Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Which fraction of her is Native American?

The text already notes that her Native American heritage is 6-10 generations distant. I don't see why fractions should be added, as it's hard to comprehend what fractions beyond a great-grandfather mean. The numbers just turn into gibberish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

for the fractionally challenged, you are absolutely correct. but 99% (99/100) of the world adults understand fraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.151.125 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

From my edit summary: 'I have read the Bustamante report itself and it says "likely in the range of 6-10 generations" -- does /not/ exclude more recent, and providing figs like "1/64th" implies a precision in the results which doesn't exist. (I work in genetics.)' Key word is "likely". FWIW, from my interpretation of their results, I think they are being overly conservative, and it could easily be a closer ancestor than the 6-10 generations back they state. I think I'm allowed to link to the report, as it was uploaded to her website. Here. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit war about the precise amount of Warren's Native ancestry is brewing. See edit history. I think this page should be given a more stringent level of protection for a few days. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we have partisanship from the other side, in the form of an edit saying that >5% of Warren's ancestry is Native American. I am going to figure out how to request greater protection on this article. Massivefranklin (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: WP:RFPP. The next higher level would be WP:ECP. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I checked those pages out -- thank you for telling me about them. But it seems that ECP was first instituted for pages on the Israel–Palestine conflict, and I don't think "arguing about whether fractions are applicable when describing Warren's Native ancestry" is quite at that level. Besides, I don't imagine that this heated editing will last more than a few days. Massivefranklin (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Massivefranklin: I'm not aware of any limits on the use of ECP, officially or in practice, and it can be applied for only a few days like any protection. You said you wanted to request a protection increase, and ECP is the smallest increase you can make. You might want to consider that ECP would lock you out until you have 500 edits, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The report states that Warren could be just 1/1024th Native American. What’s more, the study was based not on Native American DNA, but on Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.235.231.146 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Did the source actually say Warren was "somewhere between 1/32nd and 1/1024th Native American?"[1] If not, then it is synthesis to add it, since people do not receive equal amounts of DNA from all their ancestors. Also the findings seem to confirm Warren's claim that one of her distant ancestors was Cherokee, which the phrasing seem to imply that she had claimed a greater degree of Indian ancestry. TFD (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed Warren has hardly any Native American ancestry and that the Boston Globe was forced to make a correction about her low end.[2] This talk archives page notes how she seemingly sugarcoated or exaggerated her ancestry, even registering as one between the 1980s and 1990s.[3]2601:447:4101:41F9:59A7:F6EE:32C0:4CBC (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Drop the WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and stick to what's reported in the sources. If a source reports a specific fraction, it can included per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. No one should be assessing the value of a fraction because their supposed expertise, nor should the language in the actual article imply any sort of judgment about the results that isn't linked to a WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Executive Summary states:

  Executive Summary. We find strong evidence that a DNA sample of primarily European descent also contains Native American ancestry from an ancestor in the sample’s pedigree 6-10 generations ago. We find little or no evidence of African ancestry in this sample.

The conclusion states:

Conclusion. While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago.

Looking for information not in the executive summary or conclusion means crossing WP:SYNTH. Selective quoting, narrow paraphrasing, is very likely to to give WP:UNDUE emphasis, especially given that the author has carefully summarised what is important and can be reliably stated in the executive summary and conclusion.

Looking at these statements: "strong evidence" and "likely", "6-10 generations", is clearly a statement of probability. There is no indication that these words are tightly defined.

Have said that, I deduce from the report that EW has zero whole chromosomes of North American origin. There is only some "recombination", measured in "centiMorgans" on a single chromosome, chromosome 10. It is *possible*, albeit unlikely, for a person to have zero chromosomes derived from a single grandparent. The Bustamante Report therefore does not place hard limit on minimum number of generations higher than 2. The numbers offered come from consideration of probabilities. 6-10 is quite a wide range.

I think it is reasonable for the article to write: "The Bustamante Report provides evidence in support of a small amount of native North American genetics in EW's genetic sample". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What you just did is analyze a primary source and draw your own conclusion. That is textbook WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which is not permitted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, not permitted in the article, for sure. I would call my post "honest" about the OR in my third paragraph "Having said that, I deduce ...". I think a little talk page OR is OK if limited to ensuring that editors understand the source. I think it is important to understand the meaning of "likely" and "6-10". NB I am happy to be disagreed with. I have never before heard of a "centiMorgan". Do you have an issue with my last paragraph "I think it is reasonable for the article to write..."?

That's fine, but your personal analysis is not relevant even for a talk page because this is not a WP:FORUM. Conclusions about what an article should include have to be based solely on Wikipedia policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would perhaps recommend against making detailed inferences about heredity if you have never heard of "recombination". Massivefranklin (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is, the numbers are not precise, and should not be focused on. The calculation, 1/64 – 1/1,024, is just further inappropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Globe writes that Warren said her great-great-great grandmother was part Native American. That's 5 generations ago. The Indian ancestor would have been at least 6 generations ago if the ancestor was half Indian and longer if they were less than that. The findings of 6-10 generations are entirely consistent with her claim. TFD (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that seems obvious. Has any reliable secondary source commented? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It sort of fits, but I don't think there is any evidence that it is that particular great-great-great grandmother that her ancestry comes from. It could just as easily come from another ancestor.--Pharos (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another note to people who want to assign fractions to Warren's Native ancestry. It should not be hard to understand that "the results are consistent with you having an unadmixed Native ancestor likely between 6–10 generations ago" is not a claim about every one of your ancestors. It is not saying that "of all of your ancestors, definitely only 1/64 to 1/1,024 were Native American". It is completely conceivable that Warren has Amerindian genealogical ancestors from whom she inherited no genetic material, who therefore could not be identified by the test. It is also crucial to note the range of generations given and the word "likely". The real number of generations back for Warren's ancestor could, as indicated by their use of likely and not definitely, be outside that range. Prof Bustamante's report upon which all this media coverage is based doesn't include precise fractions – not only for these reasons, but also due to inherit imprecision in the procedure. For instance, their method conceivably may have missed real Amerindian segments or misidentified European segments as Amerindian, for instance due to imperfect selection of (especially the Amerindian) reference populations. I am a researcher in anthropological genetics and four days ago I performed a very similar analysis to the one in Bustamante's report; part of that analysis involved identifying Amerindian ancestry in Hispanic individuals. I worded my edit to indicate that the 1/64 – 1/1,024 figure refers to one hypothetical ancestor 6–10 generations ago, even though I am totally aware that many, or most, people will construe that to mean "Elizabeth Warren is definitely 1/64 to 1/1,024 Native". Massivefranklin (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

