Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 4

BLP requirements
A reminder to all editors that our policy on biographies of living people applies to this article. Contentious negative information requires suitable sourcing, as outlined in that policy. It is absolutely a violation of policy to accuse a living person of a crime (practicing law without a license) unless the charge is supported by high-quality independent, reliable sources. It is categorically not OK to insert contentious negative material sourced to a blog (see WP:BLPSPS), as occurred here. This policy is generally taken very seriously, and further violations may result in blocks or other sanctions. MastCell Talk 17:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard to this subject - here are reputable sources:
 * 1: Mass Bar Association, How to check a member's status : http://www.massbar.org/membership/faqs#3436
 * 2: Mass Attorney Lookup: http://massbbo.org/bbolookup.php
 * While a "Blog" may not be a reliable source, the database of the actual entity charged with qualifying attorneys and licensing them ... is a reputable source. Try to find Elizabeth Warren yourself.  Draw your own conclusions as to if the information is warranted or not.  While this information is fresh and new, it will inevitably become a part of American history - as Warren is a candidate for US Senate.  Inclusion is warranted, as it will be relevant to the history of the United States - regardless of current events, or outcomes of elections.
 * I will not update this section myself.  I am providing this information for discussion, and further research on this subject --- and possible restoration of deleted information once further sources are found.  --Kyanwan (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but please review the applicable policy. It's completely inappropriate to use primary sources - such as bar association membership directories - to support contentious negative claims about a living person. Completely, categorically inappropriate (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I make edits? No, I didn't.   I simply proved something true, and - someone else proved it true as well.   Now it's documented by "media".  I would like to say - it's completely inappropriate to start pointing fingers for things that haven't even happened, and showing your clear bias in regards to this article.  Here's a source I'm sure you'll like:   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/warren-now-faces-questions-about-her-law-licenses-legal-defense-big-biz/ .    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research - In response to your claim on primary sources - "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care"  - Please go read the Wiki page on primary sources.   I feel that someone editing and deleting sections such as you have - should be more aware of the policies of wikipedia.   Having editors such as yourself misquoting policy and deleting information in a wanton fashion - should be curtailed.   MastCell - I see your information in this page quoting "votes" and "changing votes" - why do you bring this up?   All we should care about is the information and facts as they relate to an American historical figure, who happens to still be alive.  Kyanwan (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not inappropriate to use primary sources, particularly ones anyone can check and that are undeniably authoritative to check the accuracy of a secondary source. In this case, appropriate here, but not on Article page. Would have to add that while the sources thus far cited (probably will have news stories within a day or two) are not automatically WP:RS, this is due to questionable editorial oversight, somewhat obviated by the checkable nature of the allegations. The implication that Warren is doing something against the law is probably out, as a conclusion or opinion, the fact that there is no discoverable law license where one should be easy to find is allowable. Doesn't mean it should be in THIS article, as it may be WP:UNDUE here, but may be appropriate in the United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:BLPPRIMARY. It forbids the use of primary sources to support assertions about a living person. FurrySings (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that User:Perpetualization reinstated a version of the accusation. Rather than remove it, I've done what they should have -- some basic research. As a result, I added a section which addresses these claims. I used a legal newsblog, which ought to be more than reliable enough. If not, we can use the quotes we found in it to search for an even better source. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this. As my edit summary says: “Allegations are difficult to confirm” practically defines WP:REDFLAG. Unverified speculation of a crime is a clear violation of WP:BLP. —$Kerfuffler sniff scratch$ 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to reverting the whole thing at this time. I do think we need to cover it, if only to acknowledge the accusation and show the rebuttal. The accusation is relevant, not because it's true, but because it's part of the campaign. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusation and blog rebuttal is fine (though you will notice that neither presents all the relevant info, as is the case with matters lawyerly), and I like your addition. Still reiterate that the section undeniably belongs on the election page, but is a little questionable here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it ceases to be an unambiguous WP:BLP violation, we can talk. Until then, it doesn't belong here. —$Kerfuffler haunt taunt$ 06:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong here, period. No RS, no way.  And I suspect there won't be any because this is a non issue.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kerfuffler, ok, what would it take to avoid being a BLP violation? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We should hold off until some RSs come forward with the information. Using the links provided above to research on our own is clearly OR.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   13:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But why do that we can speculate about what the RS will actually do? Where's the fun in that?  This is a perfect example of why blogs are not reliable.  The fact that the author of the blog wasn't aware of the ease of which Warren could "pro hac vice" reaffirms why we like sources that do things like fact checking and basic research.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: The posting in the weblog by an adjunct professor (William A. Jacobson at Cornell) who reportedly claims or implies that Warren has been practicing law in Massachusetts in violation of Massachusetts law (specifically, without being licensed as an attorney in that state) is problematic. Jacobson does not say precisely why he believes Warren needs to be licensed in that state.


 * Let me explain.


 * If all Warren is doing is representing clients in filings with a federal court in that state, and she is a member of the bar of that federal court, she does not generally need to be licensed as a Massachusetts attorney merely because she is located in Massachusetts -- any more than I (as an attorney licensed in Texas) would need a Massachusetts attorney's license to represent a Massachusetts client in U.S. Tax Court -- even if I were located in Massachusetts. I know of no state (Massachusetts or otherwise) that claims to have a state law prohibiting an out of state attorney from practicing law in a federal court in that state - and it's doubtful that such a rule would be constitutional, anyway.


 * In the weblog, Jacobson also makes a mistake in describing Warren's status as an attorney in Texas, although that may have just been sloppiness on his part. He says that she is not currently "licensed" in Texas, which is arguably incorrect. She is licensed as an attorney in Texas, but is currently on "inactive" status, which means that she is not currently authorized to practice in Texas state courts. There would be no prohibition, for example, on her applying for admission to practice in any federal court in Texas, and practicing law in that federal court once she's admitted. Again, you don't have to be licensed in the state courts in a given state in order to be authorized to practice in federal courts in that state.


 * However, if Warren is practicing law in state courts in Massachusetts, that could be a different matter. However, even in a Massachusetts state court, her practicing without a Massachusetts license could be perfectly legal if she's obtaining leave of that court pro hac vice (a legal term meaning, roughly, "for this turn") on a case by case basis. Lawyers do that all the time.


 * The question is even more complicated by the fact that the practice of law includes more than just representing clients in court.


 * In short, although the author of the weblog in question is a lawyer and an adjunct professor, the weblog (which I have read) is long on anti-Warren rhetoric and short on concrete specifics. I suspect that there are too many holes, too many "what ifs" and "maybes," in this "story" (so far) to warrant using such a weblog as a source, at least at this point. Famspear (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem addressed by Jacobson was her license in ANY State. MA was easy, she does not have a license. TX she was not licensed when arguing in federal court (the cases mentioned thus far are federal). The situation in NJ was more complex, as mentioned by Jacobson, since she withdrew her license on 9/11/12. She does not need any specific license to practice in federal court, but she does need a license of some kind, and be in good standing for 3 years SOMEWHERE to practice as she did. Agree that the principal issue is not proven definitively, but the half-defenses by her associates also do not rebut. All we can say is that the issue has been raised [][]. Valid for inclusion; but probably on Election Article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as a lawyer, Jacobson is well aware of pro hac vice practice. There is simply no way that he is not aware of the concept. Famspear (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute any of what you said, although it's important for us to write articles based on reliable sources, not just what we happen to know. I still think the article ought to mention these allegations, if only to rebut them. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So in spite of the lack of RS you still want to write this into the article? You really should examine why you "contribute" here, as you don't seem to be following core policies.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I really don't see the weblog as a reliable source. It also appears that Jacobson has added more material to his web page since this morning (at least I don't remember seeing the material before). It will take a while to read all the new stuff. In any case, my personal view is I think Wikipedia should hold off on this for now. There might be a valid story here, but I have to be blunt: I don't have any confidence in Jacobson's material so far (and that's saying something, because he is an adjunct professor of law at Cornell).


 * PS: I have an advantage, because I don't care about the politics that is behind all this and I don't have any strong opinion pro or con about Elizabeth Warren's politics (she is considered to be a liberal). I just think Wikipedia should go slow on this one, in case it turns out that Jacobson is busy sawing on a limb on which he himself is perched. Famspear (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Jacobson is not a reliable source for what's true, only for a record of what he has said so far (and even then, we should be careful, given his ability to edit the contents of his blog). In other words, the story is in the accusations, which means that we need a reliable source talking about Jacobson's claims. I believe we have this. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Fox News is now covering this story, here:, although Fox is misspelling Jacobson's name as "Jacobsen" (which of course invalidates the entire article......).


