Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

More Irrelevant Information Included in Ancestry Section

The following wording has been added to the Ancestry section that should not be in the Ancestry section: "In mid-February 2019 she received a standing ovation during a surprise visit to a Native American conference, where she was introduced by freshman Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), one of the first two Native American women elected to the US Congress.[38][39] Haaland stated, “Indian Country needs strong allies like Elizabeth Warren, whose unwavering commitment to Native communities and Native American women and children is needed in this political era.”[40] Haaland endorsed Warren for president in July 2019.[41]"

These sentences are included in the Ancestry section and they give the absolutely false sense that she is some how Native. These sentence might be appropriate for the article but not in ancestry section. These sentences do not indicate that she is native, neither native or not native. It is misinformation. You want to include this information then put it in the article somewhere else. I don't known where else but these sentences have nothing to do with her heritage or ancestry. All these sentences indicate that she is popular at an Native American forum, attended by Natives from all over the U.S., in Sioux City, Iowa. The addition of these sentences indicate that Natives from all over the U.S. are all the same, which they aren't, and these people are not necessarily giving her standing ovation over her ancestry claims. They are probably giving her a standing ovation because they agree with her politics, which is fine, but that has nothing to do with ancestry. The standing ovation is irrelevant to Warren's ancestry claims. It needs to be removed.--CharlesShirley (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. SunCrow (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree too, and I deleted it. Warren has plans for Native Americans and is campaigning amongst them. This has nothing to do with her ancestry controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

By the same token I think the controversy over her ancestry is a separate subject from her ancestry and family history itself and does not belong at the beginning of the article which discusses her background. If detailed information about the controversy and the backlash from tribal leaders is included, then it is also appropriate to include information about their acceptance of her. All this controversy about her career came up during campaigns and elections so I think this section should link to a section about the controversy in those articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This is relevant, long standing info. You need a consensus to remove it. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PunxtawneyPickle, it has been objected to several times. Something with this much opposition does not belong in a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Removing it removes balance from the article and skews it to be only negative information, such as an attack page. I started an RFC below so you should keep it in the article per long standing consensus until the RFC ends. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There are tons of things wrong with the information. It has nothing to do with ancestry. The native americans at the forum at not even members of her tribe. No where in the article does it say that they were giving her a standing "o" because of ancestry claims. Most likely they were giving her a standing "o" because they are fans of her politics, nothing more. The sentences are written like a political campaign advertisement for her. The sentences are not relevant and they are simple "Go Team Warren!" rah rah candidate hype, nothing more.--CharlesShirley (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PunxtawneyPickle, no, the RfC isn't appropriate. We're discussing it here. RfC is premature. And we don't need to include this for false balance. Speaking to Native Americans has nothing to do with her ancestry. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Her ancestry is related to her relationship with other Native Americans who have an opinion on her and her ancestry controversy. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