should there be mentioned that the results don't actually show any native american dna as he didn't look at native american dna he looked at dna from people in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is something I have seen said by people who don't understand genetic anthropology. Amerindian populations across the Americas are not that genetically differentiated from each other. For many purposes, it is completely legitimate to treat different Amerindian populations as equivalent, especially if you are distinguishing between kinds of ancestry at the very broadest levels, like "West Eurasian" vs "(Sub-Saharan) African" vs "Amerindian". You can even use the genetic material of Chinese peoples as a stand-in for Amerindians, and you'll still get reasonable results in many analyses. Furthermore, if you use Southern Amerindian populations as your imperfect stand-in for Northern Amerindian populations, as Bustamante did for his analysis of Warren, it becomes more likely that you miss genuine Northern Amerindian DNA fragments. Given that Warren's Amerindian ancestry is almost certainly a priori Northern Amerindian, this means that even if Bustamante's analysis were inaccurate, it would very likely be in the direction of underestimating Warren's Native ancestry. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been much erroneous reporting on fractions. This is how it works: Generation 0 is yourself, with 1/1 (100%) ancestry. First generation removed is 1/2 (50%) ancestry. Sixth generation removed is 1/64 (1.5625%) ancestry. Tenth generation removed is 1/1,024 (0.0977%) ancestry. The average of the "6 to 10 generations" is eighth generation removed, 1/256 (0.3906%) ancestry, which gives her 99.6094% non-Native American ancestry. Thus, her claim about her "great-great-great grandmother" is false, as that would only be five generations removed. I made the appropriate change in the text of the article.Clepsydrae (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if we should go into this level of detail at all, given that it is all probabilistic, but a fifth generation ancestor who is described by her family as "at least part Cherokee" does indeed fit.--Pharos (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable addition: in this article by Carl Zimmer, a guy who I trust to write fairly accurately on genetic issues, an interview with Prof Bustamante is mentioned. Bustamante is quoted as saying: “We can see nearly definitive evidence of at least one Native American ancestor, but there could have been more.” This fits with what I as a researcher in genetic anthropology know about the methods Bustamante used. I have made too many edits to the section about how much Native ancestry Warren could have, so I will leave it up to others to decide if this is worth including. Massivefranklin (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

64 - 1024

The inverse fraction of ancestors.

None of the references talked of or were sources for these numbers. They are WP:SYNTH. Not saying the numbers are wrong, but they ignore the lack of precision, give a false impression of precision, and take the coverage into discussion that is not source-based. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: I wanted to respond to your reversion of my edit, in which added a statement saying that the report contains no precise values for the proportion of Warren's Native ancestry. Firstly, I don't agree that this statement is, as you said in your edit summary, my opinion. As I noted in my edit summary, my source is the report itself. It's not that long, and anybody can read it. I suggest that you do so to check that what I wrote is indeed correct. I don't think I editorialised my statement; for instance, I didn't say "... even though this is incorrect" or anything to that effect. That would, without a source, be an opinion of mine. Secondly, it seems strange that you would claim the primary material for this whole event to be an "unreliable source". Thirdly, it seems to me that the sentence you put in as a replacement doesn't strictly make sense. "6–10 generations ago would represent between 1/64 and 1/1,024 of Warren's ancestry" -- I think you should refer to an ancestor from 6 generations ago, not the entire generation itself. Let me try to explain where I'm coming from. My personal belief -- which I'm including here just to give you some idea of my motivations -- is that she likely knew that her claims to Native heritage were feeble, and she knowingly exaggerated them; at best to seem more 'interesting', and at worst to gain material benefit from minority status. So, I'm not doing this because I want to make people more sympathetic to Warren. Having said that, a lot of people, including reporters, seem to believe that Bustamante conducted a "test" which outputted some concrete result saying "Warren is definitely between 1/64 and 1/1,024 Native American". This isn't true, and I think it's important to note in some way that the '1/64 – 1/1,024' figures weren't in the report. It was 'discovered' by non-specialists trying to interpret the results, and as a researcher in genetic anthropology, it's frustrating because I do honestly believe that those figures are really wrong for a whole parade of technical and conceptual reasons. Note that I didn't include anything in my statement implying that the figures was wrong, precisely because I lacked a reliable source to back that up. (I do have sources from geneticists disagreeing with the figure, but those sources are Tweets!) Can we reach a compromise? Would you be alright with a clause at the end of the sentence like "... although these figures were not included in the original report"? Massivefranklin (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin: I don't necessarily disagree with almost all of what you said above. But it does not change what we can and cannot do as editor of Wikipedia. Your comments are your opinion. It might not be a strong opinion. It might be a completely correct opinion but since your comments are not in a reliable source which is also a secondary source then your opinion cannot be included. Them thar the rules. I don't make it. I'm just trying to follow them. Some of the edits happening are attempts to cover up for her. I did not say yours were and I did not point the finger at anyone in particular. It does not matter. Also, I did not originally add the 1/64 and 1/1024 figures into the article. However, they should remain in the article because many, many, many reliable sources which are also secondary sources have stated those number, no matter how off the mark they are. They are the topic right now. Unless you can find a reliable source which is also a secondary source that disputes these numbers then they should remain in the article. Also, I understand your point about relying on secondary sources instead of primary sources. But since you are fairly new to Wikipeida I completely understand. The rules are the rules and Wikipedia frown upon using and relying upon primary sources. Jimmy Wales wants us to depend upon and quote extensive reliable sources that for the most part are secondary sources. He does not want a bunch unknown editors picking and choosing bits and pieces of primary sources. Its a Wikipedia rule. If I did not have to run out for doctor's appt I would look it up for you. Maybe I will later. Also, don't attack me personally. Focus on the article and changes for the article, not me because you don't know me and you know nothing about me. Also, don't assume you are smarter than all of the other editors because well that is so newbie. Best,CharlesShirley (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin:The rule that is most counter-intuitive of all Wikipedia rules is the focus on secondary sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." See Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@MassiveFranklin: One other point in reponse to your comments above. I did not say that primary sources are "unreliable sources" as you claim. What I did say is that Wikipedia PREFERS secondary sources when they are available. In this situation there are tons of secondary sources available therefore we should not as Wikipedia editors cherry pick pieces of information from the primary source when we have access to plenty of secondary sources. I realize that the methods that Wikipedia has developed is completely contrary to what you might have been taught in school and in college and graduate school, i.e., you should prefer primary sources over secondary sources, but it is the method that Jimmy Wales (and the current policy makers at Wikipedia) has made it clear to Wikipedia editors to follow. As to your compromise, the sentence that introduces the fractional numbers make it clear that they are the numbers presented by journalists.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