 * Seriously, maybe we should take a look at the Fox News article. Famspear (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's so... fair and balanced. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, stop it! :) Famspear (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the Fox News coverage, doesn't the scandal by itself deserve coverage? A coverage of claim + denial is fair.  Claiming that she committed a crime would violate WP:REDFLAGS but simply noting that she has been accused of one while running for political office certainly wouldn't.  By comparison, Reid's allegations that Mitt Romney paid no taxes is worthy of inclusion, but the statement that Mitt Romney paid no taxes without stating that it is a denied allegation is not worthy?  Do I misunderstand policy?  Perpetualization (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the difference there was that claim was made by a U.S. senator whereas this was made by a nobody. For the record, these claims have gotten little (if any) media coverage here in Massachusetts.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   17:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fox News is not some blog nor is it nobody. Google news gives you over a hundred news articles about it.  The MA bar association put a statement out about it.  They were dismissive, but that's still real coverage.  It was also on a MA area radio show where Elizabeth Warren was asked a question about her law license directly.  And masslive.com, though I don't really know what that is.  You may have not heard coverage of it, but coverage certainly exists.  Perpetualization (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be able to use the Fox News story, being careful to make clear that it's Fox News reporting on what some guy (Jacobson) is suggesting. Jacobson seems to be weaseling or waffling on his allegations -- he doesn't seem to want to come out and actually say that Warren is violating a rule. Fox News seems to be prudently "wary" in its reporting of what Jacobson is saying.

Perhaps something like this could be inserted in the article:


 * Fox News reports that William Jacobson, an adjunct professor at Cornell University (misidentified by Fox news as "William Jacobsen"), is suggesting that Elizabeth Warren may have been practicing law in Massachusetts in violation of the laws of that state prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. Warren is not licensed as an attorney by the State of Massachusetts, although she is licensed in various other jurisdictions. Fox news states that "it remains unclear whether Warren has violated any laws."

....with a footnote citation something like this: "Warren faces question over law license in latest accusation to roil Senate race," Sept. 25, 2012, Fox News, at.

Comments? Famspear (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would lose the "Fox" ref; several WP:RS have reported, as stated above. Also, the statement "she is licensed in various other jurisdictions" isn't correct, the "other jurisdictions" are the heart of the criticism. Neither license she has been known to have, TX and NJ, are valid as of 9/11/12; the question Jacobson raises is whether they, as required, were valid when she represented clients.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I would hardly characterize this story as a "scandal" at this point. Jacobson himself hasn't even identified a specific violation of law by Warren. I'm a lawyer and former broadcast news reporter myself, and Jacobson's "weasely" presentation, plus the fact that Fox, a conservative outlet, is handling the story gingerly, together give me a queasy feeling. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also include the MA bar association statement, as it serves as a cautious rebuttal. Perpetualization (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as it stands, it makes the claim seem much more plausible than it really is. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: the section on Warren's Senate run includes nothing about polling, nothing about debates, and little to nothing about the actual issues involved in the election. It does feature a long subsection on "Cherokee self-identification" and, according to some on this talk page, should also include a long section on a blogger's apparently incorrect accusation that she violated the law. Does anyone think that this is how a serious encyclopedia would cover this subject? MastCell Talk 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be included.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   19:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The polling would be nice to have on the page, though it already exists in the link at the top of that section. It's often annoying to duplicate it because it requires changing multiple pages when more polling comes out.


 * Do you think the debates and the actual issues get more coverage in the election or her (possible?) false self-identification as Cherokee? An encyclopedia should cover the issues that decide the election AKA the ones most people are paying attention to.  Whether YOU think that people SHOULD BE paying attention to the actual issues rather than to the scandals and mini-scandals, an encyclopedia should ultimately cover the factors that matter to people, not the factors that YOU THINK should matter to people.  IMHO the news cycle is dominated by the scandals, voters will vote by scandals, and as such, the encyclopedia should talk about scandals.


 * I'd also support a section on her political views. If I had some time, I'd help write it.  But not today.  Perpetualization (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a distinction between the approach of the 24-hour news networks and the approach of an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that distinction is typically ignored during election season, and this article is an excellent (though not unique) example. I see where you're going with your rhetoric: the "people" want to know about her ethnic heritage. I don't think that's actually true, though - polls show that people actually don't seem to give a damn . The Globe wrote: "Although polls do not appear to show the controversy has had a defining effect on the race, the Brown campaign believes there are signs within surveys that show voters will be turned off to Warren if they learn more about the issue." In other words, this isn't something that "the people" have shown much interest in, nor has it had a significant impact on voters. It's a line of attack that one candidate is trying to pin on another. A serious encyclopedia needs to be capable of distinguishing political gamesmanship from encyclopedic biographical information, and to avoid simply parroting the 24-hour news cycle. MastCell Talk 21:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Both the Cherokee thing and this new lawyer thing are, in my opinion, groundless political attacks against Warren. As such, we should not allow Wikipedia to be used to spread disinformation. For this reason, I don't believe that simply ignoring these tempests-in-matching-teapots is the best approach. Such "scandals" work best when the voter has heard of them but knows as little as possible. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But our role is not to "correct the record" either. We don't include "groundless political attacks" in order to debunk them. I think the problem is that almost all of the arguments here involve either amplifying or debunking political talking points. This is a biography, in a supposedly serious reference work, and our coverage needs to be defined by that framework. MastCell Talk 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But in a serious reference work, a biography, if an issue (the Cherokee) plays a significant role (false or not), it belongs.  You can't write Thomas's biography without Anita Hill, for an extreme example.  Regardless of whether or not the attack is groundless, it changes votes and (if it causes her to lose the election) is certainly very important in her biography. Perpetualization (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be true, except a) there's no evidence that it's changing votes (see the polls I cited above), and b) the Thomas confirmation hearings resonated on a national level and even influenced the subsequent nationwide election cycle. I don't think that even Scott Brown expects this current controversy to have that sort of notability and impact. Just because we cover the sinking of the Titanic doesn't mean we need to cover a capsized rowboat. MastCell Talk 22:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of people don't care about much of the stuff that the media focuses on (such as, in this case, whether Elizabeth Warren is part Cherokee, or whether she misrepresented her ethnic heritage). As a former member of the media, I can say that from my experience, people in the media tend to focus on what is interesting to them, and often mistakenly assume that because something is all over the news, the average person cares about it. It's the fallacy of thinking that "everyone else is just like me." If you are in entertainment or news media (and I've done both), you can tend to slip into the error of thinking that everyone else thinks the way you and your entertainment and media people think.

I remember a quote from years ago (I can't remember who said it) but it was from a liberal in New York who was astonished that Richard Nixon had been elected President because, she said, "I don't know of anyone who voted for him."

For this reason, I doubt that most voters cast their votes according to "scandals". For example, in the case of Elizabeth Warren, the "Cherokee" story and the "did she engage in the unauthorized practice of law in Massachusetts" thing are pretty weak excuses for "scandals." I mean, let's put things in perspective. Watergate was a scandal.

I also think that people who don't have a sense of history have a hard time putting things into perspective. Occasionally I still see someone writing about the "Occupy Wall Street" protests from last year, as though the protests were more important than they were. I think most people who lived through the turmoil and protests of the Sixties would say that the few months of "Occupy this" and "Occupy that" last year was nothing in comparison to intensity and longevity of the years and years of protests back then.

Uh, wait a minute. What were we talking about??? I got off on a tangent.... Famspear (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote about Nixon is generally attributed to Pauline Kael, the notoriously insular film critic. It's not clear that she (or anyone, for that matter) actually said it; the quote has appeared in a number of denunciations of liberal elitism, variously ascribed to any number of prominent liberal women. MastCell Talk 22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI Hasn't made it to bigger WP:RS yet, but over at Legal Insurrection, Prof. Jacobson has unearthed at least one of Warren's federal pleadings that concerned MA law, and would have required a MA license, which she has never had. Several of his critics (including one cited above) have conceded that this is conclusive. Not yet ready for Article inclusion yet, but there should be news articles over the weekend.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC) []--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a specific rule that says you need a Massachusetts attorney's license to argue Massachusetts law in a federal court located in Massachusetts if you're a member of the bar of that federal court -- and I don't know of any "critics" (other than Jacobson, maybe, perhaps) who have argued that such a rule exists. At any rate, I agree that we'll have to see how the story develops. Famspear (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They've identified a case that was argued outside of federal court (aka would definitively require a MA bar membership). More to the point, MA law forbids "practicing law" which it seems fairly clear that she was doing.  It's also important to note that the MA Bar of Overseers statement "clearing her" was made in a personal, not professional capacity.  Brown is expected to pound the point of "character" in the next debate, and Warren's character is considered a major issue in the election.  Character is often a primary concern in elections, beyond issues (see Bush Gore).  There is a lack of good sourcing for this issue but when Scott Brown brings it up in the next debate, sourcing will no doubt accumulate. Perpetualization (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Perpetualization: It's unclear what is meant when you say Massachusetts law forbids "practicing law" (and I assume that you mean "without having a Massachusetts attorney's license"), and it's unclear whether, in any case, she has violated Massachusetts law. This is the actual statute:


 * Section 46A. No individual, other than a member, in good standing, of the bar of this commonwealth shall practice law, or, by word, sign, letter, advertisement or otherwise, hold himself out as authorized, entitled, competent, qualified or able to practice law; provided, that a member of the bar, in good standing, of any other state may appear, by permission of the court, as attorney or counselor, in any case pending therein, if such other state grants like privileges to members of the bar, in good standing, of this commonwealth.

--Massachusetts General Laws, Part III, Title I, Chapter 221, section 46A.

