hopefully that is clearer now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- It says here: CNBC article "Send them your $1M check, @ realDonaldTrump," Warren tweeted. She also mentions the $1million in her video released at the same time. There are other sources that she knew about and responded to the $1m pledge. Your feelings about whether Democrats take Trump seriously are not relevant. Yetishawl (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- ... Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision..." - citation, please? That isn't in your cited sources. In addition, I highly doubt that Warren takes any claims made by Trump as a "motivating factor" for much of anything. I would wager that holds true for the vast majority of Democrats as well. As for your declaration that there is clearly a consensus above", that isn't for you, the originator of this RfC, to decide. You may request that the consensus be determined at this noticeboard, if you'd like: WP:AN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not true, at all. It tells us that Warren, who believed Trump would donate $1m, used this as a motivating factor for her decision. The current text does not include Conway or whether Trump has yet honored his promise, simply that he said it. I agree, that Conway or her junk science should not be in here at all. That was suggested to be added by Charles Shirley. There is clearly a consensus above that Trump's promise is to be included and I don't think one invalid argument matters at this point. Yetishawl (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes (Summoned by bot) (getting back to RFC whether or not to mention Trump's wager here) but as per NickCT, keep it brief. Trump's challenge is relevant context for DNA test. This article should not become a COATRACK about whether Trump pays his bets, what his spox said about it later, etc. etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This RFC was adopted by Saranoon and is now closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&diff=872013103&oldid=871998017&diffmode=source Yetishawl (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
|
- Comment It depends on how it is phrased. Trump offered $1 million if Warren proved she was an Indian. She of course is not. Also, we should mention criticism of Warren for falling into Trump's trap, especially as the midterms approached. TFD (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Maybe specify that Trump ought to pay $976 dollars?
- $976 is 1/1024 of one million. XavierItzm (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes (Summoned by bot) a brief mention . Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes zzz (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. It doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic biographical information. It says nothing significant about the subject of the article. - Kzirkel (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- No GMGtalk 17:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Very briefly. Quite evidently the Native American ancestry question has become a high profile political football (with back and forth ponts between Warren and various Republicans - mainly Trump of late). As a political issue, we should cover the issue - very briefly, with the main back and forth barbs here. Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps, if the statement is brief, though per TFD I think the political theatre around this issue is far more important than any specific statement by Trump. And I oppose this edit [1] attempting to add Trump's statement while also claiming in authoritative Wikipedia voice that this, specific statement led Warren to test her DNA. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not as shown - what was offered seems more a Trump-oriented line not a significant part of her biography, and the RFC is asking about a Trump promise -- and what Trump said seems just not something that is important to the course of her life so not BLP material. (If a Warren-focused different line was stated and location proposed then maybe, but it seems problematic as to how much must be added for NPOV seems a bit long. It had lot of coverage so seems DUE some but ... first it would have to lay out the story, and then the most coverage DUE is first saying she had a test that found 'strong evidence' of Native American blood 1 though not definitive -- and after that the next big thing is the backlash from the Cherokee 2. The Trump promise is down lower, along with that it was part of 2016 campaign alleging she made improper claims to gain an advantage and that this 2018 reveal is thought preparation for a bid in 2020. This all seems a bit complex.) I'll suggest trying to write one or two lines that convey the major points perhaps like 'After allegations about her ancestry in 2016 primaries she had a DNA test which strongly supported that she had a distant Native American ancestry.' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, briefly. Interactions with the president of the United States, especially ones as high-profile as this, are notable. - Sdkb (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- No per Xenophrenic. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- No Not something I initially felt terribly strong about, but Zenophrenic makes a very good case for not including it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Include. This is a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis at the end of the day. It's not our place to interject our idiosyncratic views on what is a meaningful part of the narrative of this public exhange between politicians; it receives a certain amount of weight in our sources and it this receives a duely weighted summary in on our article. Snow let's rap 07:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- No as per Xenophrenic's cogently-stated position. This issue is complex and fraught enough without introducing Trump's political arguments into Warren's early life, childhood and family section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, per Xenophrenic's argument. Trump's offer is relevant to Trump, but given the large number of fake-offers he has made, it is doubtful that it says anything meaningful about Warren. More appropriate to include it in a Trump-related article. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. The President directed a specific offer to her. She did prove her NA heritage. He reneged. She urged him to fulfill his promise[2]. Interactions such as these, covered extensively by RS, with the President are clearly pertinent. I don't see why it matters if this was the primary reason why she released the DNA test. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019
Elizabeth Warren lied on an application to Harvard stating she was American Indian. For 10 years she was on the list as Native American. She then lied about it during her campaign and was exposed. She had a DNA test that revealed she has less American Indian blood than 99% of the U.S. Population. President Donald Trump refers to her as Pocahontas as a slam to her lying about being Native American. This important fact, must be added to her bio. 118.129.134.30 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's all in the article just not in the alarmist language you use. Incidentally, the vast majority of Americans have no Native American ancestry at all, so your 99% claim is false (see above discussion threads for sources.) TFD (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, the anonymous is correct that Harvard represented Warren to the Federal Government as Native on Federally mandated forms, according to The Boston Globe:
Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school.[1]
- I can list additional WP:RS in case anyone is interested in that the sources have to say about this subject. XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- More importantly, it is false to claim that Warren "lied on an application to Harvard stating she was American Indian."[2] HouseOfChange (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, "it's all in the article."