These numbers are backed up by reliable sources. Why were they removed? Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Because WaPo found them to be inaccurate. Per WaPo: "Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American." [4] Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Because they were misleading and based upon a misunderstanding of the test results. ...ancestors do not contribute genetic material equally over time. Here’s the image of 11 generations of ancestors by genetic material they contributed to a particular individual. Some ancestors contribute a lot — while others nothing at all. In other words, as you go back in time, the number of your ancestors keeps increasing but not nearly as fast as the number of genealogical ancestors. Look closely at the sixth generation, and you will see some strong contributors of genetic material — and many weak ones. ... The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait and see if anyone else backs the fact check. I still see new sources coming out claiming 1/64-1/1024. Until others see it as incorrect they are an outlier. PackMecEng (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mainstream news sources in the last day or so citing the number. Partisan opinion claims are another matter, but those aren't relevant to this discussion because they don't tend to care about what the facts show (on either side). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is still new so not many but Newsweek, KUTV, and The Sunday Times. Again this is about 3 days old so none supporting the new stuff I have seen and a few still using 1/1024. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since this is a BLP it is better to be on the safe side rather than include information that may cause harm. I felt that the WaPo article fully explained the reason for the misunderstandings that have appeared online. I'd appreciate it if you'd include the sites that you mention that continue to use the fractions that WaPo called inaccurate. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can include that someone disputed it, but the mountain of RS supporting it is undeniable. I just added sources above for my claim. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren's response to The Cherokee Nation

"Warren went on to state that she was neither claiming nor seeking tribal membership with the genetic test results."

Does her response to the Cherokee Nation need to be here? It's a strawman fallacy, as she's implying that the Cherokee Nation stated that she is seeking tribal membership, but they never said that. Their words exactly are, "Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong ... Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage".

I'm not even sure if her response is warranted even if she weren't strawmanning them. Do we need to include every politician's rebuttal to criticism, even when they are wrong and invoking logical fallacies? It just seems like someone is trying to push a POV to contradict or minimize The Cherokee Nation's criticsm. ScienceApe (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should simply quote her response. I'm not sure why the quote in the article was replaced with an editor's synthesis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove her response - Agree that she was strawmanning the Indians. Her response is offensive to the Natives, shows lack of respect towards them, and should be removed. XavierItzm (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course we include response to public criticism when it is available - as is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's fallacious and dishonest? That sounds like propagating fake news. So if Donald Trump lies as a response to public criticism, we would include that too? ScienceApe (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

​Yes, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

O rly. Please quote where in WP:PUBLICFIGURE it says that. ScienceApe (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course her response needs to be here. We can't include negative claims about Warren without including her reliably-sourced responses to those claims - that would place undue weight on the criticism and violate WP:NPOV by presenting only one side of the argument. I don't know what you're talking about when you say this is "POV-pushing synthesis" - the statement is clearly included in the cited reliable source: Warren did clarify that she was talking only about family history and not claiming any sort of right to affiliation. The fact that you don't like what the source says is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You invoked a strawman fallacy, I never said I don't like what the source says. The fact that you so easily strawmanned me, shows me that you do not understand what a strawman fallacy is. Which is exactly why you don't understand why her response is inappropriate. For now though, I'm willing to settle for just a quote of her response, not a synthesis. ScienceApe (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. To be fair to Warren, this needs to include the quote *and* the context of the quote directly cited from the reliable source. You do not seem to understand that synthesis is only prohibited if it is original synthesis not found in a reliable source. If that synthesis is included in a reliable source, that is literally what Wikipedia exists to do - report things as reliable sources report them. The reliable source not only quoted Warren, it provided the necessary context to the quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, if your concern is "synthesis," I've added essentially the same statement as a direct quote from Warren (via Twitter). I trust this resolves your problem with the statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So you want to quote her, and then say what she said? That's redundant. You're pushing a POV and you strawman people because you don't know how to debate. ScienceApe (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You just spent a bunch of words objecting to the sourced paraphrase on the grounds that it was a "synthesis." In an effort to compromise with you, I replaced the synthesis with a quote. Your response is... to just repeat "strawman" over and over again? You can't just keep calling something a "strawman" as if that has any meaning whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I just spent a bunch of words? That doesn't even make any sense. Your exposition was redundant and a synthesis. ScienceApe (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Positioning

Where exactly is the talk page consensus that says we should put a current controversy under her early life instead of chronologically in her biography like everything else is? GMG^talk 00:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's because she was taught as a child that she had Native ancestry. I myself am unsure where the best placement is, but have no problem with where it is now. Chronologically, it was part of her childhood and youth, which would be the 1950s and '60s; she referred to it in a cookbook in 1984 and at Harvard in the 1990s. Those two instances are clearly documented, but suggest she had a general self-image throughout her life of having some Cherokee background. Then, it became a campaign issue in 2012, which is where I suppose you think it belongs chronologically. I wouldn't mind placing it there, either. YoPienso (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The section is entirely about the controversy, which did not occur in her early life. It belongs there neither chronologically nor topically. I'm not terribly concerned about chronological sequence, and we don't have that now unless pop culture, books, and awards are the latest things that have happened in her life, in that order. Topically, it belongs under "Career" or "U.S. Senate", probably the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. If only the political controversy is going to be noted, it should be under the 2012 campaign (or I could agree to "Career,") when the Globe raised the issue and Brown challenged her. Imho, we should tell the fuller story with the whole arc since childhood, yet without adding length to what is already probably too long. YoPienso (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph belongs, which says she grew up believing she had Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the text belongs in her 'early life / family' section. I don't think this should be thrown into a career sub-section or be titled as a 'controversy'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that there's no need to title it 'controversy' and it certainly belongs in early life/family. It can be titled simply "Native American heritage". ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked the editor who reverted the text back into the early life section and it looks like their edit summary about there being consensus for the controversy being in the early life section was due to a misunderstanding about what GMG's edit was doing. [5] ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep in Early Life and Family - clearly family lore arising from her earliest years, so it belongs in "Early life and family". False that it belongs in the 2012 campaign, since she admits she self-identified as Native while teaching university, which was years and even decades the 2012 election. Note we don't know if she identified as Cherokee in her college or law schools applications but given that as recently as last week she was still concerned enough about the issue that she scientifically proved she has 1/1024th Amerindian blood, evidently this is an important family issue for her and has been since her earliest days until today. Please respect her self-identification from earliest childhood. XavierItzm (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The full and complete conclusion of Bustamonte