If you read that statute literally and broadly, it could be construed to prohibit a California attorney from practicing law in California without a Massachusetts license, since the statute itself expresses no geographic restrictive language. Of course, that would be an incorrect interpretation of the statute, and a ridiculous one as well. It should probably be interpreted as: "No individual, other than a member, in good standing, of the bar of this commonwealth shall practice law in this commonwealth [etc., etc.]...." Further, nothing in this Massachusetts statute (or in the federal statutes) expressly prohibits someone licensed as an attorney in another state from being admitted to the bar of a federal court in Massachusetts and validly practicing law in that federal court, even without a Massachusetts attorney's license. Legislatures try to draft statutes as carefully as possible, but careless generalities creep into legislative enactments from time to time. What is the intent of the Massachusetts legislature? What is the case law (if any) interpreting this statute? To what extent does federal supremacy under the U.S. Constitution apply? And, as has been noted on this talk page, what about Warren's status in other states such as New Jersey and Texas?

By the way, I am a federal tax practitioner, and people often cry and scream about the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. But the Internal Revenue Code is (in my experience) one of the most carefully drafted set of statutes in the United States. The careful intricacy (Congress trying to say just the right thing to close this loophole and achieve that policy goal) results in a gigantic code which, let's face it, may not always be clear to the ordinary reader, but which does tend to reduce (but not completely eliminate) the amount of ambiguity.

Ah, there's nothing like curling up in bed with a copy of the Internal Revenue Code after a long, hard day! What wonderful reading!

Huh? You mean, you think I really should try to get out more??!!?

Oh well..... hopefully more detail will emerge on this Elizabeth Warren story soon..... Famspear (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If more detail emerges we can see if it has a place in the article. For the moment, it appears editors are getting into exceedingly long and technical arguments over legal interpretation. If this is an actual issue worthy of note, there will be more reputable and expansive coverage. Until then, it seems there are still several editors here more interested in having an essay competition, which is not the correct usage of the Talk Page. Jacotto (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation (again)
Now the Cherokee Nation has asked for an apology from the Scott Brown campaign for the recent "whooping" incidents. This info could be added to the existing Cherokee information in the article, or we could delete the entire episode with the realization that campaign tactics are not really appropriate for a Wikipedia biography. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We could -- if it's received enough coverage -- include the video and request for apology on the campaign page. But it shouldn't be mentioned here since it's not really related to her.  And by no means should the info on her "heritage" be removed, since it's received a lot of coverage.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Gandydancer's point is a good one. We seem dedicated to covering the "Cherokee self-identification controversy" in this article (and at extensive length and great detail). This episode of mockery by her opponent's campaign staff is a notable part of that controversy, and thus belongs here as much as the rest of it. There's no lack of reliably sourced coverage to address the WP:UNDUE argument (e.g. Associated Press, Boston Globe, UPI, Politico, New York Times, etc.) MastCell Talk 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't be WP:UNDUE if the Cherokee section were a page long, which (broken record alert) could be supported on the Election page, not here. You would have to mention that the surrogate speaking is Bill John Baker, a Democrat politician/operative, and have more extensive coverage of the more extensively covered protests of Warren by Native American groups, her refusal to meet with Native American groups (even the Caucus at the DNC), and the overwhelming support of Brown and rejection of Warren by the usually bipartisan MA Wampanoags, etc..--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, you would have to mention that Baker, when acting ON HIS OWN, acts as a surrogate to attack Brown, but IN CONJUNCTION with fellow Cherokees, condemns Warren.[]--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ironically, people at the article's talk page have claimed it should be here not there. At this point, it may be time to consider giving the topic its own article. There's been significant enough coverage and similar articles exist on topics like Obama's citizenship and Mitt's dog.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Finances
Here is an important addition to the Wikipedia page on Elizabeth Warren regarding her campaign financing. This information would be well suited in the 2012 Senatorial Race section of the page as it refers to both Warren and her opponent Scott Brown:

The two candidates have each employed their fair share of attack ads. However, the two seemed to quarrel most over a Scott Brown ad, claiming that Warren was not who she is by citing a specific asbestos case as his evidence. This triggered the Warren campaign to put out ads referring to Brown as a liar. The initial Brown advertisement essentially claimed that Warren, the attorney motivated by the good of the public, was in fact a greedy money motivated lawyer that profited from other people’s misfortune. Brown exploited the fact that Warren was employed by Traveler’s Insurance Corporation and was paid over two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars to assist Traveler’s Corporation to avoid paying damages to asbestos poisoned victims. This was true, she did assist one of the largest corporations in America from denying health benefits to it’s clients.(Brown, 2012) Nevertheless, Warren was able to render this action in her past as inconsequential by the numerous examples of her fighting for unions, small business, and the people. She then went on the offense by attacking Brown’s voting record, comparing him to Romney, and got the unions of Massachusetts including the asbestos union to back her over Brown.

Beyond the face to face debates, the fighting between the two candidates was accomplished through expensive and frequent advertisement campaigns. This begs the question of where the candidates attained their funding. In January of 2012, the incumbent Scott Brown and the Democratic nominees all signed what is known as the People’s Pledge. The People’s Pledge is an agreement which the candidates vowed to ask all third party organizations to not get involved in campaign organizing, including party committees. In addition, this agreement urged the candidates who benefitted from any advertisement from a third party organization to donate fifty percent of the value of those advertisements to charity.(Brown, 2012) This pledge is good hearted, but ineffective. Unless, a candidate is legally obligated to do what the agreement states the candidate will not meet their pledge. To not allow third parties to get involved in the campaign is a contradiction to their constitutional rights. If a group wants to make themselves heard by funding television advertisements then they have every right to do so, as long as those advertisements follow the freedom of speech protocols. Furthermore, the promise of donating half the amount of those funds is far fetched. I say lets not begin the campaign with lying. The intention of this part of the agreement is to keep candidates from accepting third party advertisement. However, it does not force the third party to not release the advertisements. Therefore, this can potentially leave a candidate liable for hundred of thousands of dollars for circumstances beyond their control.

This election has been among the most expensive Senate races in the country. The two campaigns have spent approximately seventy million dollars cumulatively. The following are the top three contributors to the two senatorial candidates. Moveon.org donated over three hundred and sixty thousand dollars, EMILY’s list has donated nearly three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and Harvard University has donated about one-hundred and seventy thousand dollars, all to Elizabeth Warren. Scott Brown has received almost two-hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars from Fidelity Investments, one hundred and fifty-five thousand from EMC Corporation, and over one hundred thousand dollars from Mass Mutual.(Center for Responsive Politics, 2012) We can see that these top donors are those who would benefit most from each of the candidate’s policies. The top contributing industry for Warren is identified as Retired citizens, while the financial institutions were the largest for Brown.(Center for Responsive Politics, 2012) Warren was able to raise millions of dollars from Massachusetts citizens, celebrities including Jeffrey Katzenberg and Toby McGuire, and party political action committees.(Center for Responsive Politics, 2012)

Bibliography

Brown, Scott. Issues. www.scottbrown.com/issues (accessed October 3rd, 2012)

Brown, Scott. Travelers. www.scottbrown.com/travelers (accessed October 14th, 2012)

Center for Responsive Politics. Massachusetts Senatorial Race,Top Contributors. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=MAS1 (accessed October 21st, 2012)

Seelye, Katharine Q. “A Feisty Debate Crystallizes Differences in Tight Massachusetts Race.” New York Times, October 11th, 2012, Politics section.

Sullivan, Sean. “The first Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren Debate: Four Takeaways.” Washington Post, September 20th, 2012, Politics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R9899 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee self-identification
I've just restored the 21:14 13 September 2012 version of Warren's Cherokee self-identification. I realize that may be a bit of overkill, but it's plain wrong to have no mention of it whatsoever. This was a huge story and is a part of her public biography, like it or not. I don't have time to pare it to appropriate size, but am sure it will receive immediate editing. IMO, the section at the 2012 U.S. Senate run is far too abbreviated. One place or the other needs to tell the story, and her BLP must have at least a barebones outline. Yopienso (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is adequate mention of it in her senate run section, and there are six references that are more than adequate if any reader wishes to learn more. Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The section does not mention "Cherokee" nor the fact that she self-identified; the casual reader would think Harvard called her that, which of course they did, but only because she first "checked the box." Please consider more detail; this was a very publicized issue, and rightfully so. I call the treatment here a whitewash. Yopienso (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it is a whitewash. The issue was well-covered locally because in politics both parties look for controversy, no matter how small, and turn it into a major issue.  Even Warren's recipe submissions received coverage and were argued on this talk page extensively.   Scandals sell newspapers but we need to look at the issues, and most certainly now that the election is over, from a more historical viewpoint.  No fault was ever found on Warren's part and coverage died down eventually.  We need to quit bringing it up here, too. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and you are certainly free to hold it. I see the consensus here is the same, so am not attempting to amend the article again. I am free to call it a whitewash. From the historical viewpoint, we have a person doing exactly what Vine Deloria, Jr. disparaged in his 1984 essay, "The Popularity of Being Indian: A New Trend in Contemporary American Society." His remedy? "Impostors must be driven out." I personally am not finding a fault, but believe the fact she claimed to be Indian is highly insightful into contemporary American society, to say nothing into the actions and values of Elizabeth Warren, who this BLP is about. Presumably, we would want the BLP to show her actions and values. Apparently not, when gate-keeping editors believe those actions and values may be perceived as negatives. Is that too harsh? Try again. Apparently not, when editors believe exposing those actions and values is part of a politically-driven agenda. I certainly agree WP is no place for politically-driven agendas; I have none. Yopienso (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

committee assignments
Senator-Elect Warren will also serve on the Special Committee on Aging and once again, a MA senator will sit on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Cmte. Hurray! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren switched from Republican to Democrat in 1995. Isn't this worth expanding on?
According to the little fact sheet on Warren at the upper right side of the article, she switched from Republican to Democrat in 1995. This certainly seems like a sufficiently significant event concerning the subject of the article that it ought to be expanded on. I am not knowledgeable about this myself, but I hope someone who is might put some relevant information in the article.Daqu (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded Mathiastck (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, on general principles, but also, I'll note that, with some rare exceptions, an infobox is supposed to contain summary information already in the article, so it either needs to be expanded in the article, or if the consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article, it should not be in the infobox. However, this is just a technical point, a change in party for a politician is virtually always worth explication.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, the change in party was added with this edit


