Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Nevertheless, she persisted

Trivia. Should be pruned and merged into the main article about Warren. KMF (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It is an independent event, full of facts and commentary, involving multiple specific others, it does not belong in the biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud" has nothing to do with Trump University

She also criticized Trump for his stance on the Trump University case, calling him a "loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself."

This sentence doesn't make sense. The quotation bears no relation to the first half of the sentence, except that they are both criticisms by Warren directed at Trump.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a few words. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Locked

I find it frightening that pages like this are locked. Let the people edit this page, not just admins hiding under pseudonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.173.219 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are misguided/misinformed on several points, but it appears that the semi-protection applied in July 2016 is no longer warranted and I have asked the protecting admin to consider removing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've lifted the semiprotection though am not optimistic about the results. Note that edits of this page fall under WP:ARBAP2 so caution is needed for all editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I wish I had a nickle for every hour I've spent on this article related to the Native American stuff. Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Native American Controversy

She's NOT Cherokee, even partially, and she's not from any other Native American tribe either. It does not matter that her brothers claim that older relatives say that they thought they had a Native-American ancestry. Many Americans who have a purely European background like Warren does have heard such claims from older relatives that they were related to Native-Indian tribes and very few of them actually really are, and even if they mistakenly believe that they are native they do not identify this way in order to get into law school or to get benefits, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.48.207 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

On April 27, 2012, The Boston Herald reported that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had touted Elizabeth Warren as being a Native American faculty member.

On May 1, 2012, according to a Boston Herald article, the Warren Campaign offered two pieces of evidence it said supported Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry.

The first piece of evidence was a statement by genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society that Warren might be 1/32 Cherokee. That claim, based on a type of documentation which did not exist at the time in question, later was withdrawn as lacking any evidence.

The second piece of evidence the Warren Campaign offered reporters was an undated article from the Muskogee Phoenix about the contributions of Elizabeth Warren’s first cousin, Mrs. James P. Rowsey, to the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Oklahoma as proof of Ms. Warren’s Native American ancestry:

The campaign also hastily produced an undated newspaper clip last night from the Muskogee Sunday Phoenix detailing a “Mrs. James P. Rowsey” — who they said is Warren’s cousin — and her involvement with the Five Civilized Tribes Museum, which is dedicated to preserving Native American art. 

   “Mrs. James P. Rowsey was Elizabeth’s first cousin — shared the grandparents in question,” a campaign official said in the statement.

Investigative reporter Michael Patrick Leahy traced Ms. Rowsey to a book titled Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole. In the Pow Wow Chow cookbook were recipes allegedly authored by Warren, as reported by The Boston Herald.

It was later discovered that three of Warren’s recipes appeared to be plagiarized.

elizabethwarrenwiki.org/pow-wow-chow-cookbook/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/9996688445/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

This has been extensively discussed, and is already covered in the article. You have not added any new reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Warren's claims of having Native American ancestry continue to be a matter of public controversy five years after they were first (?) made public. For instance, as of 27 Nov 17 Trump is referring to her as "Pocahontas" and she is accusing him of using a "racial slur." Does the continued controversy make the issue important enough to merit a separate section in the article? 66.162.249.170 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Warren seems to have no affiliation to any Cherokee organizations.

Minor grammatical correction

"In August the political director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claimed that 'no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren.'" - no need for a comma between the subject and verb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4100:5C00:7C36:43F6:FA2A:7FCC (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done [1] Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Related move discussion

Please review my proposed move of the article about Warren's husband Bruce Mann by clicking the link below:

Link

Thanks. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Native American section

The section as it stands is buried in the middle of her campaign article. Her spats with the President over the heritage question are intensely newsworthy--as measured by RS, which is how we measure news-worthiness or notability on Wikipedia--and so the controversy deserves a more fully-formed discussion.

I think that the Native American thing should be expanded and given a subsection under "career," since the allegations relate to alleged unfair career advantage, and have persisted far beyond the 2012 election. Here is my draft, which I will insert in the article in a week or two pending discussion.

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories.[64] When asked why she listed herself as a racial minority (the directory did not specify what race a particular minority was), Warren stated that she was Native American. Her campaign declined to provide documentary or genetic proof of her heritage.