I have reverted edits by CharlesShirley and I request that he discuss his proposals here rather than continuing to edit-war. His edits misleadingly place the emphasis on something Warren has never claimed, in contradiction to the emphasis of the reliable sources cited - that Warren does, as she has stated, have some significant (more than average) native ancestry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:I need to fact-check the statement above by NorthBySouthBaranof ("NBSB"). Since Glenn Kessler is unavailable, I will have to do it myself. NBSB makes a false claim above that I am "[placing] the emphasis on something Warren has never claimed." NBSB does not make it clear what exactly I am putting emphasis on that NBSB just does not like. However, after interacting with NBSB, trying to get him to make his complaint more clear, he did respond below. And below he falsely claims, "No one (much less Warren) has disputed or claimed that she is not mostly European ancestry." He says to justify leaving out part of Bustamonte's conclusion that Elizabeth Warren's role in this whole Native identity thing is so innocence and she has only been simply saying that she has one little Indian somewhere in his heritage. This is blatant poppycock. When Warren started to run for U.S. Senate in Mass. she claimed that if elected she would be the first Native American Senator from Massachusetts in June 2012. On June 1, 2012, she was asked by FOX Boston WFXT, Channel 25’s Sharman Sacchetti if she (Warren) would be Massachusetts’ first Native American senator, Warren responded: “I would be their first senator — so far as I know — who has Native American heritage.” You can read about her claim and you can watch Warren make it here: Pappas, Alex. ELIZABETH WARREN INSISTS: I WOULD BE MASSACHUSETTS’ FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN SENATOR, The Daily Caller, June 3, 2018. One-on-One interview with Elizabeth Warren, FOX Boston, June 1, 2012. Also, at one point this Wikipedia article about Warren actually mentioned her false claim. You can review that former version of this page here: Wikipedia Warren Article on June 12, 2012. This factual piece of Warren's false Native American story has been whitewashed from the article I think it might be time to put it back in since there are editors who simply do not know about these facts. --CharlesShirley (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that one has "Native American heritage" is not a claim to tribal membership, nor is it a claim that one is not mostly descended from Europeans. You appear to have an ax to grind against this biographical subject and want to depict her as negatively as possible; I suggest that you may not be able to objectively edit articles about Elizabeth Warren because of this bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article to include all of Bustamonte's conclusion from his report. The article had been edited to only give one half of Bustamonte's conclusion. The article says, incorrectly: "In October 2018, Warren released the results of a genetic ancestry analysis conducted by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante to The Boston Globe, which concluded that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". This sentence leaves out one half of Bustamonte's conclusion. Bustamonte actually concluded that Warren is about 95% European and this sentence in the article should be edited to accurately represent what Bustamonte actually stated.

I did edit where I simply added in the full quote from Bustamonte. I did not add my opinion and stuck directly to the provided reliable source. I edited the sentence to read as follow: "In October 2018, Warren released the results of a genetic ancestry analysis conducted by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante to The Boston Globe, which concludes that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago". There is really no reason for the sentence not to be edited as such. It was reverted and no reasonable rationale with given for the reversion other than the other editor did not like it. Unless there is some reasonable rationale given for the reversion then I will restore the edits because there is no reason not to give Bustamonte's full and complete conclusion. Without the full and complete conclusion of Bustamonte we are giving only a cherry-picked representation of what he concluded. The cherry-picked version gives the false impression: (1) that Warren is a Native American, when the full conclusion gives the accurate impression that she about 5% or so of Native American and 95% European, and (2) the results of the test, when it deceptively leaves out the fact that Warren's DNA makeup is vastly (almost exclusively) made up of European heritage (about 95% that is).--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that words added come directly from Bustamonte's report. Why disagree with there addition? Since you reasonable rationale for their removal was given I can only conclude that the other editor simply did not like them. I have a reason for adding them because they give a fuller, more complete understanding of Bustamonte's conclusion.--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note the Boston Globe article says this: "He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor." It stuck to those word faithfully. Why the other editor wants to remove the wording that points out Bustamonte conclusion that the vast majority of Warren's ancestry is European. Leaving out this fact is a falsehood. It gives the wrong impression. It is information bought and paid for by Warren. It is information that Warren made a positive decision to release. Why would we not make the same impression to our readers, unless we are looking to give them the wrong impression of the report? We don't want to do that, do we? No of course not. We want the correct impression of the results, just like the Boston Globe did.--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No one (much less Warren) has disputed or claimed that she is not mostly European ancestry. The question was whether her claim to a Native American ancestor had any validity. A genetic test was demanded; the implication being that she made it all up. The genetic test was performed and, indeed, found that she did have significant Native American ancestry as compared to the average white American. The emphasis of the media stories (in reliable sources) is that fact. Your version turns those sources on their head, emphasizing instead the percentage that is not Native American - but she has never claimed otherwise, and the sources instead emphasize that her claim has, at the least, been significantly supported. You may not turn this result on its head merely because you do not like the emphasis of the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Let's begin with your first point: No one has disputed she is Mostly Euro. Let me say, not true. At the beginning of this discussion about her heritage she made the initial claims that she was a Cherokee and that she was a Native. After a couple of years of criticism from Cherokees she backed down a whole lot. So your comment is simply not true. Your second point: She has proven she is an Indian or at least she has more Indian than the average American. Let me say, so what? She took the test and the test says that "vast majority" of heritage is European. Now, of course, the test also concluded that she has an Indian ancestor somewhere between the 6th and 10th generation. You admit that you want to "emphasis" that second part of the results. This is called POV pushing. You admit that you want to focus only one part of Bustamonte's conclusionary sentence. You admit that you want to remove from the article the words that Bustamonte said that the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European and you tell us why. You want to remove it because it does not tell the story that you want personally want the story to be. This is classic POV pushing. Warren paid for a report. Warren paid Bustamonte for a report. Bustamonte did his research without knowing who Warren was. Bustamonte's conclusion flat out states that the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European and she does have Indian heritage thrown in there 6 to 10 generations down the line. And you want to, in your own words, "emphasis" (read: push the POV) the Indian heritage part of the conclusion and completely ignore and leave out the 95% Euro heritage. This is POV pushing. Just give the readers the full sentence of what Bustamonte said and let them decide for themselves. The Boston Globe did. The reliable source which is the basis of the sentence did. They gave their readers the whole sentence and you still walked away from the article wanting to put the focus on the Indian heritage and ignore the 95% of European heritage. How the can Wikipedia readers understand the Bustamonte conclusion if we only give them one half of it. They can't. That is deceptive editing. It is wrong. It POV pushing. It is the kind of thing that has led to articles in Wikipedia like this one: Racial bias on Wikipedia. You want to emphasis the Indian heritage to assist Warren. You do not want to tell the whole story, which is she paid for a report that concluded that she is 95% European. Even Warren was willing to give people the whole story. Why can't you?--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It concerns me that the wording implies that Warren claimed a much larger degree of Native American ancestry than she in fact did. What about we quote the full conclusion of Prof. Bustamante? "While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."[6] TFD (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It concerns me also. I just want to put the full sentence in the article. It is deceptive to only put one half of Bustamonte's conclusionary statement in the article. It only gives one half of the story. The only reason given to edit out Bustamonte's main conclusion (i.e., the vast majority of Warren's DNA is European) is another editor wants to "emphasis" the second half of the conclusion. That rationale does not fit into classic Wikipedia editing. The point of Wikipedia is to tell the story accurately. As editors we are not supposed to push our own personal point of view (POV) on to the reader. We are to present the information from reliable sources that are usually secondary sources. But what we have here is an editor who wants to pick and choose the wording from a primary source (i.e., the Bustamonte report) instead of using the wording from the secondary source (i.e., the Boston Globe article).--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Wanting to "emphasis" one part of Bustamonte's conclusion over the other violates the principal of Neutral POV.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does not, because we are supposed to emphasize whatever reliable secondary sources do, which in this case is her native ancestry. In my opinion, your version provides undue emphasis to the findings of Warren's European ancestry, which was never in question. Why would you object to providing the complete quote which after all is the same length as the paraphrased version? Certainly there is undue issue with it? TFD (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest quoting or paraphrasing the full sentence TFD quotes (the way Charles Shirley rewrote that sentence would work, with perhaps a little tweaking), while leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is now — the "found many segments of DNA typical of Europeans" bit seems repetitive/extraneous, though perhaps the 95% figure could be worked into the quote, like: [...] concluded that while "the vast majority", 95%,^[NYT] of Warren's ancestry is European, "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago". Journalists reporting on the results stated [...]. Would this adequately cover the fact that the test supported that "the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European" (which apparently no one disputes?) while respecting that most of the sources seem to be focused on its finding of DNA typical of Natives (in a proportion "significantly more than the average American of European ancestry") (obeying WP:DUE)? -sche (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"The genetic test was performed and, indeed, found that she did have significant Native American ancestry as compared to the average white American." She does not have significant Native American ancestry. Most Black and White people that have ancestry for several generations living in America have some Native American ancestry. ScienceApe (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say - as per the cited Washington Post source, Warren has significantly more Native American ancestry than the average white American. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That's how you start spreading fake news. Between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American DNA is not significant Native American ancestry, and is within the margin of error. Stick to the facts only. Not the synthesis the source is making. ScienceApe (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Most European and African Americans have no Native American DNA The average of Native American ancestry among European Americans is 0.18 percent compared with 3% for Warren. It is 0.8 percent among African Americans.[7] Despite the headline, the source of the article says that only 3.5% of European Americans have Native American ancestry.[8] TFD (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Most European and African Americans have no Native American DNA" That's false and a strawman. I said, most Black and White people that have ancestry for several generations living in America have some Native American ancestry. Additionally, she does not have 3% Native American ancestry. She has between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American DNA, which conspicuously has been removed from the article. That range is well within the margin of error for DNA tests too. ScienceApe (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