 * Sourced to this article, so a starting point if someone wants to tackle the addition. I note that the addition occurred after the GA status, which explains why it wasn't addressed at that time.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again
I haven't looked at this page before, but I have followed a bit of the controversy. I saw this article today and checked the article. I am surprised that the word Cherokee does not appear. I do see three sentences on point, but that seems low compared to the extensive coverage. While the linked article may not qualify as an RS, it makes some valid points. I plan to look into it, but I'm posting this now, as the existence of the article may attract some drive-bys. I do note the article is semi'd so that should help.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added two words to get the tribe in. The original complaint of undue weight seems to have tilted in the exact opposite direction, marked under-coverage. I actually missed the minor mention on first read through. The accusation was about fraudulent misrepresentation in order to gain advantage. That's worth a section heading. TMLutas (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. The affirmative action controversy has been whitewashed by partisans and the article is now in need of re-work.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some have missed that the link in the first sentence is to the William A. Jacobson "Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed" post, so I am posting this to make it perfectly clear that it has been linked.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article
How did this article reach GA status when the reviewer simply addressed his own concerns. Basically Binkersnet said "This article should be reviewed.", and then did the review and then said it passed! What kind of process is that? Arzel (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a link that says "you can reassess it" (hint, hint). ►  Belch fire - TALK  16:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have time to reasses at the moment. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Designate nominated the article and Binkersnet gave a review. Designate, Gandydancer and a few others addressed his concerns That is exactly how the process is supposed to work. AIR corn  (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When I picked up the GA nomination to review the article it was in terrible shape. I listed a bunch of issues I saw and said "It has major problems with a) failure to address the main aspects and b) prose that is not clear and concise. These problems are not insurmountable but they would normally cause a GAN to be failed. Instead, I will hold the GAN open to see if contributors wish to bring the article up to speed." All of this can be seen at Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA1. A week later all of my concerns were addressed—even some additional changes that I specified a few days into the review. That is the normal process for GAN, so I don't understand the complaint by Arzel. Has Arzel ever reviewed a GAN? If not, I can understand not knowing about the process.
 * That was 14 months ago. Wikipedia biographies about living persons can change over time, especially with political figures and elections. Many hands have been at work here. If somebody wanted to put the article up at GAR there are three possible results: 1) the article is confirmed GA with no changes, 2) the article is modified and newly confirmed as GA level, and 3) the article is delisted. Note that an article may not be brought to GAR without actionable issues identified. It cannot be delisted simply because someone does not like it. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on GA reviews, but I didn't see anything wrong with the review. I don't think primary contributors to an article should do their own assessment, but if I read the history correctly, Binksternet had zero edits to the article at the time a GA review commenced. I was mildly surprised that the reference to change of party wasn't in the article, but I see that it was introduced after the GA review.
 * I don't think now is a great time to commence a GAR, given the current interest in wordsmithing a section of the article. That may die down in a few days, and it may be worth a GAR at that time (thought I hope someone would find the time to add the change of party to the article (hint, hint to editors in general).-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, let's look at your allegation that I decided to review the article after remarking somewhere that it should be reviewed for GA. The insulting implication is that I reviewed the article favorably, passing it too easily because I wanted it to be GA. For starters, I never said "This article should be reviewed". You will not be able to find a diff to prove your supposed direct quote—it is false and should be struck. I never commented on the article before taking the GAN under review. I initiated the GAN page on October 24, 2011. My first edit to the article was the next day, to change some minor typography. My first entry on the article's talk page was also the next day, to announce that the GAN was on hold awaiting improvements. Basically, my editing history in late October 2011 was that I was winding up the successful third Pale Blue Dot GAN which meant that I was available to review another GAN. I went to the GAN page and selected one which had been waiting a long time—32 days—for a review. My first introduction to the existence of Warren as a politician was in my initial reading of the biography on October 24, not from previous knowledge or other ulterior (political) motive. In the first step of my review I looked all over the web to see whether the main points were being covered in the article, and my review was subsequently pretty tough, in my opinion. The article's editors had to perform a lot of improvements to get it in shape. The GAN process was faithfully followed. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article?!?
Ya gotta be shitting me... Further proof that Wikipedia's GA review process just needs to go away... Carrite (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to this talk page. Please note that the issue is being discussed above at Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Also, feel free to peruse the history of the article in October 2011 as it responded to concerns brought up at Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA1. Finally, note that 14 months have passed since then, including many changes to the biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet beat me to it, but I think that comment is a bit unfair. There are issues today, but many/most/all are post-GA review. I personally think that GA and FA articles should have some limitations on editing, requiring talk page consensus, but I know I am in a distinct minority, so I haven't pushed it. Your observation is a reasonable criticism of our general approach, but I don't think it is fair to suggest that the process should go away. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Useful source
This article in the Boston Globe, where Warren's cousin recalls her grandmother's claim that their family is part Delaware is relevant, but currently not cited in the article. It's slow to load, so I'll include the relevant text below. FurrySings (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "As a child growing up in rural Arizona, Ina Mapes remembers her mother as a highly discreet woman who rarely expressed her personal feelings except when it came to one particularly incendiary topic: Did Mapes’s father, a raven-haired lawyer, have Native American roots, or did he not? Mapes’s grandmother maintained that he had one-quarter tribal blood. But her mother wanted to hear nothing of it.

“My mother did not approve of Indians, and she insisted that my father was not an Indian,” said Mapes, 77, of Catalina, Ariz. “In those days, it was not a plus to be an Indian, not at all. She said that Granny, my father’s mother, was just making it up and she did not believe it.”

Mapes, a mother of four who volunteers in a clothing bank, is a second cousin to US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. The two women, who have never met, share more DNA than most second cousins: Not only were their grandmothers sisters, their grandfathers were brothers. Those brothers — a team of carpenters named Harry and Everett Reed who plied their trade in the Indian Territory that would become the state of Oklahoma — are believed by some family members to have roots in the Delaware tribe. Mapes, who said she was unaware of her cousin’s candidacy until contacted by a reporter, said she does not doubt her heritage.

“I think you are what you are,” said Mapes. “And part of us is Indian.”"


 * Do we really need more discussion about why Warren was wrong? Many editors want the section trimmed back, not expanded. What useful information would this anecdote add? -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You mistake my intent. The article doesn't show that Warren is wrong, it shows that Warren's claim is right. Mapes (Warren's cousin) states that her grandmother had always claimed that her son (Mapes' father) was 1/4 Delaware, which would make Warren's father 1/4 Delaware as well. Right now, the article makes it seem as if no one has backed Warren's claim of Native American ancestry, this is incorrect. FurrySings (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article reflects that the claim hasn't been documented, which AFAICT is actually the case. We already know that Warren and some members of her family claim native heritage, but can't prove it, and I see nothing in your sources to change that.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That some other family members also claim native heritage is not in the article. I have added it. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since some editors seem to be misled by the title of the article, and didn't read it in it's entirely, let me summarize the relevant points here: This is not something that Warren made up when applying for jobs so as to get an unfair advantage. It's something that's always been in her family. Editing to imply otherwise is misleading. FurrySings (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some members of Warren's extended family have memories about Native American heritage, some do not.
 * Close relatives (cousins, all her siblings) recall the stories. Warren’s brothers, Don, John, and David Herring, also issued a joint statement supporting their sister. “The people attacking Betsy and our family don’t know much about either. We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage. They’ve passed away now, but they’d be angry if they were around today listening to all this.”
 * In her parent's time, and when Warren was a child, being part Native American was a black mark against you. David Herring of Norman, Okla., one of Warren’s three brothers, said in an interview that even when he was a child his relatives were reluctant to talk about the family’s Native American heritage because “it was not popular in my family.” Only when he begged his grandparents, said Herring, did they finally explain to him: “Your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee. It was not the most popular thing to do in Oklahoma. [Indians] were degraded, looked down on.”
 * More distant relatives (especially in-laws) were unaware of any Native American heritage. "other cousins, some of whom also do not know Warren, say they know nothing of Native American blood in the family"
 * Childhood school friends of Warren recall her talking about her Native American heritage. “She talked about her grandmother being a Cherokee, and I talked about how my aunt by marriage was a Choctaw,” said Cochran, an Oklahoma psychologist. “I was making a totally illogical argument, saying I was just as Indian as she was. It was ridiculous because she had the blood and I did not, but it made us laugh.”