Because the AALS directories were used for minority hiring, and because she was unable to document her heritage or point to a specific Native ancestor, Warren's critics have alleged that she had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in the employment market.[65][66][67] Warren denies the allegation. She has stated that she listed herself in the AALS because she wanted to meet others with a similar background.[68] Former colleagues and supervisors at universities she worked at stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring.[69][70][67][74]Her brothers said that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage", while members of her extended family denied any Native American ancestry.

As a presidential candidate and now a the President of the United States, Donald Trump has repeatedly alleged that Warren lied about her heritage for professional advantage. His press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, repeated the charge on November 27, 2017. He has disparaged her as "Pocahontas," a claim that Warren and some Native advocacy groups characterize as a racial slur. Warren continues to insist that she is Native American but never benefited from her claimed ancestry.' Steeletrap (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because something was in the news today does not make it more significant to the subject, per Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And when we introduce criticisms we should explain who is making them and how credible the accusations are. TFD (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You lost me at sparked a campaign controversy. Besides that, Wikipedia is not an extension of Donald Trump's Twitter feed. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Steeletrap. Whether she likes it or not, the Native American controversy is a huge part of Warren's public image and notability. I have two suggested changes to the proposed paragraph. First, the sentence about "former colleagues and supervisors..." is included twice. Second, I believe the sentence that reads "In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful" should be moved to the second paragraph because it relates to the allegation that she used her purported ancestry for personal gain. SunCrow (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO this all seems to suggest that we use the president's disrespectful remarks as yet one more excuse to expand this section. We have page after page of work on this section with almost every word disagreed about but finally agreed to using consensus. For example see Mast Cell's remarks on talk page #8. What we've got in the article is far from perfect, IMO, but it's the best we could come to after almost endless discussion and I'm far from ready to open this can of worms all over again. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It needs to be a subhead - not because Trump, but because of the massive amount of news coverage the claim has generated,in what has now been a series of news cycles over many years. There has certainly been sufficient coverage to support a page on the subject, if somebody wrote one..E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm from Australia and came to this page today purely to find out about the Pocahontas nickname and the basis of it, but had to read heaps of boring, extraneous information before finally finding the details of her biggest claim to fame buried in the wrong section of the article. It should be expanded and moved to the "Early life, education, and family" section. As it stands, it seems wildly contradictory; first claiming that Warren didn't know she was calling herself native, then saying she did it to meet natives, then the brothers saying they really are native. Which one is it? (149.171.146.202 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC))
So you're saying that if Trump says something derogatory about someone it should be prominent in their biographies? Funny when I can't find anything about Trump's hand or penis size, although they made the 24 hr news cycle too. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The status quo can still be cleaned up and moved to the correct section without including the president's insults. (149.171.146.202 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC))
Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree... it needs a subheading. People will in come to this article to learn about her heritage and currently readers will be unable to find what they are looking for without doing a search. It either makes us look we're trying to hide the issue from interested readers, or it makes us look incompetent... it's an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and it needs to be remedied. Marteau (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The current version is about as credible as Warren's claims to Native American ancestry. I just polished it up a bit, removing one outright falsehood (the retracted claim by the amateur genealogist--who later admitted she was mistaken--that the genealogist had found evidence of Warrens ancestry). I also removed the outrageous implication about Warren's "tribal roots" (which are the same as my tribal roots--nonexistent). It still needs a subsection.
Gandy and TFD: I know you despise Trump. Me too as a matter of fact. But we go off of RS coverage in assessing notability on Wikipedia. By WP standards, this is clearly notable enough for a subsection. The story has gotten loads of coverage in RS over the course of many years. At this point, it's a trope of Warren's political opponents. There is no justification, in terms of WP policy, for burying this story halfway through the article. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, if people come here to learn about the issue and can't find what they're looking for, they are just going to go someplace else where they CAN find what they are looking for. And guess which sites are going to float to the top of the list on a search for this issue? Very likely not a site which uses reliable sources and at least tries to give balance, and very possibly a hate site. Marteau (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am committed to being balanced on the issue. In her defense, the claims from her former colleagues that she did not benefit need to be included. (And her brothers, saying they heard that she was Native American.) But we cannot obscure the fact that she listed herself as a racial minority in a directory that did not even specify what minority one was. Her claim--though this is for RS to say, not me--to have listed herself there to "meet people like her" is absolutely bogus. A convention of "minority law professors" would include Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, African Americans, etc. It wouldn't be a Native American thing (or a 1/32nd Native American thing, although she'd probably meet plenty of fellow 0/32nd Natives there). Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it is best with controversies to raise them when the underlying events ocurred or then they came to attention. In this case, it should be mentioned in her Senate run, when her opponent made it an issue and during the last presidential campaign when Trump raised it. Steeletrap, I find it incredible that a highly qualified law professor would list herself as part Indian without any attempt to verify it, or think that if true it made her part of a minority. And as an educated person, she should have known that many families romanticize their past, connecting family. But there is no evidence she obtained any personal advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 02:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is no evidence she achieved an advantage, and in fact evidence to the contrary. But the claim is that she sought it: i.e. that she committed attempted fraud. That is a plausible charge. Regardless, RS are covering the issue enough to warrant a sub-section.Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Four deuces. It is more accurate to say that this first surfaced during that Senate campaign. But it has now resurfaced many times. NO ONE is likely to look for it in the campaign section, because people - like me - who are hear it have no way of knowing when it first came up. This topic needs to be a subhead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I just created a sub-section under career. It is balanced and provides adequate weight to the story. The old version had a lie (that a native ancestor had been found: the amateur genealogist who concluded this admitted it was a mistake) and a dishonest implication (that Warren has "tribal roots"). It was also incompetently written.
More evidence that this is a genuine controversy, and not just a conspiracy theory (like many of the other issues Trump raises). A Cherokee woman who describes herself as a liberal just wrote an op-ed criticizing Warren's claims. A leading liberal think tank published it. https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/ Steeletrap (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow one liberal wrote an op ed. That makes it bipartisan. Where's the :rolleyes: emoji when I need it? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Some people think that whenever one American Indian says something, they are speaking for all of them. It's not that surprising that the Center for American Progress should publish an article against Warren, considering all their efforts against Sanders. TFD (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted Steeletrap's edits which show absolute disregard for WP's consensus building which is required for our pages, and especially our political pages where strong differences of opinion are certain to make editing difficult. I hope that s/he will show more consideration for his/her fellow editors as we continue here. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Will you at least concede the need for a subheading? Marteau (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I am open to discussion on everything though I may be off-line for a few days. Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You have been open to "discussion" on this issue for years, and it has been nothing but stonewalling. This is becoming ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Well at least the old version--which was incompetently written (perhaps intentionally, to obscure the issue), and contained multiple pro-Warren falsehoods (that she was in a tribe, that proof of her genealogy had been identified)--is gone. If we can agree on the substance of the current version, then we can debate whether this deserves a sub-section. Someone please create an RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This new article from Politifact is not kind to Warren. I think we should cite this latest fact-checking in the article. There is no proof of her genealogy at all, and she listed herself as a racial minority, not Native American. (The basis of the claim to be a racial minority was NA, but no employers or law profs. would've known she was NA from the directories. Therefore her excuse, to "meet people like me," is bogus.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/ 64.208.131.10 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization of that article, which make is harder for me to believe good faith about other arguments made here. The article is essentially a neutral documentation of a tempest in a teacup. I quote the article "The main takeaway from the Globe’s reporting was that many who had Native American ties hid them, and documentation at the turn of the last century was spotty. In any event, any ties were so distant that they would not qualify her as minority by any official yardstick. Warren herself didn’t trumpet this side of her family story. When applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status." LK (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Since the IP has made only this one comment, which/whose other arguments do you now distrust?
You also mischaracterize the article: it does seem quite unbiased, but wrt to the controversy, it says, "Elizabeth Warren might never live down the charge of falsely claiming Native American roots. The controversy emerged during the Democrat’s successful Senate run in Massachusetts in 2012, and it continues to dog her." Written five years later, that hardly describes a tempest in a teapot.
Your quote is how Politifact summarized the Globe, story; it doesn't summarize the Politifact article. YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:AGF violation aside, it's impossible for a single editor to "stonewall" anything; they simply lose to consensus. So form a consensus. Editing during a discussion is particularly out of line (and risky) at an article under discretionary sanctions. I've seen far less significant things go to RfC without an outcry about misuse of the RfC process. There is no good reason we couldn't wait the usual 30 days to resolve this question in RfC, and that's what I would suggest as a disinterested observer. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Steeltrap, I don't think your assumption should go unanswered. No, I do not despise Trump, or any of the other subjects of biographical articles I edit. It's not a good approach. TFD (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Error regarding source

There is an error in this sentence which I feel is a significant error: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy by reporting that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories, called the AALS Directory of Law Teachers.[64]"

Reference 64 is "Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". Boston Herald. Retrieved June 9, 2012." This reference is accessible here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2012/04/harvard_trips_on_roots_of_elizabeth_warren_s_family_tree

The error is that the source does not list the information cited, that is, the sentence says, "the Boston Herald ... report[ed] that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories ...." However, the source makes no mention of any of that at all: none. In other words, while the sentence is listed as having a source really there is no current source for that statement.