My source is Bryc, Katarzyna, et al. "The genetic ancestry of african americans, latinos, and european Americans across the United States." The American Journal of Human Genetics 96.1 (2015): 37-53. What's your's? And yes, the test proved that Warren had exactly the amount of Indian ancestry that she claimed. TFD (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote it, don't just list a citation without the quote that supports your ridiculous claim. ScienceApe (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"We find very low levels of African and Native American ancestry in Europeans with four grandparents born in Europe. We estimate that only 0.98% of Europeans carry African ancestry and 0.26% of Europeans carry Native American ancestry. These levels are substantially lower than the 3.5% and 2.7% of European Americans who carry African and Native American ancestry, respectively." (Bryc, et al)[9] Now please provide your source that says most European Americans have Native American ancestry. TFD (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The first part is talking about EUROPEANS, not White Americans. The second part, they don't specify what constitutes "carrying" Native American ancestry. Elizabeth Warren who has .097% Native American ancestry could very well not qualify as carrying Native American ancestry according to their study. ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The second part refers to all Americans who self-identify as European Americans and includes Americans who have all four grandparents born in Europe. TFD (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Should discussion of the controversy over her stated Native American ancestry be in its own subsection?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Good-faith discussion spanning over many months making it impossible to assess consensus without arbitrarily choosing a suffix of this discussion. The sooner editors begin discussing this in a new section, less time is wasted edit-warring over the consensus of this discussion. No consensus = automatic removal per WP:BLP. As I said already, there is zero prejudice to starting a survey in a new section. wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• Depends Is it a crime to steal opportunities from real native americans? Is it a crime worse than grand theft auto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.151.125 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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. Trevor Noah, Think Progress 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." Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This not only lacks an {{rfc}} template but it is not in RfC format. Per WP:RFC, it is not an RfC, and I have removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, for all the reasons propounded above on this page. It's notable. YoPienso (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It may be your personal opinion that "controversy sections are inherently bad style," but we have over 20,000 articles 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.

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." YoPienso (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

How many of them have good article status? "Not prohibited by policy" does not mean it's good style. The essay, Criticism explains the problems with using these sections. It's not how respected writers write. It doesn't seem to be necessary in the article about Charles Manson, although he attracted more criticism than Warren. We have to decide whether we want to write a neutral article or use it as a platform for scoring political points. TFD (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not gonna search through 20,000 articles to see which have GA status. Andrew Jackson (not a GA) has "Planting career and controversy," and Richard Nixon, a FA, "Reelection, Watergate scandal, and resignation."

The essay "Criticism" is just opinion.

Charles Manson? Seriously? Apples to oranges. He is known solely for being evil. Warren is a U.S. senator who, being human, once did something controversial that opponents latched onto. That controversy continues to be an important part of her public image, and so merits naming and inclusion in this article.