 * I am not sure how you are counting cousins that back up her story as close, while cousins that don't to be distant. The recent edit your took offense to accurately reflects the source being used.  Arzel (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the article. Mapes recalls her grandmother's claim that her son was 1/4 Delaware, which would make Warren's father 1/4 delaware as well. Her three siblings back her. The article makes it clear that only more distant relatives were unaware of Native heritage. No one in her extended family has said 'No, there is not a drop of Native blood in Warren.' This is what the edit made it seem like. FurrySings (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All of her cousins from her grandmother would have exactly the same relationship. You misprepresent the edit, the other cousins stated that had no knowledge of it, there wasn't anything that said emphatically that there was not.  Arzel (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, Please read the article in full. It makes it pretty clear that only the more distant relatives are unaware of her Native heritage. Her three siblings back her. Her cousin recalls her grandmother making the same claim. Her school friend recalls it. The so called 'mixed' memories is that some of her extended family were aware and some weren't. Please don't restare language that makes it seem as if some back her claim and other refute it, saying something like 'No, she's lying, she's white through and through.' No one from her extended family has said anything like that. It's only that some of her extended family did not know about the Native heritage in Warren's family. If you want to add that some members of her extended family were unaware of Native blood in Warren's parents, that's fine. But make sure to make it clear that her close family (some cousins, her brothers and sisters, make the same claim). FurrySings (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the source, and it does not back up your point of view. The edit never made any accusation that she was lying, it was quite clear.  Now your last suggestion is simply not an accurate reflection of the source.  Some members of her family were unaware of the claim of Native blood, but your wording implies that it was true and they just didn't know about it.  You also seem to have some confusion about family relationships.  By definition of the relationship all of her cousins which shared the same blood relative would have the same amount of Native blood (if it exists), how personally close Warren is to them is simply not relevant.  Arzel (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely you must see that an edit like this: "Even though Warren’s 'family has mixed opinions on' Warren's Native American ancestry claims," makes it seem like some in her family say "She's lying" while others say "She's not lying". This is not what the article says. The article says "A number of her cousins echo Warren’s assertion" and "other cousins say they know nothing of Native American ancestry". I hope you'll help me in reaching consensus about how to reflect what the source says. FurrySings (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the Native American/Cherokee incident coverage
In November, Yopienso restored a section from September, which was removed by Gandydancer. See Talk:Elizabeth_Warren for the rationale. I accept that local races can have extensive local coverage, which may not be reflective of the national coverage. However, I am not in Massachusetts, and was very aware of the incident, which did receive national coverage.

For reference I am copying the section below. I think we should have a discussion about whether:
 * 1) This section, as-is, should be restored,
 * 2) This section can serve as a starting point for a section which does belong,
 * 3) A wholly new section should be crafted, or
 * 4) No further mention beyond that in the article now is warranted

My view is expressed as item 2, I'll go into more detail below.

Cherokee self-identification
In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her background as Native American ancestry. Warren said she identified as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background. Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration and sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.

The Brown campaign called on Warren to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record". Warren's campaign responded that she was proud of her heritage and denied any wrongdoing. Warren's claim angered many Cherokees, who questioned why she did not continue to list herself in directories or reach out to other Indians if she truly wanted to meet people like her. A group of Cherokee women sought to meet with Warren but were unsuccessful; one member of the group from Warren's home state of Oklahoma said her claim was "shameful and extremely disrespectful not just to Cherokees but to all tribes". A group of Cherokees started a website saying, "You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!" In response, a Warren spokesperson emailed Politico a recycled statement that had been circulating for days. Warren said she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed Native American heritage, and stated, "Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect."

The New England Historical Genealogical Society initially announced in May 2012 that they had found evidence for Warren's claims, but later recanted, saying, "We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent."

Discussion
Quite apart from the merits of this entry as it now stands, I find it odd that there is only one brief paragraph about the Cherokee flap in the entry for 2012 US Senate Election. In sharp contrast, in the entry on the McCaskill-Akin Senate race in Missouri, the flap over Akin's "legitimate rape" remark is extensive and detailed. It strikes me that the two entries related to Warren have it backwards: in her bio entry, it may be more appropriate to keep the Cherokee issue to a couple of sentences, while in the election entry, it should be more fully described. After all, this was a major issue in the campaign. This approach would make it possible to include much more of the campaign back and forth -- where it more appropriately belongs.Burke242 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)JEB242

I think the references to the two groups of Cherokees might be too much. Not sure whether one, or the other, or none is best.
 * Not surprisingly, many of the references are Boston papers, with one CBS references. It would be worth looking for other national, or outside the region sources to confirm the national scope of the issue.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand by the comments I made in November. I live in Alaska and saw it all over the news. Yopienso (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the existing three sentences in the article, along with the material removed earlier, into a subsection. I also added a Washington Post cite, to support the notion that this was national not regional. The WP article was very much on point, a it attempted to do fact checking of the various claims.


 * I'm still open to the possibility that mention of the Cherokee groups may be too much (as well as open to any discussions of the wording of the section, but in view of the absence of any dissenting opinions, I felt we should have the items in the article, and then discuss whether any trimming or editing is warranted.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm supporting the article as it currently stands; thanks for fixing it. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We should continue to edit this. Can we agree on these points?
 * Omit the mention of the Reagan administration. It's a weak attempt to make the guy look trustworthy but it's irrelevant.
 * Omit the genealogical society. If they don't know then it doesn't matter. It certainly didn't affect the story.
 * Combine the three sentences which mention Warren's various responses. Have one sentence summarizing her response to the whole story instead of having a response to each person.
 * Combine the Cherokee group criticisms. Their responses made for good Boston Herald headlines but it's unlikely each group had a unique effect on the story.
 * Remove the "recycled statement" quip. This is obviously unencyclopedic.
 * I think this is a starting point, anyway. —Designate (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good food for thought. I hope we can agree to discuss some issues, then put together a straw alternative, then replace once discussion settles down, rather than doing too much piecemeal (recognizing that clear errors should be addressed more quickly.) While looking for a better link for the genealogical statement, I found this Atlantic article. It helps support the notion that this was a national, not regional story, although I'm not sure that is still needed. I don't want the section to be too large, so I don't propose including this unless we can omit something else. Does it add anything of substance that isn't already present? Is it a better source than any of the existing sources?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Reagan. I initially thought it was gratuitous, and could be removed, but I think it helps illustrate that he is unlikely to be a hyper-partisan simply supporting the liberal position. I'd be inclined to leave it, but I don't feel strongly either way.
 * Re Omit the genealogical society. I'm not supportive of this. The inference isn't that they don't know, the inference is that they are the experts, and cannot find the linkage. Like any responsible organization, they don't make the stronger case that there is no evidence, because they can't be 100% certain, but this is their area of expertise, and they did investigate. This isn't a minor aspect, they were very much part of the story, partly because of some early reporting by the organization that seemed to report her claims. (I do note that the link is bad, so need correction.)
 * Re Combine the 3 sentences - sounds good, but we need someone to offer suggested wording. I may try something tomorrow if no one else has a suggestion.
 * Re Combine Cherokee groups. I've supported this, but haven't done it because I haven't found a clean way to do it. Open to suggestions, or I may try tomorrow.
 * Re recycled. Good point that is sloppy wording. Are you just proposing removing the whole sentence, which would leave no trace that there was a response, or did you have an alternative in mind?
 * I think that the section as it currently stands places pretty excessive weight on the incident. As it stands, it's longer than her "government work" section and almost as long as the rest of her senate section. Having looked across half a dozen articles about prominent American politicians on both sides of the spectrum, I can't find a case where a similarly sized issue gets this much coverage. A mention of the incident is probably warranted, but I cannot imagine that the section possibly warrants the amount of length it currently has.  I agree with most of Designate's points.  @SP - I can see leaving the genealogical society in... but only if someone comes up with sources that speak about its lasting importance.  Without more and better references, I don't think it has the lasting encyclopedic importance as to warrant a mention in the main article.


 * Since this is a BLP and I think this is a fairly sizable issue, I'm going to make some edits to the current wording before consensus is reached. Obviously, if a consensus is reached that disagrees with me, material that I excise or reword can be restored.  I don't generally make significant edits that are actively under consensus except when dealing with BLP issues - but since BLP stuff has a lot more potential for harm if bad material is left up for a few days than if good material is taken down for a few days, I think it is important to err on the side of safety. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the "bad material" were libelous, I would agree. Since it's true, I don't.
 * The reasons for heavy weighting are twofold: the incident found a person in the public trust making exaggerated claims for her own benefit, and the U.S. is sensitive to Native issues. Note that this was not entirely a political "gotcha" moment, but there was genuine anger from the Native community.
 * Nonetheless, ample explanatory footnotes and sufficient refs can pare the article space devoted to this issue to probably half what it is now. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP policy covers a hell of a lot more than just libel. It speaks specifically of undue weight issues in this section.  With the sources that have been brought forth so far, there's no conceivable way that the section as it currently stands gives due weight to the issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that you did make an error in your estimations about the length of the section. At the time of the current revision, of which the present was at 01:14 on the 8th‎, the "Cherokee self-identification" section contained one less line than the section before it, called "2012 election," and contained fewer overall references and total references.  (The total amount of references in the "Cherokee self-identification" is equal to the overall references in the "2012 election" section.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing the length of the section to the coverage of government work and the senate section is a relevant comparison, but I reach a different conclusion that you do. While one would abstractly hope that a Senator's Senate career would be a longer section than a scandal, and that is the case for most Senators, that isn't any sort of rule. She has been a Senator for all of five days now, so I don't expect much coverage of her accomplishments in the Senate. So far, her Senate career has consisted of the race, of which this is an integral part. In fact, speaking personally, while I knew she was running for Senator, I knew very little about her other than this incident. I'll be surprised if many average people could name any of her accomplishments. Has the Atlantic done a piece on her government accomplishments? In fact, they have, more than once, but the piece on the Native American issue is about as long as the others put together. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a ref was a bad link, so I found the article, and properly formatted a reference.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s, Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as having Native American ancestry, specifically Cherokee. Warren said she identified herself as a Native American in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background. Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration and had sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.