- "Warren was criticized in 2012 for having listed herself as a minority in a directory for Harvard Law School in the 1980s. Opponents said Warren falsified her heritage to advance her career through minority quotas. Warren denied these allegations, and several colleagues and employers (including Harvard) have said her reported ethnic status played no role in her hiring.[26][27] An investigation by The Boston Globe in 2018 found "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools."[28]"
- Editors should check to see if information is already in the article before complaining that it isn't.
- TFD (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can list additional WP:RS in case anyone is interested in that the sources have to say about this subject. XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mary Carmichael (25 May 2012). "Filings raise more questions on Warren's ethnic claims". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 27 October 2018.
But for at least six straight years during Warren's tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
- ^ Linsky, Annie (September 1, 2018). "Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren's rise in law". The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 1, 2019.
In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.
"He said, she said" on whether universities hired her on the basis of race
This Wikipedia article currently falsely presents a "he said, she said" text as to whether Warren's status as a 'Native-American' advanced her career. The most thorough and comprehensive investigation of this by the Boston Globe[3] concluded that there is "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools." An editor removed the Boston Globe's conclusion, with the edit summary that it was "unnecessary additions".[4] Again, the most comprehensive investigation by a RS on this subject is being kept out of the article because the conclusion of that investigation runs contrary to the false narrative that this led to career advancement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have very little skin in the game here, but I personally support the article as it is. There have been various issues with everything from WP:WEIGHT to WP:POV to WP:FORUM to WP:SOAP to WP:NOTNEWS...I mean, seriously, from afar I have had quite a few serious issues with the article and discussion. Right now, I see none of those issues. I see a few important notes to make:
- 1) Her claim of Native American ancestry is WP:NOTABLE. It has been a major source of news, dating back to her first run for office. It impacts both her earlier life (as part of her upbringing), her academic career (with Harvard) and her political career (as a source of controversy). It has also been at the center of her conflict with the President (which is notable in its own right but will become much more so if she runs for POTUS).
- 2) Right now, we are just stating the facts. She made the claim. It was thought to affect her hiring. Most associated say it did not. It aroused controversy during her political career. The President made a bet. She took a DNA test. She may have some Native ancestry. The Cherokee nation does not like DNA tests. BOOM, DONE. That covers all the important, well-covered details. But no more.
- 3) The citations we rely on are from high quality articles. They are well-written and well-researched. BBC News and the NY Times are both well regarded. Though this certainly is not the most important point, it is worth noting.
- All in all, I would keep it as is, only adding more if something noteworthy occurs. PrairieKid (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with your characterization of "BOOM, DONE." A lot of key content has been left out. For example, there's the whitewashing of the racist statement that Indians have high cheekbones, plus there is the fact she has claimed to be Cherokee.[1][2][3][4] Why omit such key facts from an encyclopaedia? XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I should add this is the version I am talking about. The inclusion of The Boston Globe article is not in support or opposition to it; rather, it is simply stating that a major article was written and made that conclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- The BG piece is the most comprehensive investigation of this controversy to date. And from the same paper that broke this story in the first place a decade ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your desire to put positive information in article from reliable sources concerning EW's Indian issues over the years. I think the BG article and the conclusions it draws should be in the article. However, there has been a focused effort to severely limit the amount of information concerning EW's Indian issues in article. Now, we all agreed that we would limit the amount of Indian issue information is included in the article. If you want to break that consensus then that is fine. It is perfectly ok, but we should not whitewash the article of the information that is decidedly negative concerning her claims of being: (1) Native American, (2) Cherokee, (3) she's Indian because she has high cheekbones, and (4) a number of other various, at best, embarrassing facts about her claims that DNA testing and New England genealogists do not support. I ask the question why add the BG article and its unscientific, non-legal opinion, but whitewash the article of her claim that high cheekbones proves that she is Indian? I think we should have all of the information and quit censoring the article. The Donald Trump article would definitely quote the Trump if Trump claimed that someone is an Indian because they have high cheekbones. It is a whitewash and that is all there is to it. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly the Boston Globe article belongs in this bio. To call it an attempt to whitewash is really quite silly. Gandydancer (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Globe report is so persuasive, it might be simpler just to state as a fact that her assertions of Cherokee ancestry did not influence the hiring process. In any case, it is clearly misleading to leave readers in any doubt about the facts. TFD (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly the Boston Globe article belongs in this bio. To call it an attempt to whitewash is really quite silly. Gandydancer (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your desire to put positive information in article from reliable sources concerning EW's Indian issues over the years. I think the BG article and the conclusions it draws should be in the article. However, there has been a focused effort to severely limit the amount of information concerning EW's Indian issues in article. Now, we all agreed that we would limit the amount of Indian issue information is included in the article. If you want to break that consensus then that is fine. It is perfectly ok, but we should not whitewash the article of the information that is decidedly negative concerning her claims of being: (1) Native American, (2) Cherokee, (3) she's Indian because she has high cheekbones, and (4) a number of other various, at best, embarrassing facts about her claims that DNA testing and New England genealogists do not support. I ask the question why add the BG article and its unscientific, non-legal opinion, but whitewash the article of her claim that high cheekbones proves that she is Indian? I think we should have all of the information and quit censoring the article. The Donald Trump article would definitely quote the Trump if Trump claimed that someone is an Indian because they have high cheekbones. It is a whitewash and that is all there is to it. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- The BG piece is the most comprehensive investigation of this controversy to date. And from the same paper that broke this story in the first place a decade ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA (20 May 2012). "Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
- ^ Josh Hicks (28 September 2012). "Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she 'applied' to Harvard and Penn?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
Warren contributed recipes to a Native American cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow," published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Okla. She signed her entries "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
- ^ Annie Linskey (January 19, 2018). "Elizabeth Warren's Native American problem goes beyond politics". Boston Gllobe. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
In the book, which was edited by her cousin and unearthed during her 2012 campaign by the Boston Herald, her name is listed as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee."
- ^ Jon Greenberg (1 December 2017). "The facts behind Elizabeth Warren, her claimed Native American ties and Trump's 'Pocahontas' insult". Politifact. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
The book was entitled Pow Wow Chow. Warren sent five, and under each one, listed herself as Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.
High Cheekbones vis-a-vis someone is a Cherokee Indian
Her claim that if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian is a significant comment, has aspects of racism to it, and should be included in the article. This claim by EW should not be censored or whitewashed from the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. Please proceed with the edit. XavierItzm (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Nor should it be cherry picked from the numerous reasons that she has stated that she believes point to her native american ancestry, and especially so if it has an aspect of racism as you suggest. It's one thing for someone's family to point out grandma's high cheek bones but quite another to put it in their Wikipedia article as if to prove a point. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- That is not what she said and making that claim here is a BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) RS cites her as quoting her aunt using the phrase : "And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do."[5] This sounds like a quote from Aunt Bea, in a conversation explaining that Warren had often been told by Aunt Bea that she had Indian heritage. Reading "aspects of racism" into this is quite a stretch. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
First it does not matter one flying flip if she said it originally or her Aunt Bea said it originally or if the Grand Wizard of KKK said it first. The important point is that she repeated the sentiment in her defense of her claims that she is: (1) Native American, and (2) Cherokee, both which claims are either flat out false or highly suspect. If Trump had made the claim that he was a Cherokee because he had high cheekbones there would be a ten page article in Wikipedia quoting every living source to their opinion on the ignorance of the claim and the absurdity of the claim. Second, it is not trivia. You only believe that her absurd claim is "trivia" because EW said it. If was Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro then the it would not be "trivia" but the most important aspect of those individual's particular lives ever. Calling her comment, which is "ignorant", "backward", "unscientific", "hillbilly", etc.", trivia is one of the few things it is not. She has spent her almost of her adult life claiming to be: (1) Native American and (2) Cherokee and her very first defense of those questionable claims is her she has high cheekbones and yet you think it is "trivia". Horse hockey. Hog wash. This is epitome of whitewashing the article. It is the very epitome of censorship. It is moronic claim that calls into question her understanding of racial issues and calls attention to her huge misunderstanding of her own claimed heritage. Calling it "trivia" is a laughable defense. Her justifying her claims of being Indian and Cherokee by pointing to her "high cheekbones" is a significant embarrassing event for her and it is not trivia. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- No need to characterize the comments: it would be sufficient with just citing them and letting the reader be judge. Now, as to your whitewashing of the Senator's statements: what do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- In order to include it, it must have significant coverage, which it does not. There is no point arguing that it is important or racist, because those are not criteria for inclusion. And including something and asking the reader to judge is tendentious, implied original research because it leads readers to a conclusion without providing the arguments for and against. TFD (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage of the "high cheekbones" "like all the Indians do" statement.