Now, if you object to the sub-section title, "Controversy" or "Criticism," simply call it "Self-identity as Native American." YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, YES, this article needs a sub-section over the controversy surrounding Warren's listing of herself as a member of an ethnic minority. We owe that to our casual readers who come here to find out what the fuss is about. YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is that criticism sections come across as agitprop that one would not expect to find in a well-written article. It gives the entire article the appearance of bias, so that readers would question its accuracy. And it shows the idiocy of American politics where the argument is about personal misdemeanors rather than issues. TFD (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• No Just another right-wing effort to score partisan points through WikiControversy(tm).MarkBernstein (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It's not a right-wing issue among Native American people; it concerns issues of self-representation and sovereignty: the rights of tribal peoples to define who does and doesn't have the right to claim Native identity, and who has the right to speak for Native peoples and issues. Here is another opinion piece from several Native journalists on the issue, this time on CNN: Warren should apologize to Native Americans. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• No - No showing of any need for a subsection. The questioning of her heritage by a political opponent (Scott Brown) and the racially charged "Pocahontas" disparagement (Trump) are already noted in the article, in proper context. Creation of a subsection is unnecessary and, in fact, poor style. (Also, the claim that this is somehow a "huge part of Warren's public image and notability" is laughable. Warren is notable as a U.S. Senator, as an advocate of banking regulation, and as the leading figure behind the creation of the CFPB. Not for Twitter-feed disparagement or failed campaign attacks.) Neutrality^talk 04:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're conflating Warren's achievements with her public image. YoPienso (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any empirical evidence showing that Warren's "public image" is dominated by this? Neutrality^talk 02:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say her public image is dominated by or even a huge part of her public image, and much less of her notability. I said that the "controversy continues to be an important part of her public image." Now I would change "important" to "notable," and point out it was notable four years (one election cycle) before Pres. Trump nicknamed her "Pocahontas."

By "empirical evidence," I assume you mean if can I show by reliable sources that the controversy is notable enough to include in this article. Yes.

Here's one older RS: "Warren’s politics rooted in academe," in the Boston Globe, Aug. 19, 2012. It says: "Her unorthodox career trajectory has been scrutinized since she became a candidate for Senate, particularly after the revelation that for years she had listed herself as a Native American in a professional directory often used by law school recruiters." That scrutiny helped shape her public image.

FactCheck.org thoroughly examined and documented "Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Pocahontas’ Controversy."

PolitiFact researched and reported the controversy.

Warren herself reiterates her Native American heritage on p. 9 of A Fighting Chance, and discusses the controversy on pp. 239-42.

I could fill the page with RSs on this controversy, as I suppose you know. All we have to do is decide if the widespread coverage should be tucked away in the campaign section where it's not readily found, or put in its own section where the general public--who know nothing of talk pages--can quickly find accurate information. YoPienso (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I have to think that a lot of readers come to this article looking for information regarding this issue (as I just did 5 minutes ago). Having the information hidden throughout the article rather than in its own section that is easily identifiable in the table of contents makes this article less usable for the reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• No. Already in article and she hasn't claimed it in years. Cher and Loretta Lynn have claimed to be Cherokee numerous times, yet their pages don't have a separate section for their claims.Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and should not join the smear campaign. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

No. The discussion is already in the article; it's well cited. She hasn't reiterated the claim. For this to be news, new developments would have to occur (like her claiming Delaware/Cherokee heritage again or for new research to emerge), not her political detractors bringing it up at every possible moment. I'm Native American and can clearly see this is a non-issue because she has stopped making her claims. Yuchitown (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

Did you see just above where I noted she reiterated the claim in her 2014 book? This was after the 2012 election brouhaha. And she mentioned it again on p. 224 of her 2017 book, This Fight is Our Fight. It's a more nuanced statement, referring to "what our family had told my brothers and me about our Native American ancestry." She cites it to pp. 230-42 of A Fighting Chance. No, Warren isn't caving to bullies. YoPienso (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yuchitown, with all due respect and affection, I unbolded your second "no" because you !voted twice. Warren does reiterate her fake heritage claims, regularly, especially in her Massachusetts fundraising attempts. In the recent debacle after Trump insulted the Codetalkers, she brought it up yet again. Because she knows it works in MA. She has also had Rachel Maddow repeatedly claim on her behalf that Trump attacks Warren because Trump is "racist" against Warren, due to Warren's (fake) "heritage." (Trump's racism is a whole other issue. But Warren is white.) It is Warren who makes this an ongoing issue by exploiting blood myths while rejecting all dialogue with actual Native people. She continues to claim blood myths when they suit her, while not even using her platform to advocate for Indigenous issues like the pipeline fights, and she has never apologized to the Native people she's harmed and continues to harm by promoting colonial blood myths over indigenous sovereignty. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• No. Strong 'NO' because of policy on WP:WEIGHT and how to organize material between parent and child articles, as detailed in Wikipedia:Summary style. Material in that section is already overweight. It should be trimmed as the material is already treated in the daughter article United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. Per policy, only a short summary should be left here. --LK (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• No - It's not a significant current issue or part of her life, beyond a small fringe right-wing echo chamber that we're not obligated to give more space just because they're noisy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Only current issues are allowed? I think policy and guidelines lean in exactly the opposite direction: notable historical issues are included; current issues not so much, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. It's a large enough part of her life that she's included it in at least two books. YoPienso (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's allowed in the encyclopedia - nobody is suggesting that all mention be removed. But the weight you believe should be put on the issue exceeds what I believe is due weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• No Actually this section needs to be trimmed to a couple of sentences with further information included in the 2012 election article. As it is the Native American episode is almost as long or longer than any section discussing her career or accomplishments. I'd suggest an RfC to discuss removing most of the information to the election article if it's not there already. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Unfortunately the issue is a theme running through many aspects of here biography: Is it part of her identity? Did she benefit? Is it supported by genetics or just a family story? It is mentioned in relation to both her Senate campaign and political future. Trump may create the most buzz, but Native Americans are also unhappy with her claim, which she has not openly addressed. I am sure there are other opinions in addition to the Rebecca Nagle article already cited. Personally, I would also like to be able to dismiss this as right-wing bias, but cannot. I am not unfamiliar with the difficulties of addressing Native issues, having worked on many articles on the Native American mascot controversy, bringing two to GA status. I avoid BLP's as being even more problematical than political controversies, but came across Nagle's article in researching her participation in the Washington Redhawks and wondered if it had been addressed here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More Native opinions:

• Simon Moya-Smith
• April Youpee-Roll
• Margo "Kickingbird" DeLaune & Cole R. DeLaune