 * FWIW, the previous version was only one paragraph and I think it was the appropriate length. There's no reason for this to even have its own heading. We can cover this in just a few sentences. It's just a question of making sure that paragraph is balanced. —Designate (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At present, the section is eleven sentences. I've suggested, as have others, that some compacting can be done in a couple areas, just awaiting someone to propose more concise wording. Care to take a crack at it?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly will not agree to expanding our coverage of this incident. No professional bio of Warren would devote a large portion of their copy to this incident.  Furthermore, it concerns me that a blog such as the one that has been referred to should influence our editing.  Also, please see the Scott Brown article and note that the Elizabeth Dole bio incident, which was widely covered, even more so than this one, is not mentioned in his Wikipedia bio.  Wikipedia must be aware that some editors use the 'pedia as a political mouthpiece--I don't want to see that happen. IMO the long-standing copy re this issue should be returned during this debate, not the one that was not accepted by the WP community. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your word choice "I certainly will not agree..." implies veto power, which I'm sure was just a mistake. As for the blog influencing our editing, note that it hasn't been referenced. It isn't being used as an RS. In the same way we wouldn't reference a Twitter feed noting a misspelled word in an article, we wouldn't cite the Twitter feed, but we would correct the misspelling. Jimbo made this very point, And yet there is a valid point. Shoot the messenger if you feel it appropriate (just kidding) but the truth is, there's a story here which must be reliably covered. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Veto power? Please be realistic--we are both experienced editors and we both know better.  As for the need to "cover the story", please keep in mind that we are dealing with a bio of a political figure--perhaps loved by about half of the U.S. population and hated by about half as well, both wishing to portray their representative in a different light.  In the end this incident was only a small incident related to Warren's run for office, not a major incident that deserves extensive coverage in her WP bio.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Small incidents don't get extensive coverage by local media, as well as significant coverage by entities such as CBS, the Atlantic and the Washington Post. And not minor mentions, but entire articles on the incident.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the Scott Brown article is missing something relevant, please bring it up at that talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at my edit--this was used to compare articles. I was very much aware that this info was deleted from Brown's article during the Brown/Warren campaign and I did not make any edits to his page to restore this info.  My "vote" (I live in Maine) was for Warren, but that does not mean that I approve of dirty politics to the point that I would want to blow  minor issues into major issues in our encyclopedia just to paint a rosy picture of any candidate.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I attempted a rewrite. My opinion is that not every news article requires a new sentence and not every source requires a whole quotation. Feel free to adjust the wording/organization but let's not revert to that five-paragraph mess any more, it's clearly overkill. —Designate (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your attempted re-write was not obtained by full consensus. Your edit removed all concerns raised by real, enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation. She made these claims throughout her career and it became a major part of who she claimed to be.  Just stating over and over again, as a minority of editors of this article do, that he lifetime long claims are just "an incident" is not correct or true to the facts of her life.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current version wasn't arrived at by "full consensus" either. The consensus of this discussion is that the section needs to be rewritten, so if you want to propose a rewrite, do it. Otherwise you're not contributing. —Designate (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not comment me as an editor directly. Assume Good Faith and focus on contributions to the article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So here is my first attempt at rewriting this thing. Let's discuss it. Designate (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like a good first attempt. I agree that the section needs to be trimmed down--Elizabeth Warren is not Ward Churchill, but on the other hand she has not proven that she is a member of the Cherokee tribe or the Delaware tribe and there have been reputable third party groups that have looked at her heritage and they have not been able to find anything either. Also, it was not a "one time incident".  She made the claim many times over many, many years.  And finally, to attempt to make the issue seem like it was just a campaign issue between her and Brown completely ignores the hundreds of members of the Cherokee Nation across the country who find her claims to be offensive.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But there's no implication that it was a "one time incident", and I don't know where you're getting that phrase. Every version of this section has mentioned that she called herself a minority "from 1986 to 1995". That's not a one time incident. —Designate (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A few comments: I would like to see it made clear that the fact that Native American heritage could not be proven does not mean that it is false. Many people may not be aware that one's heritage can be hard to trace, especially so when one considers that for a long period of our history Native American lineage (like African American lineage) was hardly something to brag about and most likely would not be reported on an official document if there were a way to avoid it. Also, I would prefer the wording "She denied receiving any professional advantage or preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry." changed to "She stated...". Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking back, this was used at one time, "Warren said she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed Native American heritage, and stated, "Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect." Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal Insurrection blog has noted the Wikipedia whitewashing of Warren's ethnicity claims. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-wikipedia-page-ethnically-cleansed/#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim9101 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That article was linked hours ago. See the section above-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that even devoting a paragraph to it is giving it too much importance -- it feels like WP:RECENTISM. While this was in the news for a time during the election, there's no evidence that it has any long-term significance for the subject of this article; it's an election flap with relevance only to her last election.  It deserves a sentence here (if that), with the longer paragraph people are discussing above in the article on the election rather than in her BLP -- this is how election-specific controversies are genuinely handled, and there's no indication that this will ever have any relevance outside the context of that one historical election. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct and I certainly never thought we'd have to go through this all over again. As I've already pointed out, the "accidental" bio incident is no longer on Brown's page, and more recently, the "Indian war whoops" incident which I brought up on the last talk page  was never used in his article nor in the senate run article.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it was a large enough issue to merit at least a sentence. It wasn't a single gaffe or a staff error like Brown's incidents; it was a longstanding professional choice on her part. Even if she didn't get the job by claiming to be a minority, the fact that Harvard chose to present her as a minority when she wasn't is biographical. Maybe it would make sense to move it to the academic section rather than the election section, though. Designate (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A sentence? Are we really debating whether it merits a single sentence? Warren made this an issue.  She claimed Native American ancestry throughout her professional career, and arguably used this false claim to advance her career.  I understand that not everything related to this incident will be included, but this is an ethical issue that clearly deserves its own section. The section, as removed, is a good starting point.  Soderstrom (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, though of course it was the media that made it a campaign issue.
 * @User:Designate: I disagree with your edit summary removing my statement that Warren declined to include herself in the Senate directory of minorities. You wrote, "This isn't how it "ended", nor is it significant. She still maintains she has Native American ancestry but stopped calling herself a Native American nearly two decades ago. This is a silly non-encyclopedic addition." That's how the issue ended: she won the election, the press backed off, she backed off. Nothing silly or non-encyclopedic about it. Yopienso (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

note ..
I was just going to drop a note on one or two folks talk page, but since there's so many folks active here, I'll drop the link here.


 * link

Now I don't know that there's any value to this as far as a WP:RS in order to add content to the article, but it is about both this topic, and Wikipedia in general, so I thought perhaps the folks who enjoy reading and writing about Warren may enjoy reading through this. Cheers to all. — Ched : ?  00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Will someone here please explain what is happening: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/wikipedia-expert-removal-of-elizabeth-warren-cherokee-controversy-contrary-to-wikipedia-rules/