CBS 2012.[1]
CBS 2017 [2].
CNN 2018.[3]
Washington Post 2012.[4]
The New York Times 2012.[5]
The Atlantic 2012.[6]
USA Today 2018.[7]
NBC 2018.[8]
The Boston Herald 2018.[9]
The Los Angeles Times 2012.[10]
The New Yorker 2012.[11]
The Boston Globe 2012.[12]
The Wall Street Journal 2018.[13]
There's lotsa more where that came from. XavierItzm (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage of the "high cheekbones" "like all the Indians do" statement.
- Frankly, your claim that this is racist sounds racist. O3000 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did not claim anything was racist and ask you remove your personal attack. Also, I did not say one had to show it had coverage in the press, but that it had significant coverage, which in this case means relative to coverage of Elizabeth Warren. Bear in mind the subject has received extensive ongoing media coverage since she first ran for senator. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was responding to the claim in the edit summary by the OP that this is racist, the section heading (which is false and I’ll correct) and the further comment by XavierItzm that this is a “racist story” which are all BLP violations IMO. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did not claim anything was racist and ask you remove your personal attack. Also, I did not say one had to show it had coverage in the press, but that it had significant coverage, which in this case means relative to coverage of Elizabeth Warren. Bear in mind the subject has received extensive ongoing media coverage since she first ran for senator. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- In order to include it, it must have significant coverage, which it does not. There is no point arguing that it is important or racist, because those are not criteria for inclusion. And including something and asking the reader to judge is tendentious, implied original research because it leads readers to a conclusion without providing the arguments for and against. TFD (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- No need to characterize the comments: it would be sufficient with just citing them and letting the reader be judge. Now, as to your whitewashing of the Senator's statements: what do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I just read your claim that me calling her "high cheekbones" comment somewhat racist or mildly racist is racist in and of itself to be the first Orwellian type of comment of 2019. As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma I have to wonder if you have any idea of what you are talking about. Based upon the very little that I have read from you I currently believe that you do not. However this page is about making the article better and not debating (or actually educating you about racism) you about EW's racist comment about "all" "Indians" "have high cheekbones". So try to keep it to yourself and focus on the article. Her comment is significant. It was the first attempt by her to justify telling school administrators that she was "Cherokee" and "Indian". It is also significant because it points out how she has basic misunderstandings about the two cultures that she has spent her adult life claiming. It is (obviously) significant because not all "Indians" have "high cheekbones", which is just flat out scientifically incorrect comment. Also, it is significant because claiming that the way to find an "Indian" is to look for "high cheekbones" is a racist statement, regardless of the fact that you simply do not like me calling it racist. It is racist whether you like me calling it racist or not. --CharlesShirley (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to have a separate article about the Indian ancestry controversy, where all these issues could be explored in greater detail beyond what is warranted in this article. However, the big divide among editors on this issue makes me wonder whether a neutral article should be achieved. Some editors for example argue against evidence that she was hired by Harvard because of her ancestry or that the DNA tests do not support her claims. But there is mainstream consensus that her handling of the matter reflects poorly on her. TFD (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, please stop calling people racist based upon your own opinions. This is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Objective3000, it is not just me that calls her originally justification racist. There are many member of my tribe that call her comments racist. You might not like that tons of people, people that are directly affected by her racist comments, are calling out her racist comment, but that does not make the comment any less racist. Please review the words of one of the members of my tribe:
In defending her supposed Native identity, Warren has drawn from both racist stereotypes and easily refutable stories about her family. At a 2012 press conference Warren stated that her family knew her grandfather was “part” Cherokee because “he had high cheekbones like all of the Indians.” Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.
- Rebecca Nagle from Op-Ed: I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not. in ThinkProgress, November 30, 2017.
- Objective3000, it is not just me that calls her originally justification racist. There are many member of my tribe that call her comments racist. You might not like that tons of people, people that are directly affected by her racist comments, are calling out her racist comment, but that does not make the comment any less racist. Please review the words of one of the members of my tribe:
- (restart indenting) Warren, in a 2012 rambling interview with multiple reporters, used the phrase "high cheekbones" while directly quoting her Aunt Bea:
I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she though this was the bad deal she had gotten in life.