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The holidays will likely mean there will be few additional votes until next year. Who decides that consensus has been reached? Who is drafting the new content?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Her claims based on blood myth are a direct threat on indigenous sovereignty. Her standing firm on debunked claims sets precedent for every other individual with disproven blood myths to carry on playing indian. Nevertheless she may have persisted but for goodness sake she had Greg Grey Cloud arrested for singing an honor song in the gallery (but the guy from Hamilton could belt out show tunes and not face arrest when he was lobbying for the Arts). This goes to she her lack of any connection or level of respect for the culture she claims. Besides, it's not who you claim, it's who claims you. If it were not for her ridiculous claims steeped in exoticism she would not have supplied her rivals with racist fodder. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree that the issue needs a subsection, in particular since her on-again, off-again claiming to be Native American jibes closely with her quest for professional advancement. The most thorough discussion online I've found is at FactCheck.org, with the title, "Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Pocahontas’ Controversy." Far from being a political slam, the FactCheck article does offer exonerating testimony, so it is at least impartial, and is replete with cited sources. Wikipedia should do no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfhosford (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes her heritage seems to be a big part of her public image, attracts lots of attention and publicity, it's big enough to have it's own section. The fact that in this case subject at hand just happened to be controversial does not mean anything nor should it be an argument against such section.--Nomad (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per Neutrality. It's discussed where it is relevant. It would be WP:UNDUE to cover it more simply because her political enemies promote the story relentlessly for partisan benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes the only reason I came to her article in the first place was to learn more about this controversy. It is extremely relevant and is routinely mentioned in mainstream news outlets. There are people are against it having a section because they support her and there are people who are for it because they are against her. But what about the people that are pursuing greater knowledge and understanding of a particular subject? Surely such a section could exist in an unbiased way that merely present the available facts without a partisan angle? I don't know much about Warren's controversy other than it is the only reason I even know who she is, and it is ridiculous that there is not a section about such a prominent aspect of the subject an article and its omission undermines the integrity of every other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely - This issue has been raised, addressed, re-raised, re-addressed, and has had significant coverage in a variety of publications. Both anti- and pro-Warren politicos have chimed in about it. This certainly deserves its own subsection more than something like Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories deserves its own article. -- Veggies (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• No per policy. The material is already easily found and covered in the appropriate subsection (2012 election antics) of this article. (And it is already replicated in its own section yet again here.) Subsequent attempts to gin up controversy by regurgitating the old issue, as in the case of the bigoted name-calling in 2016, should likewise be covered in their appropriate subsections (2016 election antics, etc.), if at all. Transparent attempts to artificially inflate the matter even further with separate headers and sections is a violation of one of our core pillar policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? The exclusion of the section is itself a transparent attempt to obscure and downplay a highly relevant issue. I can only speculate as to motivation behind preventing a section dedicated to an objective and impartial analysis of the controversy, but it is likely that those biased towards Warren may fear the political consequences in the event the truth of the matter doesn't reaffirm their presuppositions - a violation of pillar two. However, I would suggest that those who think keeping this information fragmented and inaccessible will ultimately lead to the Streisand_effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd that you would cite "pillar two" to support your desire to convey "the truth of the matter", when pillar two explicitly instructs you to present "accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". […] Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Maybe pay closer attention to the policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Odd that you would rely on a semantic dispute to support your position... oh wait, that isn't odd at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.193.45 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• NO - It goes against Wikipedia's policy! Always a liberal bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.13.254 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes This has been international news for at least two years now and still attracts a massive amount of interest. I dare say people will forever associate the Native American controversy with Senator Warren. There is a way to add a new section which is evenly balanced. Those voting 'no' need to search their conscience and ask themselves whether their bias is intruding. MicheleFloyd (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes-It's not a one-time wrangle but a major controversy that's popped up repeatedly for years now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes This is too controversial to be swept under the rug. Elizabeth Warren has made this a big issue herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzbdZuVyAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Per WP:DUE. This has received enough coverage for a subsection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – The story has attracted attention and coverage several times along her life, not the least because she brought it up repeatedly. A full section is due. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances

Current list of involved editors with brief summaries of their stances Please read the arguments presented by the involved editors to find how logical they may be. Please also see above, "Revisiting Native American section" Please add to these lists as they develop. YoPienso (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC) I'm attempting to add a brief summary of each argument. Please AGF and edit your argument if you feel I've misrepresented it. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Opposing adding a separate subsection to highlight the Native American controversy Muboshgu--1. It's just a campaign issue. 2. "Wikipedia is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed." TFD--"Controversy sections are inherently bad style." Mark Bernstein--"Just another right-wing effort to score partisan points through WikiControversy(tm)." Neutrality-- already included in article; subsection is unnecessary and poor style Yuchitown — No. Read the archives: this has been hashed over and over. Lawrencekhoo--against policy: WP:WEIGHT. NorthBySouthBaranof--not a significant current issue Power~enwiki--"per Neutrality" I don't care for this summation of opinions and I've removed my name. Perhaps I've missed them, but isn't this an unusual addition to a RfC? Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) @Gandydancer: That's certainly your prerogative. Is this an RfC? Early on it was declared not to be and no one objected: *Comment - This not only lacks an {{rfc}} template but it is not in RfC format. Per WP:RFC, it is not an RfC, and I have removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC). I started this because I got lost in all the threads and comments and dialog and just wanted a simple summary. I thought other people might appreciate that, too. YoPienso (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Xenophrenic-- Every election season we can expect detractors to renew attempts to unduly highlight old "controversy" content in articles with additional headers, sub-headers and separate sections -- and no doubt neon lights and balloons, if Wikipedia supported them. It is already logically located and well-covered in multiple areas, so the efforts to inflate it are transparent. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Supporting adding a separate subsection to highlight the Native American controversy Steeletrap--It's "newsworthy--as measured by RS." It's "a genuine controversy." SunCrow--It's "a huge part of Warren's public image and notability." E.M.Gregory--1. "Massive . . . news coverage" 2. We need to provide the info for readers. 3. It's not just a campaign issue, but "has now resurfaced many times." IP 149.171.146.202--an Australian seeks/requests more info--Notes that it's OK to omit POTUS's insults while reporting on the issue. Marteau--"It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent." YoPienso--I said for all those reasons, and reiterated that it's notable. Added Dec. 4: The controversy long predates Trump's insults. CorbieVreccan--refuting Mark Bernstein's assertion that the issue is "right wing". Issue is not partisan. It concerns issues of Native American rights to self-representation and the broader issue of Indigenous Sovereignty, as explained in Rebecca Nagle's "I am a Cherokee woman. Elizabeth Warren is not." and the background pieces linked therein. Rreagan007--like the IP, he came here to find info, and argues that "information hidden throughout the article . . . makes this article less usable for the reader." WriterArtistDC--it cannot be dismissed as right-wing bias. Indigenous girl--Warren continues to make the claim of Native ancestry when it benefits her, but does not support Native causes.