Wikipedia is on the verge of losing complete credibility. Readers deserve better. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.190.33 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New articles
There's a new Legal Insurrection article. It specifically calls out User:FurrySings and the coverage he linked in a section above that claims to show that Warren is right, with the LI article pointing out that the coverage has already been debunked by Cherokee genealogists led by Twila Barnes. Silver seren C 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea for you to do your research before you announce that Warren's claims of Native American ancestry have been "debunked". In the first place, Twila Barnes is not a professional genealogist, nor does she claim to be.  And even if she were, genealogists would be the first to admit that while they can sometimes prove ancestry, they are generally unable to "debunk" anything.  It is only common sense to realize that ancestry can be difficult and sometimes impossible to prove, especially when it involves proof that one has "Indian or Negro blood" in one's background, a fact that many Americans have wanted to remain unknown.  Warren has said all along that she has relied on family lore to support her belief in her Native American heritage, not genealogical proof. Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer's line of argument on this point is absurd. The absence of documentation of her claim cannot disprove the claim but it does reduce it to a claim, not a fact, and thus, in the case of a leading political figure running for office a glaring problem. That's why it became an issue in the firsf place, as would any other unsubstantiated claim made by a candidate for high office. Complicating this further, Warren was claiming kinship in one of a small number of racial minority groups in American society which have special legal and arguably political standing. 108.41.168.224 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Burke242
 * Then the fact that members of the group she is trying to claim to be a part of have stated that they do not agree with her claim is important to include. Silver  seren C 07:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, why is the section now lumped in with the election section, when this information is important to both her life and her entire career, not just the election. Silver  seren C 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that we may be trying to bend to a partisan website too much. If the info can be added in a neutral way than it should be added, but not at the expense of worsening this article. The website is obviously trying to bully us, and we shouldn't blindly fall for it. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that this was the result of political attempts to suggest that Warren's past behavior should prompt one to vote for Brown and not Warren. While her heritage remains in question, there is no confirmation what so ever that she claimed Native American heritage to further her career.  None.  If that could be documented it would be an issue and should be considered to be placed in her career section.  It never was, and properly remains in the senate run section. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The website is very obviously partisan. However, it's doing this the right way, by providing links and evidence for what it's saying. We clearly won't be using it directly as a source, but it is pointing out appropriate problems with the article. It has nothing to do with falling for anything, it has to do with making sure the article is neutral. And, as it looks to me now, it seems like this article is being white-washed. Silver  seren C 04:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides, I would be one of the first people to call them out on BS. I may be an Independent, but I definitely lean liberal on a lot of things and I wouldn't kowtow to something that was just partisan ranting. The difference here is that the site isn't doing that (much). So long as you don't look at the comments section, at least. Silver  seren C 04:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What can I say? A Wikipedia editor who states he is non-partisan states that Wikipedia, after hundreds of hours of edits by editors of all opinions, has resulted in whitewashing this article.  He goes on to show the WP editors the correct path to follow, the one led  by a partisan blogger (but don't look at the responses to the political blogger's articles and thus get the wrong opinion of his posts!).  Disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on your comments here and in above sections, Gandydancer, I am extremely concerned that you are not approaching this subject from a neutral point of view, but instead from the point of view that criticism of Warren is wrong. Silver seren C 07:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, you have accused me of not adhering to the Wikipedia policy that we all use a neutral POV. You say you are extremely concerned--and I am as well since I also take WP policies seriously.  I would like to reply to this accusation but to do so you will need to be more specific than "Based on your comments here and in above sections".  Please be more specific. Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The writer of the blog is himself a Wikipedia editor. What appears to be happening is that an editor with a preferred POV, frustrated that his POV is not being adequately represented in the article, is using the bully pulpit of his own website in order to bludgeon this article into something that he would prefer. If he was properly following Wikipedia policy, he should just present his sources and arguments on this talk page, and would not be canvassing his readers to come here and edit on his behalf (or insult us as happened here). FurrySings (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you're using says "aluded to" a newsletter "supposedly listing". Your source then goes on to say the person who made this claim in the first place didn't actually have the documentation (marriage license). In a better reference, the Atlantic has the actual quote from this newsletter and that the writer says she doesn't believe she even saw the document. Many sources say it may not exist. So there is no reason to include this line about the newsletter in a wikipedia article other than to try to fight this battle over her Native claims in Wikipedia. Again, there's no reason to include an incorrect article from a newsletter that has been shown was clearly incorrect and about something that even the (amateur genealogist) writer Linda Smith says she probably never saw. The newsletter doesn't belong in this article because there is no factual information in it. Odestiny (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose this wording: which gets to the point a little faster. Designate (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for your suggested edit. The shorter and more to point, the better. BTW Indian Country Today's "Elizabeth Warren’s Genealogical Challenge" is the more thorough investigation of her background I've seen on the internet and contains copies of the primary documents in question. She isn't Delaware or Cherokee, that has no bearing on her political career, and I can't wait until everyone can move on. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * There is no support for reference to the newsletter that NEHGS refers to early in the discussions of Warren's ancestry. I can't support any references to that newsletter. It is not a primary document. It is not a secondary source. It is not a source, period.  It is hearsay. It is not appropriate to go back and re-write all of these things that happened. NEHGS does not put any kind of credibility in that newsletter and just because one editor keeps pushing it does not make that newsletter important to this topic.  The fact is that Warren has not provided one piece of documentary evidence to support her ancestral claims and that is what this article should clearly state.  The point of this article is tell the issue, as quickly as possible, and let the reader make up their own mind. It is not for us to re-write history or to interpret evidence or use the article to act as apologists for Warren.  She made the claims, for several years, it became the topic of a campaign in Massachusetts and later was discussed nationwide. It is notable so it should be in the article.  Editors need to stop saying, incorrectly, that it was a one time thing and that was merely raised by political opponents because the Cherokees that have raised questions and complained did not do it for political reasons.  To push forward the premise that: (1) it was a one-time claim or (2) only political opponents cared about Warren's claims is old-fashioned POV pushing.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that editors need to remember that this is a BLP and we all need to be especially careful with what we say in both the article and on the talk page. Editors that apparently refuse to read the sources and continue to state that Warren does not have any Native American heritage need to stop that.  Just because a blogger has repeatedly made that statement without quality sourcing does not mean that Wikipedia should. We need to make it clear in our article that professional genealogists  state that they cannot document Warren's claim to Native American ancestry, but we can't, due to pressure from a blogger or some of the editors here, take that as proof that no Native American ancestry exists.  Professional genealogy researchers made that point very clear and it is not our place to refuse to accept their observations and continue to state, even on the talk page, that Warren has no Native American background.  Please take the time to actually read our sources to understand that at one time Americans did not want it known that they had any "Indian blood" in their background and certainly would not have identified as Native American if they didn't have to.  Some of us that write  articles here in WP are even old enough to remember when the "Indians" were expected to sit in the back of the classrooms at school.  Who would want to invite that sort of treatment for themselves or for their children?  Once again, please note that Warren has never claimed to have documented evidence of her ancestry--she said all along that it was family lore--and there is no evidence that she used her claim to gain advantage.  In the end, we are left with no documentation of wrongdoing on Warren's part.  In my opinion we already had too much copy devoted to this incident.  But what we had remained stable for some time and I was willing to accept it.  But now to come along and call it a whitewash, and attempt to expand it and place it in her career section, is not acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer seems to reduce this controversy to whether or not Warren's critics can supply definitive proof that her claim to Native heritage is NOT true, which would be impossible, which shifts the burden away from a leading politician to back up what she says about herself. Further, he asks us to lean mire heavily on her side of the scale to be fair, because, he says, there was a time when people were reluctant to admit to Native heritage. Even if that were true, it would be pure speculation to imagine that it might have had some bearing on Warren's case. To be objective, accurate, and fair, Wikipedia should not insinuate that Warren's claim might be false, but neither should it insinuate that her critics are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.168.224 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that Elizabeth Warren has not been able to provide one shred of written documentation to support her claim that she is Cherokee or Delaware. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation.  It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Delaware Tribe.  These are facts, not opinion. Another fact is that the article was, at one time, completely whitewashed of any mention of Warren's claimed native ancestry.  Another fact is that the article was completely scrubbed of the complaints of actual enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation who have been critical of Warren's native ancestry claims and have been critical of the fact that Warren has not provided one shred of written documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.  Another fact is that the article was scrubbed of any references to various enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation being critical of the appearance that Warren might have gained preferential treatment in hiring at various law schools throughout her career based upon her spoken claim of Cherokee ancestry without providing one shred of documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Ignoring the fact that there are credible questions about her native ancestry claims and credible questions about how she was treated as an employee in at various law schools does not tell the whole story about Warren and her career.  She has not been able to provide documentation to support her claims.  I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation and I do not have some family members questioning whether our family has Cherokee's in it!!!! I had no problem finding the written documentation to prove my Cherokee ancestry.  It is whitewash job for a small number of editors to lecture others about life in Indian Country.  There are tons of fake Indians in Indian Country that claim Indian ancestry to obtain the same number of benefits of being Indian entails.  There are legitimate questions in Indian Country about Warren's claims and whether she used those unsupported claims to work her way up the affirmation action ladder at various law schools.  She never participated in Indian issues as an attorney.  But she marked herself down as Indian in a directory whose audience was law school deans, the exact type of people that she needed to further her career.  These are facts, not opinion.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User ExclusiveAgent said:

''It is a fact that Elizabeth Warren has not been able to provide one shred of written documentation to support her claim that she is Cherokee or Delaware. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. It is a fact that she is not an enrolled member of the Delaware Tribe. These are facts, not opinion. ''


 * Correct

Another fact is that the article was, at one time, completely whitewashed of any mention of Warren's claimed native ancestry.


 * Not correct.

''Another fact is that the article was completely scrubbed of the complaints of actual enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation who have been critical of Warren's native ancestry claims and have been critical of the fact that Warren has not provided one shred of written documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation. Another fact is that the article was scrubbed of any references to various enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation being critical of the appearance that Warren might have gained preferential treatment in hiring at various law schools throughout her career based upon her spoken claim of Cherokee ancestry without providing one shred of documentation that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.''