I would appreciate feedback on fixing this error. At the very least, Reference 64 cannot be cited as saying something it does not say.

It is my hope that I am contributing on this Talk page in the correct fashion.

Ron Foster 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Ronny8, December 6, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did it correctly, and thanks for your concern. There are three citations after that sentence; the third--Ebbert, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Directories identified Warren as minority". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on September 3, 2013.--has that information. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. That sentence has only one citation after it. Ron Foster 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs)

How does it look now? YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The source is definitely better, I think. Could we change "Herald" to "Globe" in the sentence so the text matches the source please? Ron Foster 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny8 (talk • contribs)

OK; my last edit should have finally squared that away. You can do this, too, you know! See WP:TUTOR. Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Impostor?

The OP has been topic banned from this article and from any mentions of Warren for six months as an AE action.
At present, implementing the OP's proposal would violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP.
Thus, the proposal cannot be implemented without new reliable sources being published that explicitly support the OP's belief.
As an uninvolved editor, I am closing and collapsing the discussion as pointless.
EdChem (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should this article be filed under Category:Impostors? It has been well-documented—by the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Boston Herald, and The Atlantic, among others—that Sen. Warren, on more than one occasion, made unsubstantiated claims of Native American heritage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] These sources, varyingly, have demonstrated that Warren:

  • claimed to be "white" at one university, while claiming to be a minority at other universities
  • self-identified as "Cherokee" for a book that was published in 1984, while she was simultaneously claiming to be "white" at the university where she worked at the time
  • has cousins who don't recall any stories of Native American ancestors from their parents
  • has based her claims on flimsy, speculative conjecture
  • has failed to provide actual Cherokees with any proof of her supposed Cherokee heritage, despite requests from the tribe to do so
  • has never had her Native American claims proven, not even by reliable methods used by respected genealogical societies

Now in fairness to Warren, there is no evidence that she ever posed as Native American for the purposes of gaining employment or promotions, nor am I implying that her intent was to exploit her supposed heritage for personal gain. But that's beside the point. Whether or not she unfairly benefited from her claims is irrelevant; the point is that she has publicly made controversial assertions about herself that she hasn't been able to substantiate. And based on the reports from the above-named sources, it seems clear that, by definition, Elizabeth Warren is indeed an impostor, for the same reasons that Rachel Dolezal is an impostor.

It should also be noted, BTW, that even to this date, she has yet to have her DNA tested for Native American ancestry, to settle the questions once and for all. And if she has been tested, why hasn't anybody heard about it? Greggens (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

She should not be put in that category, but the sourced stuff you mentioned should be added to the article if it is not already present. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, those sources are already present in the article. Greggens (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