- Warren is clearly not "claiming that the way to find an Indian is too look for high cheekbones" or "if someone has "high cheekbones" proves they are Indian." In that interview, she is giving examples of the ways she was told, growing up, that her mother's family had Native American ancestry. She is not, as an adult, claiming that these stories from childhood prove anything except that, during her childhood, she heard these stories. To include the full context of this two-word quote would require giving it much more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Currently, the article includes a citation that includes (in the reference {{cite news}} template) a part of the CBS News quote about "high cheekbones", but it has ellipsis ("...") instead of the sentences that say "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life." In my opinion, the part that was removed from the quote is important and should also be included in the quote for context (if the quote of the sentence before it is kept in the citation), because that part helps clarify that she was discussing what someone else said and thought, not her own thoughts, and is saying that the other person thought the described characteristic was desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with @BarrelProof: that a simple improvement would be to replace the ellipsis in that quote with Warren's omitted words: "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She thought that was the bad deal she had gotten in life." They make it clear that EW is reporting her Aunt Bea's words based on Aunt Bea's admiring thoughts about Aunt Bea's father. If somebody who is an admin could make that change, I think it would be an improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- The protection expired, so I made that edit myself. We can continue to discuss, of course, but I think that quoting the first sentence while omitting the second and third sentences would not be appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with @BarrelProof: that a simple improvement would be to replace the ellipsis in that quote with Warren's omitted words: "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She thought that was the bad deal she had gotten in life." They make it clear that EW is reporting her Aunt Bea's words based on Aunt Bea's admiring thoughts about Aunt Bea's father. If somebody who is an admin could make that change, I think it would be an improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Currently, the article includes a citation that includes (in the reference {{cite news}} template) a part of the CBS News quote about "high cheekbones", but it has ellipsis ("...") instead of the sentences that say "Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life." In my opinion, the part that was removed from the quote is important and should also be included in the quote for context (if the quote of the sentence before it is kept in the citation), because that part helps clarify that she was discussing what someone else said and thought, not her own thoughts, and is saying that the other person thought the described characteristic was desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Although this ("cheekbones" issue) is mentioned by a relatively few sources (mentioned above), it does not seem to be given enough weight, looking at the totality of reliable sources about Warren, for it to merit space here, given the current (relatively, and AFAICT reasonably, short) amount of space devoted to the issue overall. The slant some editors above have tried to add it with in the past, as compared to what Warren said (as HouseOfChange points out), is also an issue. -sche (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, Native Americans on average have higher cheekbones than European Americans just as on average African Americans have darker skins than European Americans. African Americans, European Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Australian Aborigines do have different appearances on average. TFD (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, assuming that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is racist because there are many Native Americans that do not have those physical characteristics. It is a racist sentiment. It is as simple at that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- She didn’t say it. A relative said it. And, I don’t see how it could be taken as racist in context anyhow. It’s an offhand compliment. It’s like saying all Swedish women are blond and I ended up brunette. Of course all Swede’s are not blond and it’s just an envious statement, in no way racist. You are trivializing the actual, massive, daily harm caused by real racism by insisting that this is racist. You want real racism, look at President Jackson and the Trail of Tears. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't lecture me about the history of my tribe. You are no expert. Also, you are attempting to change the subject from her use of racial stereotypes. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, no idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't lecture me about the history of my tribe. You are no expert. Also, you are attempting to change the subject from her use of racial stereotypes. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- What's troublesome here is not that CharlesShirley arrived at this page upset by a very slanted version of what Warren said, why she said it, how often she said it, etc. What's troublesome is that, even after having the opportunity to learn the truth from actual RS describing the TWO WORDS that upset him, he continues to promote the inaccurate beliefs that he arrived with. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you have that opinion. But it is just your opinion. It is not fact. She assumes, incorrectly, that all "Indians" have "high cheekbones" that is a false assumption that is based upon racial stereotypes, as many reliable sources have pointed out over and over again. Just hoping and wishing and pounding your feet doesn't change the fact that she was engaging in racial stereotypes all "Indian" while claiming to be "Cherokee" when it is clear that she is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. She used a racial stereotype to justify calling herself one. That fact does not change because a few Wikipedia editors want to believe it is not true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody's lecturing you about the history of your tribe. They're just contextualizing Warren's comment. The idea that high cheekbones are an indication of Native American ancestry was widespread until quite recently. Beware presentism. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you have that opinion. But it is just your opinion. It is not fact. She assumes, incorrectly, that all "Indians" have "high cheekbones" that is a false assumption that is based upon racial stereotypes, as many reliable sources have pointed out over and over again. Just hoping and wishing and pounding your feet doesn't change the fact that she was engaging in racial stereotypes all "Indian" while claiming to be "Cherokee" when it is clear that she is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. She used a racial stereotype to justify calling herself one. That fact does not change because a few Wikipedia editors want to believe it is not true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- She didn’t say it. A relative said it. And, I don’t see how it could be taken as racist in context anyhow. It’s an offhand compliment. It’s like saying all Swedish women are blond and I ended up brunette. Of course all Swede’s are not blond and it’s just an envious statement, in no way racist. You are trivializing the actual, massive, daily harm caused by real racism by insisting that this is racist. You want real racism, look at President Jackson and the Trail of Tears. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, assuming that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is racist because there are many Native Americans that do not have those physical characteristics. It is a racist sentiment. It is as simple at that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would you please stop exaggerating. It doesn’t help. She did not assume that all Indians have high cheekbones. None of your sources include a claim by her that she is a member of the Cherokee tribe. She merely claimed to have Cherokee blood. One of your sources says the current principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Cherokee. So what? Most people are quite confused about their ancestry. Further, what right does the Cherokee Nation have to say you can't call yourself Cherokee because you aren’t a direct lineal ancestor to someone on the Dawson or Baker roles, created centuries after the origin of Cherokee tribes? There are Christian sects that claim you aren’t Christian if you aren’t reborn. There are Jewish sects that claim you aren’t Jewish if you don’t subscribe to their level of orthodoxy. But, they don’t have that right either. Frankly, arguments about what part she is or is not Indian and what she is allowed to call herself reminds me of the Wannsee Conference. Forgive me Godwin. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- No one is exaggerating. I am pointing exactly what she said. She quoted her Aunt who said that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". There are reliable sources that have said exactly what I said. I quoted one above, Rebecca Nagel. The long list of comments you stated above are all true and they are all beside the point. She tried to use the comments of her Aunt to justify calling herself an "Indian" and she flat out stated that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". This is a racial stereotype and Rebecca Nagel and others have pointed this out. Now, you don't like this fact, but it is true. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- OpEds are not, typically, considered RS for matters of fact and this one certainly is not. We know what Warren said about high cheekbones. Many reporters quoted it verbatim, and it is on tape. Rebecca Nagle in that article is misrepresenting what Warren said. The fact that other people before you have misrepresented what Warren said should make you dubious about believing other things they say, considering that it is easily proven that they are lying about the "high cheekbones" quote. The fact that Nagle gets upset when people talk about Native American heritage in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY people talk about Irish heritage or Polish heritage, is not the fault of Elizabeth Warren. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. YoPienso (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Yopienso for your response. Your comment is an example of the lack of intelligent dialog happening on this page as it concerns Warren's false claims. YoPienso does not provide an intelligence response to XavierItzm's excellent and insightful question, just a negative. It is pathetic. She tried to say she is Indian because she has "high cheekbones" (yes, her Aunt said it first, but she repeated it to justify her false claim) and that cheekbones comment is a stereotype based upon a what non-Native folks think Indians look like. It is a BS argument and many editors are choosing to ignore it. If Trump has made such a ignorant, backwards, stereotypical statement then it would be worked into the Trump article and every article that even mentions Trump in even a obscure way. Thanks, YoPienso for showing the world what a lack of intelligent discussion has been happening on this page and lack of rationale behind leaving out her false Indian justification which was based upon an ignorant, backwards stereotype. -CharlesShirley (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. YoPienso (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley is correct. The argument "She didn’t say it. A relative said it" is specious. What do we say about people who go on blithely repeating their relatives' racist stories and language? XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- OpEds are not, typically, considered RS for matters of fact and this one certainly is not. We know what Warren said about high cheekbones. Many reporters quoted it verbatim, and it is on tape. Rebecca Nagle in that article is misrepresenting what Warren said. The fact that other people before you have misrepresented what Warren said should make you dubious about believing other things they say, considering that it is easily proven that they are lying about the "high cheekbones" quote. The fact that Nagle gets upset when people talk about Native American heritage in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY people talk about Irish heritage or Polish heritage, is not the fault of Elizabeth Warren. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Madison, Lucy (May 3, 2012). "Warren explains minority listing, talks of grandfather's 'high cheekbones'". CBS News. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he – her father, my Papaw – had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do.
- ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-explains-minority-listing-talks-of-grandfathers-high-cheekbones/
- ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/elizabeth-warren-struggles-with-response-to-native-american-questions-again/2012/05/03/gIQAz8pLzT_blog.html?utm_term=.e25fc23dfc45
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-a-little-bit-indian.html
- ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/
- ^ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/18/native-american-elizabeth-warren-cherokee-ancestry-column/1668763002/
- ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/warren-makes-case-she-can-go-toe-toe-trump-n920281
- ^ https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/07/09/editorial-donald-trump-is-right-to-call-out-liz-warren-on-indian-claims/
- ^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCpandKkoD8J:articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/opinion/la-oe-allen-warren-indian-20120527+&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es
- ^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCpandKkoD8J:articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/opinion/la-oe-allen-warren-indian-20120527+&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es
- ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/31/what-warren-has-said/4qqoTK6mq4KLiamO79fBtM/story.html
- ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-lectures-native-americans-about-pocahontas-1519168877
Citation 27
I think it doesn't really support her claim, rather , it's more about how this usage of DNA tests decredits legit usages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariodant (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since the article is evolving and will evolve further, it may not be clear to everyone which source the above comment is talking about. I think it is talking about this one: "Elizabeth Warren: DNA test finds 'strong evidence' of Native American blood". BBC News. October 15, 2018. But I am still not sure what the comment is saying about the Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My reverted additions
My five additions, from (→Early life, education, and family: specific tribes, maternal grandfather; listed in AALS directory, and identified by Harvard Crimson; expanded quote to cover whole claim of minority listing) to (→Early life, education, and family: comparison to Trump rumors about Obama place of birth), have been reverted by two different editors for possibly the same reason, which is that they were made to a section which is stated as "the product of extensive debate, compromise[,] and consensus". I open discussion on my additions here.