 * Correct only if you consider consensus editing out some article copy "scrubbing" it out. The article was stable for many weeks without the mention of the Cherokee Nation information and I, for one, certainly have no objection to returning it if that is what consensus agrees on.
 * But that is not the consensus. It is only what some editors want as consensus, but it is not consensus.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the rest of your concerns, as a WP editor you are aware that anything that an editor is unable to document, while perhaps true, remains merely opinion. The article has documented that Warren's claim as a Native American did not have any bearing on her hiring. Can you document otherwise? Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I never commented on that topic. The fact is that Warren has never provided any written documentation to prove that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation or that she is a Delaware tribal member.  That is a fact and it cannot be whitewashed out of the article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User Odestiny said:

Gandydancer - You're missing an important point and also your comments show that you do not enough knowledge of the subject to back what you're saying. The Cherokee are the best documented tribe on the planet. Not only have we had a written language with which to document ourselves, the British and U.S. governments have also done it for us. It is impossible for a person to have only one Cherokee ancestor. That ancestor has siblings, parents, cousins, nieces, grandparents, etc. Anyone having authentic Cherokee ancestry knows multiple family names related to them that are within the tribe. It is a "tribe", which is a large family of inter-related people. A person who would attempt to obtain a position such as Warren did that she knew was based on ancestry, without documentation is wrong. Otherwise anyone can apply for Native set-aside jobs by simply saying they think they have Native blood. In fact, this happens all the time. People are constantly attempting to benefit through false claims just as she did. Whether the her claim had any benefit on her hiring is not the point. The fact that she as an educator with full knowledge of the requirements still made the attempt is what is wrong. What keeps you from going on USAJOBs and applying for a government job set-aside for Native Americans and say that your grandma told you that you were Cherokee? Don't you expect before you do that you better have some kind of documentation in hand? Think for a moment that you're going to apply to Harvard for a Native American position. Do you expect to tell them your grandma said you were Indian? How ridiculous would that be?

Your statement that an Indian wouldn't want it to be known that they were an Indian is exactly the kind of thing that is used by fake Cherokee everyday. The fact is that it has never been a choice as to whether you are a Cherokee. I grew up during the time Natives were persecuted because every TV program was about Cowboys and savages. Teachers in school including my own mother were required to separate the Indian kids from the whites and search them for lice the first day of every school year. And this was within the fourteen counties of the Cherokee Nation itself! Yet I have never known anyone of any tribe who tried to hide their ancestry. Would you disclaim your family? Who would do such a thing? During the Dawes rolls, the U.S. government wanted to destroy the Cherokee Nation leadership and searched far and wide to identify those who might have any future claim. They didn't just ask people if they were Indian, they took old tribal rolls and government rolls from half century before and compared them. They asked people about their siblings, their ancestors, their cousins so they could identify them and be certain there would be no future claims. Remember that they were giving people land. Though a few were against the Dawes actions, people still wanted that land, otherwise it would be given to whites. Why would someone cover that up? So those names are there and the documentation of who has Cherokee heritage is there. So the issue is not whether it had any affect on her hiring, though why didn't it? The issue is that she made application at all based on this claim. Warren knew she didn't know a thing about the tribe, yet she was willing to take an Indian job and keep someone who was actually a tribal member and who deserved it from getting it. That's the real problem here. And that's what really needs to be in this article. Odestiny (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This rather biased opinion of yours shouldn't be on the talkpage of a BLP. The facts are:
 * Professional genealogists have stated that a large fraction of the people in Oklahoma have some native blood, and that much of it is undocumented - Warren's family is not unusual.
 * People who have been involved in hiring her have stated that her heritage was not mentioned and was not a factor in the hiring decision.
 * Her siblings, several cousins and some childhood friends support her claim that her family had always talked about Native heritage.

Are all these people liars? Seems like a truly huge conspiracy .... FurrySings (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No. No. No. Dear Odestiny: Do NOT allow the above comment of FurrySings intimidate you into not speaking your opinion. Your true statements (they are not "rather biased") cannot and should not be censored by the above editor or any editor.  As a matter of fact FurrySings should not be commenting about your statements in that way at all.  I am a member of Cherokee Nation and you are a member of the Cherokee Nation and the editors that are attempting to place only information that is positive sounding toward Warren on this topic are attempting to shut you and me up.  Wikipedia is not censored.  You keep right on speaking up.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)  [As a matter of fact, since FurrySings wants to censor you and make you stop sharing factual information about Indian Country means that you are probably speaking truth about this topic and it is making it more difficult for him to edit the article in such a way that only "wonderful, beautiful sounding things" are stated about Warren and her claim of Indian ancestry.  Other editors cannot censor talk pages either.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)]


 * Dear FurrySings: Your question and comment (Are all these people liars? Seems like a truly huge conspiracy ....) is not the correct question or answer as a mere Wikipedian.  It is not up to you to decide whether, in your opinion, there is a "conspiracy" or not.  The Cherokee Nation has rules about who is a member and who is not a member.  Warren has not provided the written documentation, not ONE document, to support her claim that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.  She does not have that documentation.  She attempted to find that information, but she failed.  The New England group attempted to find ONE person in her background, but did not find one person that was a member of the either tribe.  That is a fact.  No amount of being critical toward other editors and no amount of edit warring is going to change the fact that Warren does not have one shred of written documentation to support her claim that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.  The section in the article about this topic sounds like it was written by Warren's campaign staff.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have have added some information to the article that is critical of the Harvard claim of Warren's Cherokee ancestry and suggests that they had no "right" to publish her as a minority faculty member. I am one of the editors here that have been involved in this controversy long before the present one and I have long thought that Harvard was caught with their pants down when their claims of the hiring of a minority came to light.  Now, Warren claims that she was not aware of Harvard's claims--I really do have my doubts about that but we have no documentation one way or another.  On the other hand, I do believe that Warren is sincere in her beliefs that she has Cherokee ancestry.  And yet, as I have said again and again, I don't claim that she has documented ancestry nor has the article ever claimed that.  But in the end, like so many other WP articles, we have no choice but to go by what has been reported.  And I don't mean blogs, of course.  The one in question has been a big supporter of Sarah Palin and yet they cannot understand why we refuse to accept blogs as neutral sources. I can accept that some members of the Cherokee Nation are angry with Warren and I am aware that all sorts of Native American Come Lately's crawl out of the woodwork when there's money to be had--in some states its casino money. But to those that continue to voice dissatisfaction with the article, please provide the facts with acceptable sources that you feel are missing from the article rather than just state that it is biased as written. Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Gandydancer: You made good points. You want specifics let me give you specifics.  There has been an attempt to put in the article a misleading piece of information.  The piece of information is the "may be it exists, may be it doesn't exist" newsletter that the New England group referred to.  That "newsletter" should not be mentioned in this article at all.  It is not a reliable source to prove ancestry.  NEHGS found a so-called "newsletter", so what?  NEHGS do NOT, in any way, put any credibility on that "newsletter."  NEHGS has issued a press release stating flat out that they do not possess any primary sources proving Warren's claim.  If the so-called newsletter was a primary source to prove Warren's claim then they would have said so.  It is not up to editors of Wikipedia to decide whether this secondary source and the heresay of Warren's family members prove Warren's claims.  They article has been whitewashed of all of the work that hard-working Cherokee genealogists have been doing as it concerns Warren's Cherokee claims.  It is flat out wrong to remove all of that work.  The section of the article that covers Warren's claims have been re-written over and over again to whitewash out all of the hard work that has been done by enrolled members of Cherokee Nation to either prove or disprove Warren's Cherokee claims.  It is as if the the work done by Cherokee researchers is not valid and Wikipedia will only accept the work of white researchers from New England.  Why has the article been whitewashed of the work of Cherokee people?  This is an example of worst type of groupthink that I can find.  It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if Warren can call herself a member of the Cherokee Nation.  It is not up to you and it is not up to FurrySings.  As Wikipedia editors you should provide both sides of the story and then let the reader decide.  That is a fact.  You should maintain a neutral point of view.  But this article does not do that.  There are voices out there, mostly Cherokee voices, that are being cutoff in the development of this article. The argument that I have heard over and over again is that it is only an outgrowth of one election campaign: only supporters of Republican Scott Brown want to cover Warren's Cherokee claims in the article.  That is a false statement.  She made these claims throughout her career.  There should be a whole section where we go over the material and put in that section information that supports her claims (e.g., the hearsay claims of her family members) and information that clearly refutes her claims (e.g., birth certificates, etc. that list her and her parents as white, etc.)  Also, if anyone questions why the other side of the issue is not in the article, editors attempting to limited discussion claim that we have no right to even talk about it. (See FurrySings claims above that other editors are "rather biased" for not agreeing with his analysis of the article.)  The newsletter references do not belong in there.  There is no reference to Warren's "high cheekbones" comment. There is no development, at all, of the claims that Warren's used the Indian check-off box to gain access to affirmative action hiring programs at various law schools.  There is no reference to the fact that she has never worked in Indian Country.  There is no reference to the fact that she has never become conversant in Indian law, even though she claims Indian ancestry and has studied the law.  There is consistent effort to remove the fact that she refused to list herself as "Native American" after she took office with the Office of the Historian of the Senate.  There are long quotes from her perspective on this issue but there are no quotes from the huge number of voices from the Cherokee Nation questioning her claims.  There has been a ton of work done to research her Cherokee claims, but it is completely ignored and ridiculed. And that is not right.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * EA, thanks for your rather passionate reply. I can appreciate your passion since I have frequently been in the same position myself.  See, for instance, my comments on the talk page of the Great Dismal Swamp maroons in which I argued that "maroons" should be "Maroons".  I gave in, but I never changed my mind--but that's how WP works sometimes.  From the time that I was a little girl I always seemed to side with the Americans that were cheated and slandered, namely the Natives and their descendants and the African slaves, and their descendants. For now...  Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)