−

What you are engaging in here is classic original synthesis. You apparently strongly believe that the article subject is an "impostor." Unfortunately for you, you can't find any reliable source (much less a clear consensus of reliable sources, as would be required to state such an accusation as a fact) which state that she is an "impostor." So you have written a lengthy discourse about how you believe all these accusations make her an "impostor." Totally irrelevant. We do not write articles based on what we believe, we write articles based upon reliable sources. We have many sources which describe the dispute, and we discuss the dispute here. None of those sources describe her, as a factual matter, as an "impostor." That is the end of the story as far as we are concerned. So no, the category is totally inappropriate and cannot be included here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. Not the end of the story. Her being an "impostor" isn't dependent on the words that the media uses to describe her, nor for that matter does it depend on what I believe. Neither my belief nor the media's belief has anything to do with it. Either one is an impostor or one is not. In this case, she clearly fits the definition of impostor. Why can't we call a ♠ a "spade?" Or, as the old saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then chances are, it's probably...a duck!" Greggens (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
No source cited in this article states, as a factual conclusion, that Warren is misrepresenting her ancestry. The sources discuss numerous questions about her ancestry, and unsettled debates, and unknown answers, and suggest that it's probably impossible to tell for certain one way or the other. There is no proof she is right and no proof she is wrong. We factually describe the dispute in some detail. No reliable source here calls her an impostor. The end. Either one is an impostor or one is not and as you have cited no reliable sources which say she is, then as far as we are concerned, she is not. I don't know how many more ways I have to explain it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The reason that there is so much controversy is not that Warren has been definitively proven wrong, but that she offers no evidence that she's right. I'm not saying that she has to prove her claims to be right beyond reasonable doubt; but even lacking evidence to the contrary, her simple face-value statements are not enough to prevent reasonable people from concluding that she nothing more than an impostor. A publicly-made ancestry claim like hers is just one of those things in life that requires a standard of proof higher than a mere "because my mom told me so." That's not just my opinion; that's common sense.
Bottom line: the integrity of the Impostors category would not be compromised by adding Elizabeth Warren to this list. It's not as if categorizing her as an impostor would create a slippery slope by which several non-impostors would therefore also be placed in the Impostors category, thus rendering the term "Impostors" meaningless. The definition fits; what more evidence do you need? Greggens (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
To put such a label on any person, in particular a living person, we need a preponderance of reliable sources putting the label on her. The rest of your reasoning, despite making perfect sense to you, is not permitted by Wikipedia content policy. Period. This has been explained to you again and again, and at some point people will just stop responding to you. This will be my last comment here unless one or more other editors appear out of the wilderness to support your viewpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In 2012, The Boston Herald published an article calling Elizabeth Warren "Fauxcahontas."[7] If that doesn't say "Impostor," I don't know what does. (Would it help if I found a way to incorporate this source into the main article?) Greggens (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The citation you reference is literally to the newspaper's gossip columnist; gossip is, obviously, not a reliable source.
To put this in a way which may help you understand — using your logic, opponents of Donald Trump would be justified in adding Category:Russian spies to his biography. There are certainly many sources which note the many allegations that Donald Trump is an agent of the Russian government; however, there is clearly no preponderance of reliable sources describing him factually as a Russian agent; therefore to put him in that category would be entirely inappropriate. This will be my last comment here; if you reinsert the material, the next stop will be Arbitration Enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ebbert, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Directories identified Warren as minority". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on September 3, 2013.
  2. ^ Chabot, Hillary (April 27, 2012). "Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren's family tree". Boston Herald. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  3. ^ Carmichael, Mary (May 25, 2012). "Filings raise more questions on Warren's ethnic claims". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on May 25, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  4. ^ Hicks, Josh (September 28, 2012). "Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American heritage". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 28, 2012. Retrieved January 7, 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Franke-Ruta, Garance (May 20, 2012). "Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
  6. ^ Chabot, Hillary (May 15, 2012). "Genealogical society: No proof of Warren's Cherokee heritage found". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on May 18, 2012. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
  7. ^ Fee, Gayle; Raposa, Laura; Johnson, Megan (May 17, 2012). "Elizabeth Warren not history's only Fauxcahontas". Boston Herald. Herald Media, Inc. Archived from the original on May 25, 2012. Retrieved January 18, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

Please remove the “alternately known as Pocahontas” reference just added to the intro. It is racist and offensive. SarasotaDupree (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Racial slur"

"P--, which Warren considered to be a racial slur". Seriously, she can't be the only one who considers that a slur. And "referred to" is just a euphemism. The whole sentence should be recast. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • From Canada I can see that it is a racist slur. The text also suggests Trump only used the term once, but he has repeaed it over and over in speeches etc for sevral years. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think "slur" is a bit strong, though not incorrect. "Racial slur" slightly more so a bit strong. I think he is attempting to make fun of, disparaging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No comment on whether it's a racial slur. I think it's best to say that Warren said that and let people form their own opinions. But I did add "has sometimes" to make it clear that Trump used the term more than once, which I think is important. Display name 99 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is. I don't think Canadians use the term Pocohontas as a slur for Indian women and Trump did not believe she was Indian anyway. It's not in the dictionary as one. Mind you, it is best avoided. TFD (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The term has been called a racial slur numerous times by numerous people, including Native American people. Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Native Americans have called it a slur:

John Norwood, general secretary of the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes: "The reference is using a historic American Indian figure as a derogatory insult and that’s insulting to all American Indians", adding that Trump should "stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents."