I did not realize that the first four of these additions had already been reverted by the time I started working on another addition. If I had known, I would have not made the last addition and would have addressed the concerns, as I am now. I apologize for that.
My additions rely on the existing sources, and they concern points that are not yet covered by the Wikipedia article. Specifically, I added which of Warren's grandparents she claimed as having Native American ancestors, and to which tribal nations those ancestors belonged. I specified the name of the legal directory in which Warren listed herself as a minority, and mentioned that she removed her minority claim and that she was identified as American Indian in the Harvard Crimson. I acknowledged the genealogist's report. I explained that the DNA report was released in tandem with a video, which included a clip of Trump calling Warren "Pocahontas" and a comment from Warren's cousin. I described the BBC's comparison of Trump's comments on Warren to his comments on Obama. Lastly, I gave the full quote from the Cherokee Nation rejecting DNA testing as a way to claim tribal ancestry. All of these points are notable, as they were in the articles by CBS, BBC, and The New York Times.
There is no rule that some sections of Wikipedia articles are off-limits without notifying other editors or gaining explicit permission, as there are no owners of articles. But discussion has been requested, so I respectfully ask for discussion. If there is no challenge to the sources by this time tomorrow, then I would like to reinstate my additions. Although no one has expressed concern that I made too many additions to this article, I apologize for that anyways, since I do sometimes end up making more additions to an article than I initially planned. The only concern was that I added to a particular section without giving warning or gaining permission. Thank you, and again I apologize for making the last addition after the previous four were reverted. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. Nobody "owns" any article, but WP:BRD applies her. The size and content of the "ancestry" section have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and consensus has been to keep its length in balance to the article as per WP:BALASP: "news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Your additions were relatively trivial details which are already addressed in summmary form by the article. Before adding such details, we should have a new consensus to increase the length of the "ancestry" section in order to cover it in far more detail than we cover any other aspect of Warren's career. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. Your points, on keeping the sections in proportion with their significance, are good. I will let my additions be left out. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019
To write about her fraud as a native american Hbell2044 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- The article already discusses Warren's claims of Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2012 democratic primary
Warren did not run unopposed in 2012; she beat Marisa DeFranco (which is correctly stated in the article for the 2012 senate election in MA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.112.142 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Warren's claim of being Cherokee and Indian
The article is getting whitewashed again. Warren now admits she was wrong to claim Cherokee ancestry. She called the Chief of the Cherokee Nation and apologized for using a DNA test and claiming she was Cherokee when she was not. Objective3000 has removed the reliably sourced information from the article. No editor of Wikipedia can ever claim that this issue should not be covered in this article. Even Warren herself by apologizing to the tribe admits fault, as the New York Times has pointed out. Please stop the whitewash. Wikipedia is better than that.CharlesShirley (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's more complex than that; and I don't think your edit matched the cite. It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry. But, she does not share the culture and her ancestry may not trace to the current definition of a tribal member. I think more care is required; and I'm not convinced that Rebecca Nagle's quote is a good start. In any case, your continued use of the word whitewash is a personal attack. Please assume good faith. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. No. And no. This is the type of reckless comments that take the discussion down a road that eventually leads to removal of significant facts about this significant aspect of Warren's life. Objective3000 falsely states, "It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry." There is ZERO reliable sources that support this claim by Objective3000. It is simply not true. If Objective3000 has a reliable source that makes that claim then Objective3000 needs to provide it on this talk page. This is false information. It is wrong. It is not supported by a reliable source. It is not supported by experts of any kind, type, or nature. Warren has not made that claim herself in over a decade. Now, Objective3000 is the editor that removed my edits, which is fine, but Objective3000 is spreading false information in the defense of Objective3000's edit. This is important. Warren does not have ANY proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. She can't name one ancestor who is a member. The Cherokee Nation has pointed that she has no ancestors in the tribe. There is nothing to support Objective3000's false claim. The spreading of false information on the talk page needs to stop. The ONLY thing that Warren has presented is a DNA test that apparently points to an Indian ancestor 8 generations before her, which would be her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent. She does not know who this person is 8 generations before her. She doesn't even know if that person is a man or a woman. And most importantly she does not know, in any way, of what tribe that person was a member. That ancestor from 8 generations before could have been a Cherokee, but also could have been an Osage or a Chickasaw, or any the other 530 or so tribes in the United States (he/she could have been a member of thousands of South American tribes also). It is a complete falsehood to state that Warren has "Cherokee ancestry" when there is zero evidence to support it and even Warren herself has stopped saying that over a decade ago. She has claimed being an Indian and she has claimed to be a "Woman of Color". But very recently she has even stopped making those two claims. That statement is false and indefensible. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, a whitewash is a whitewash. It is not a personal attack. I did not point the word at any one specific editor. It is a descriptive term for the editing taking place on the article, not any one personal. So that is cleared up. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- And one last thing, Objective3000, the DNA test is provided a wide range of possibilities for Warren's unknown ancestor. It says 6 to 10 generations so her unknown ancestor could be her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, who she does not know and will probably will never know. I only picked 8 generations because it is the half way point in the 6 to 10 range. And this is most important part, NO ONE knows if that great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent was a Cherokee or a Choctaw, etc. Your statement ("It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry") is false in so many ways. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, a whitewash is a whitewash. It is not a personal attack. I did not point the word at any one specific editor. It is a descriptive term for the editing taking place on the article, not any one personal. So that is cleared up. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. No. And no. This is the type of reckless comments that take the discussion down a road that eventually leads to removal of significant facts about this significant aspect of Warren's life. Objective3000 falsely states, "It appears that she does have Cherokee ancestry." There is ZERO reliable sources that support this claim by Objective3000. It is simply not true. If Objective3000 has a reliable source that makes that claim then Objective3000 needs to provide it on this talk page. This is false information. It is wrong. It is not supported by a reliable source. It is not supported by experts of any kind, type, or nature. Warren has not made that claim herself in over a decade. Now, Objective3000 is the editor that removed my edits, which is fine, but Objective3000 is spreading false information in the defense of Objective3000's edit. This is important. Warren does not have ANY proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. She can't name one ancestor who is a member. The Cherokee Nation has pointed that she has no ancestors in the tribe. There is nothing to support Objective3000's false claim. The spreading of false information on the talk page needs to stop. The ONLY thing that Warren has presented is a DNA test that apparently points to an Indian ancestor 8 generations before her, which would be her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent. She does not know who this person is 8 generations before her. She doesn't even know if that person is a man or a woman. And most importantly she does not know, in any way, of what tribe that person was a member. That ancestor from 8 generations before could have been a Cherokee, but also could have been an Osage or a Chickasaw, or any the other 530 or so tribes in the United States (he/she could have been a member of thousands of South American tribes also). It is a complete falsehood to state that Warren has "Cherokee ancestry" when there is zero evidence to support it and even Warren herself has stopped saying that over a decade ago. She has claimed being an Indian and she has claimed to be a "Woman of Color". But very recently she has even stopped making those two claims. That statement is false and indefensible. -CharlesShirley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Warren's claims of being a Cherokee Indian have been whitewashed out of the article. For example, this Washington Post citation:
She signed her entries “Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee[1]
- CharlesShirley's edit was quite appropriate. In any event, the article ought to spell out that the Senator for 34 years (1984-2018) fully claimed to be a Cherokee. XavierItzm (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- That source is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It's absolutely not usable for negative material in a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- So, you didn't like the The Washington Post as a WP:RS? Fine. How about The Atlantic:
- That source is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It's absolutely not usable for negative material in a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley's edit was quite appropriate. In any event, the article ought to spell out that the Senator for 34 years (1984-2018) fully claimed to be a Cherokee. XavierItzm (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."[2]
- Dat good enuf for ya? XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely belongs. When I said that we have to wait for further coverage and analysis, especially in light of her 2020 campaign, this has reached the point and should absolutely be included. Of course, it does not belong to the lead, which does not even mention her two notable books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Warren does not have any proof she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren has never claimed to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. She states that according to family lore she has a Native American ancestor. The article makes that quite clear and nothing is being "whitewashed". Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, when if you sign your name «Gandydancer - - Cherokee» in a book repeatedly, that's as strong a claim you can make that you are a Cherokee. Did you not miss the citations above from The Atlantic and from the Washington Post? XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- This has been discussed - please check the talk page. I'm not going to go over and over the same old same old. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- ^ Josh Hicks (28 September 2012). "Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she 'applied' to Harvard and Penn?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
Warren contributed recipes to a Native American cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow," published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Okla. She signed her entries "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."
- ^ GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA (20 May 2012). "Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."