• Whatever we do, it doesn't deserve damn near 1,000 words to describe the issue. GMG^talk 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• I support a sub-section within 'Early life, education, and family' titled 'Native American heritage'. The text that is currently in the article should be trimmed a bit. Warren is not trying to enroll in the Cherokee nation, so commentary by Cherokee officials about whether she can enroll is unnecessary. The article does not need to cover the exact fraction of Cherokee that she may be. It's sufficient to note that it 6-10 generations distant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• No – This is way overdone. Her mother told her she had Amerind heritage; so she thought she had. People that don’t like her are trying to make a big deal out of it. It deserves mention; but is not a large part of her life story. WP:WEIGHT. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• The subject is fine where it is under Childhood and Family. Evidently this is an important aspect of the self-definition of the Senator. She self-defines as "Cherokee", to the point of commissioning DNA estudies that have proven she is 1/1024 Amerindian, and this should be explained in full by the Wikipedia. The section should be no shorter and no longer than necessary and to cover Warren's self-identification as a Cherokee, which started in 1984 with her Cherokee recipes and which continues as of October 2018 with her 0.09% DNA tests. The section so far has about the right WP:WEIGHT for the Senator's self-identification, but should be expanded as she continues her efforts to make critics realize just how important a part of her family lore and self-identification this is. Respect people's self-identification, respect her personal truth, please. XavierItzm (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – Of course, it should have its own section. Warren herself keeps doubling down on her Cherokee ancestry, even though she has never provided one piece of documentation to support her claim that she is part Cherokee or part Delaware. She has provided documentation about being a tiny, tiny, tiny bit Native American, but no one knows what tribe that might be. She is the personal that keeps choosing to talk about it. She did not have engage in the faulty DNA test; she's the one that took Trump's bait, no one else. It is a major part of her life and there are plenty of reliable sources covering it and it should have its own section. --CharlesShirley (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Please remove the "Indigenous peoples of North America portal" from the "See also" section. Warren is not a Native American and is quite accurately not categorized as one on this article. This looks like POV pushing from the camp who believe that she is a person of color. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the link to the portal? ~Awilley (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me. It indeed looks POINTy/POV. -sche (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection to removal. My only objection continues to be was the undue amount of text on the subject. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The text has basically all been removed at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit: December 2018

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.

---

The version being inserted in bad faith is different from the version that Charles Shirley was reverting to. It has new additions to the text which are not supported by consensus. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&diff=872409926&oldid=872409774&diffmode=source Yetishawl (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

What you have linked to is a new edit to previously entered content not covered by this RfC. i.e.; the addition of the names of the Secretary and Professor making the noted criticisms, and Warren's response. You just reverted those additions. Would you care to explain why? Or would you be okay with my reinstating those changes? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You will have to start a new section to discuss those proposed edits. They give UNDUE WEIGHT. Yetishawl (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I've started the new section per your request. Could you please explain which parts of my edit you consider "undue", and why, so that your concerns can be addressed? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that Warren has said that Trump made racist claims about her ancestry. What actually happened was that Trump called Warren "Pocahontas," which is a racist nickname or racial slur for a Native person. But he was being sarcastic because he doesn't believe she is. So your wording is strange and confusing, and I think all of this: "Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr as "useless", a sentiment with which Warren agrees, noting that she has never claimed tribal citizenship. A Cherokee Nation cousin of Warren's has said she finds the president's taunts offensive. Indigenous rights activist Kim Tallbear likened DNA testing to a settler-colonial attitude of Native American identity, while Native Americans like congresswoman Deb Haaland applauded the DNA test as confirming "the family history she has long shared with the world, and I acknowledge her Native ancestry as testament to who we are as Americans"" is way too much detail for this section of her biography, and I don't agree with your paraphrasing of Warren's position that she agrees it was "useless." Yetishawl (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I don't agree that Warren has said that Trump made racist claims about her ancestry. --Yetishawl

From the reliable source that you provided: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had said she would not “sit quietly” as President Trump made claims about her ancestry that she called racist. If you don't agree, that is between you and your WaPo source.

...way too much detail for this section of her biography... --Yetishawl

Okay, would you care to offer a slimmed down version that still conveys the salient points? Or, alternatively, we can omit those personal opinions by the one Cherokee secretary and the one activist altogether, and also scrap Warren's response, and the Laguna Pueblo congresswomen's response to them as well -- does that seem reasonable you you?

...I don't agree with your paraphrasing of Warren's position that she agrees it was "useless." --Yetishawl

From the reliable source that you provided, Warren says: DNA & family history has nothing to do with tribal affiliation or citizenship, which is determined only – only – by Tribal Nations. I respect the distinction, & don't list myself as Native in the Senate. If you don't agree, that is between you and your WaPo source. But as I mentioned above, we don't need Warrens response to the Cherokee secretary's personal opinions if we omit them as well. Interested in your thoughts.

May I assume you are okay with my other additions that you have not mentioned here? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ok with your edit as a whole because it adds undue weight to this section. A small, limited mention is relevant. This is also undue weight on the paraphrase of the Washington Post source specifically. I am fine with scrapping all the external opinions except for Warren's response. It is her article and it should be about her. Your paraphrase differs from the source in ascribing "useless" to Warren. Yetishawl (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Again you claim my edit "adds undue weight", but without explaining how. I hate to be a bother, but I must again request that you explain your concern about undue weight so that it can be addressed, if you are going to keep asserting it.

I am fine with scrapping all the external opinions except for Warren's response. --Yetishawl

Alright. I'll make that edit. But if you can find the time, I'd appreciate knowing what, exactly, you found "undue" in the previous edit, and why. As for "useless", both Warren and the Cherokee secretary agree that DNA tests aren't useful in determining tribal affiliation -- and that is sourced. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So, am I to understand this correctly that there has been many, many different editors who have given input about the concerns of the Cherokee Nation and the concerns of various members of the Cherokee Nation and we (editors) came to a concensus version and now Xenophrenic and Yetishawl hold a discussion among themselves and delete any and all references to the concerns of the Cherokee Nation and its members? That is exactly what has happened here. Yetishawl has decided that the article belongs to him and he is demanding tons of information be eliminated from the article. However, out in the real world, outside of the parochial vision of two Wikipedia editors, the Boston Globe is suggesting to Warren that she not run for President in 2020 because of the huge number of Native Americans who were offended by Warren's decision to take a DNA test. This looks like classic case of whitewashing, am I right? As a enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the tribe that Warren has claimed to be a member of in the past, I can tell you that removing any all references to Warren's interactions with the Cherokees is disgraceful and tantamount to propaganda. This is an encyclopedia, not a political document, and we should include ALL of the important aspects of her life and her attempts to claim membership in the Cherokee Nation and her misuse of a DNA test should be included in this article. This looks like a whitewash (right?) and we have been told many times by Jimbo that Wikipedia is not whitewashed. Ok. Go ahead. Email an admin and have me blocked or start a inquisition of me for raising a valid and important point. Just to cut off a little nonsense first before the crying and whailing and moaning starts: (1) I don't think I own the document and (2) the information should be included in a neutral manner that is supported by reliable sources and should include the input of many editors (not just two editors). -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are you blaming me. Take it up with Xenophrenic. Yetishawl (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

You also removed "following demands for it by President Donald Trump." That text must remain. Yetishawl (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK

WP:DENY power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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