Source: Is 'Pocahontas' a racial slur? Eric Trump defends his dad, but Native Americans say otherwise, USA Today. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide any example of the term being used by anyone other than Trump or by someone quoting him where it has been seen as a slur? Anyway there is no reason why we have to state as a fact that it is a slur, just that it has been perceived as one since this article is not about Trump. TFD (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • “Racial taunt” and “mockery” [2] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Howie Carr didn't say "Pocahontas" but he gave a fake Indian war whoop at a 2016 Trump rally. YoPienso (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The president of the National Congress of American Indians said: "We regret that the president's use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today's White House ceremony."[1] White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that complaints that the nickname is a racial slur are "ridiculous", and that "What most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career."[1][2]
  • Speaking on PBS NewsHour, Mark Shields commented, "It's one thing when Donald Trump uses Pocahontas to attack or taunt one senator, Elizabeth Warren. This, quite frankly, is beyond that. I mean, this is racial. It's racist. It is."[3] Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Using something "as a slur" doesn't mean it's been used that way for hundreds of years. It would be similar to repeatedly calling a male Muslim senator "Muhammad", which would not ordinarily be an insulting word to a Muslim. That's what the sources mean when they say it has been used as a slur.--Pharos (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact "Muhammad" is listed in the the Racial Slur Database as an ephithet for Arabs based on it being a common name among Muslims.[3] Pocohontas is not a common Native and American name and is not listed.[4] If anything, it's similar to the slurs made against white people who pretend to be something else. Of course you could be right, I am just saying that we should not state as a fact it is a racial slur, without a reliable source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My attempts to improve the sentence structure have been constantly reverted by Grayfell. What's the point of adding "including American Indians"? It's a needless, obvious fact that they, specifically, are offended. This just makes the sentence a run on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acid Ly (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a racial slur. The sky is blue and P- is a disgusting racial slur that has been repeated over and over again by Trump. These are facts. It should be mentioned frequently in the article to make people aware of the kind of bullying Warren is fighting against from Trump and the rest of the right. Aidaakron (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't just explain facts devoid of context, we try to indicate why they are significant. This term's status as a slur is significant because Warren considers it a slur, many Americans Indians have publicly explained that it's a slur, and it's been identified as a slur by many in the general public. Just saying "some people considered it a slur" would be so vague as to miss the point entirely. We should also avoid WP:WEASEL or editorializing to implying-without-saying that it might not be a slur after all. Sources do not support this interpretation, so neither should we. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That Warren considers it a racial slur does not mean that we can state as a fact it is a slur. We can only say that she holds that view. Similarly we cannot state as fact everything that Trump says. In any case, Trump denies that she has Indian heritage. TFD (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
How is this not a slur? Why are we casting doubts on the sources using this term? The definition of slur laid out by Pejorative and wikt:slur is not, as far as I can tell, being challenged or refuted by any sources, so why would we second-guess those sources by using weak language? It's an insult, which as Aidaakron says, is WP:SKYBLUE obvious. Trump used it to mockingly to show his contempt for her, which is well-documented. So he's repeatedly used an incorrect name tied to a specific ethnicity to denigrate a woman based on her ancestry. This is a slur. We have a lot of sources supporting this and explaining why the term is insulting, and absolutely none saying that it isn't insulting... right? So what, exactly, is the issue with calling it a slur? Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
TFD, you have to be kidding. It's a slur. "Many people are saying it's a slur"--that's Trump language, but here it's true. "In any case..."--you're arguing that because Trump says he doesn't believe she has Native American heritage (do NOT say "Indian heritage"--that's not just "politically incorrect", it's wrong and dumb) he can't be using a slur? Come on--please let me take you seriously. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Warren used the term Indian heritage. And please note that we need a reliable source that says its a slur. BTW this article is not about Trump, but about Warren. TFD (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Many have called it a slur, or referred to it as a slur. I think that in doing that, they are being a little bit emotive, a little bit exaggerating, but not to the point of it being incorrect. I think "taunt", or "disparagement", is more on the mark. "Racial" is squarely correct. However, "slur" has been used more than enough to justify its mention in the article. Constructions such as "... labelled a slur" or "criticized for the racial slur" work well. The current text, "which Warren and others, including some Native Americans, consider a racial slur" is excellent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe, there's reliable sources using it...Native Americans have condemned it as such...so if you want to talk neutrality and all that, and proper ascription, you can, and that's fine, but saying "a little bit emotive" is suggesting that Warren (a woman) and the Native Americans (not white people) are...well, you know. I mean I hope you know. Please don't infantilize them. I don't agree that the phrase you hail as excellent is indeed excellent, but it's better than before, which completely unjustly turned the Senator into a lonely whiner. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Drmies, are you criticizing my word choice, or something more serious. I would like to take more care to not be read as infantilizing anyone. If I may risk repeating the mistake, but trying to be better understood: when communicating, people can respectably appeal to emotion. "Slur" is an emotive word. I don't mean to argue that it is incorrect. Perhaps "slightly emotive" would have been better, but more likely I should better drop the subject and walk away from the hole. I read many sources that I googled. Yes, many use or repeat "slur". Is there a particular source you were thinking of? EW and many others have used it. Having read the many sources, I looked to the actual text, I found myself unable to further improve it. You think it is less than excellent? What are it's weak points? You labelled it an unqualified slur, but I am not sure that Wikipedia should, given that some deny it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
        • SmokeyJoe, thank you--yes, it's that word choice. "Emotive" suggests it comes from a place of judgment, a place of rationality, from which it is easy to look down on those who are deemed to be emotional rather than rational. And there's a difference between "being emotive" (which suggests being irrational) with "appealing to emotion". Don't worry about the hole: I believe you are an honest person of good faith, possibly better faith than me. As for the phrase, I also find it difficult. There is no doubt in my mind that the term IS a slur, and was intended as such--but of course no one can prove intent, and given the president's notorious vagueness it couldn't even be proven to be true if he said it was. Maybe "some Native Americans" (which sounds loose, random--oh here's one, and there's another) should be replaced, given that we have a few official statements. But all the various word choices notwithstanding, I do think that this is pretty much a "the sky is blue" matter, and editors twenty years from now will probably wonder why we were so wishy-washy here. But I also don't want to pick a fight with you, and I respect and appreciate your efforts to make this is fair as possible. At least it's better than it was. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "Pocohontas," is obviously a slur with racial overtones in this context. Merriam-Webster defines a slur as an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo. This is consistent with the interpretation by many WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is definitely racial, no question there. On the nuances of "slur", "insult" and "disparagement", I think "disparagement" is more correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's not get into semantics. In this instance, the view is unanimous among all of the sources that it is a slur. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Trump & Huckabee deny.[5] Not unanimous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: do you have any source for Trump himself denying it? If he believes that it is not a slur, why does he "apologize to the real Pocahontas"? NPOV is based on opinions by journalists, and Sarah's job is not journalism. wumbolo ^^^ 12:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We have no obligation of including or even considering the commentary/opinion of non-independent or unreliable sources. Huckabee-Sanders is a spokesperson whose words sometimes bear tenuous relationships with the truth, and she is neither independent nor reliable. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The article includes video of Trump denying. I’m sure others have repeated his line, no I don’t care to go look. I also don’t care to try to get into his head.
It’s better to attribute the characterisation than to editorially assert it. I’m not sure what you are arguing for, what change do you seek? “which Warren and others, including some Native Americans ...”. Change to “which Warren and many others, including Native Americans“? That might be fair. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the person(s) using the term deny it is a slur is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a slur. Particularly when those people are completely non-credible and deliberately vicious and racist. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if it is not widely considered as a slur, whether or not the language is a slur should be determined by the perceived ethnicity of the target of the language. Trump perceives Warren as non-Native American, so it's impossible for him to use a slur against her. It's similar to how the N-word is not a slur if it is used by African Americans. One can argue that Trump is using childish insults, but you can't deny that Trump is showing a lot of respect for Native Americans (e.g. by as-perceived-by-him "[apologizing] to the real Pocahontas" [6]). One can also argue that I'm violating WP:NOTFORUM, but I'm simply trying to show that this is not a black-and-white scenario, and that all opinions should be attributed per NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference nbc-vitali was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Treene, Alayna (November 27, 2017). "Why Trump keeps calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas"". Axios. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  3. ^ "Shields and Brooks on Trump's 's***hole' comments, 'Fire and Fury' fallout". PBS NewsHour. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

Education Issues with the Article

First, lumping "Early life, education, and family" into one section is a mess. Particularly with regard to education. Americans go to Elementary, Junior High/Middle School/Senior High, College and then to post-graduate. All very structured, and linear. And that is what readers expect to see, and not some mish-mash of extraneous details of this, that and the other thing all mixed up into an incoherent mess. Much of this very basic information is missing, which in and of itself is very noteworthy considering she is a sitting US Senator. The Article's quality should reflect the noteworthiness of the topic, and in it's present form, it does not.

Further, the controversy of her alleged Native American ancestry has direct bearing on all of this, given the recent release of DNA test results. Did she use a claim of Native American ancestry to take advantage of special programs and opportunities that would not be afforded to a "white" person with a similar DNA profile (meaning the ratio of white to non-white)? Also it seems to me that this standard could be used by the average person to form their own opinion on whether or not Ms. Warren is, or is not, legitimately considered "part Native American". If she did not, or with the new information of the DNA test results, she could not qualify as a Native American for these types of programs, etc..., it seems to me this is a functional standard whereby to determine that she is, or is not, "part Native American". Wikipedia should be providing this type of information (a clear, structured report of her education), as well as whether or not she benefited from any kind of special program reserved for Native Americans. These are simple facts, made clear in every other biographical information on prominent US politicians that I've seen, and I can't help but wonder if the political cloud surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry has also clouded the accurate reporting of her basic educational information within this Article.

The Article would be Improved if this section were to at least separate "Education" from everything else into it's own standalone section, restructure the information into a linear format (elementary, junior high/middle school/senior high, college, post-graduate, etc...), and then add significant information such as whether or not Ms. Warren benefited from "minority set-aside" type programs, as that is exactly what information people are looking for when they come to read this Article.2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence she used a claim of Native American ancestry to take advantage of special programs and opportunities in education. If there was, that would escalate the issue, but there isn't.--Pharos (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about her education, but there's an article on Politico citing a Fordham Law Review piece describing Warren as Harvard Law School's "first woman of color " - find the Politico story here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We already discuss this in the article, and there isn't any evidence she used it for educational or job advancement.--Pharos (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
While the Boston Globe article states that Warren's claim to Indian heritage was not used for education or job advancement, it must be acknowledged that the use of ethnic/racial preferences is often kept under wraps in hiring due to the controversial legal status of such preferences, and in any event Warren's claim surely did not hurt her advancement in academia. 2601:903:180:454:106:70B9:89B:7639 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Kolef2601:903:180:454:106:70B9:89B:7639 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Your unsourced conjectures and suppositions can have no place in a Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with @NorthBySouthBaranof: there’s no evidence to support this right-wing talking point. Actually it should go without saying that there is no evidence to support any right wing talking point, which is why they have no place being circulated to the general public via Wikipedia. Aidaakron (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Let Us Preserve the Notability Policy

Good-faith discussion that sprang from a misunderstanding of what WP:N means — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The WP:NOTNEWS are no excuse for evading the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy. So long as the info is "significant, interesting, or unusual," you cannot use the Not News policy as an excuse for political bias. The Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State made a notable statement which deserves to be included 2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles. WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles. GMGtalk 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it deals with determining "significant, interesting, or unusual" events which can be included in articles. A verified response to Warren's DNA test from the Cherokee Nation is indeed very significant and interesting.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the original source too.[7]2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. GMGtalk 17:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the article that determines how to enforce this policy Wikipedia:Notability (events):

Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with me? I can't tell. GMGtalk 17:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm only disagreeing with you if you can't accept that matches with "significant, interesting, or unusual." It is also not wise to omit the succeeding sentences which described more.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles. WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles. GMGtalk 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (events) is irrelevant; it regards when an event should have an article, and The Cherokee Nation's statement in response to Elizabeth Warren's DNA test is obviously not a suitable topic for an article. (the statement might go on Wikisource if it is licensed in a way to allow that). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the verified event is "significant, interesting, or unusual," it is not at all irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a fan base for anybody. I don't think omitting succeeding sentences which showed more was appropriate either2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered that WP:Notability deals with whether we should retain stand-alone articles and WP:DUEWEIGHT deals with what verifiable content should be included in existing articles? GMGtalk 17:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course. You can't use that one either. Interesting first paragraph

"Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

Nothing tiny with the Cherokee Nation.2601:447:4101:41F9:76:3C05:FB9D:7DCA (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/Archive_11&oldid=869210198"