What you just said ("ancestry is related to her relationship with other Native Americans") is your opinion. What you just said is not in the reliable sourced cited. In the RS there is no tie between the standing "o" and ancestry claims. There is nothing in the RS to back up what you are claiming. What you are claiming is merely your opinion. If what you are saying is true then point to the wording in the RS cited which backs up your claim. I did not see anything. You so far have not provided anything other than your opinion. We can't edit the article based upon merely your opinion. Please provide a RS to back up your claim.--CharlesShirley (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, it's being discussed right here. Contributing to the slow simmering edit war is not the answer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: The material removed has been in the article since Feb 25 at least. The stable version rather than the proposed novelty should be in the article while discussion proceeds. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:, the information has been in the article since February 25. That's true. But that fact is irrelevant. The information must be evaluated on its substance not on how long the information has been in the article. The article could say for five years straight that Warren has wings and can fly. However, just because that hypothetical claim has been in the article for five years does not lend any credence to the claim in any way or in any manner. It only means that the claim has been in the article a long time and no one took the time to evaluate, to parse, the claim. It is the same situation applies here. Just because the standing "o" information has been in the section for about 6 months does not make the standing "o" information any more valid or useful. It only means that it has not been critically evaluated for six months. The information is not about "ancestry" and should not be in the "ancestry" section. The reliable source does not support your opinion. Please provide a reliable source that says that the standing "o" was tied to or inspired by Warren's ancestry claims. That's what you need to back up your desire to have that information in the ancestry section. Please provide the reliable source.--CharlesShirley (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, "long standing" is meaningless. It only means we didn't notice the content until now. This is a BLP and content is being objected to. Where does it say it should stay? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No, "long standing" is not meaningless. That information has been in the article for months. I'm surprised that you seem to have not noticed it till now. This is a BLP and long standing information should not be removed without discussion. I believe that it is appropriate though a discussion about the extent, etc. is not inappropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, it's a long article, and I don't reread the entire thing on the reg. I have a long watchlist, as I'm sure many other editors do, so it's not uncommon to miss things over time. That said, it was challenged in May and June, so this isn't some uncontested text that people are only now taking issue with. See WP:UNCHALLENGED. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not heard any substantive reasons the information should be there. I just hear "Its been there for a long time." So? There is no discussion about what the challenged information has anything to do with Warren's ancestry. I have asked all of the editors who disagree with its removal to provide a reliable source to tie the standing "o" to Warren's ancestry and I have not heard anything about that substantive issue. I am just hearing procedural arguments and no substance. Where is the reliable source or what's in the current reliable source to tie the information to Warren's ancestry. I don't see anything.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As argued elsewhere, this information may well be misplaced. It was moved to this section a few months ago in a flurry of editing. President Trump is responsible for making a huge issue of it. It is more political than anything else at this point. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I think this is the edit that first introduced this mid-February standing ovation. It was added in the "Ancestry" section, seemingly for the purpose of making it seem like Native Americans are okay with her claiming to be Native American. That's WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you're saying about synth but the thing is, IMO, it belongs in the article and it belongs with this other Native American stuff. I'm tempted to boldly move all this to a new section somewhere else. It's been going on since her run in 2012 and since she seems to be doing well in her presidential run it's not going to stop anytime soon. This stuff is all political and it should be with other political stuff, not in her family section. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with some sort of move. SunCrow may too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I believe that the vast majority of the information on ancestry belongs in a latter portion of the article. SunCrow (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we do need to spread it out, more chronologically. In the "early life" section, we can say she was told about her N.A. heritage. We can say she listed herself as N.A. on her Harvard application or Texas bar application, or wherever else in the appropriate early career section, then mention how it became an issue in the senate election section. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(undent) @Muboshgu: The text now disputed was added to a version of the article that included two examples of direct criticisms of Warren by Native Americans:

The use of DNA to determine Native American heritage was criticized by the Cherokee Nation as being "inappropriate and wrong".[28][33] During a 2019 public appearance in Sioux City, Iowa, Warren was asked by an attendee, "Why did you undergo the DNA testing and give Donald more fodder to be a bully?"

After the news stories about the standing ovation in response to her outreach to Native Americans, I thought adding that story was a good balance to the existing impression that Native Americans in general disliked and rejected Warren. Now that those other comments have been edited out, the standing ovation part swings the pendulum too far the other way, perhaps. Back in February, however, it seemed appropriate. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, thanks for that perspective. That fills in some information gaps on my end. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be a bad idea to 'spread it out' over multiple sections: better to give a full perspective in one place, in my view. If having it as a subsection of 'early life' won't do, one idea is to give it its own top-level section. This has the advantage (IMO) of letting it be in one place even as it ties in to multiple 'chronological' moments/sections. Another idea is to nest the 2012 campaign stuff, the 2016 campaign stuff, and the presidential campaign stuff, each of which currently has its own top-level section, under a header like 'Career in elected office' or 'Campaigns and career in elected office' or something... and then make 'Ancestry' a subsection of that, which would let it be put in "a campaign section" later in the article without duplicating information or obscuring a full view of it by spreading it across three campaigns. -sche (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's a top level section, would you place it after the 2020 election section? If the Ancestry section discusses all of the history of the controversy up until the present election I think it would make sense to place it there. And even though this isn't exactly regarding "personal life", it is related, so I think that's also a good reason to have it near the end of the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a top level section above personal life is a good idea. It will cover all the years since her Senate run in 2012 up to now when it has again come up what with her presidential run, so putting it earlier in the article might tend to make it seem out of place. Gandydancer (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of information in Ancestry section about her reception at Native forum

Should the information in the Ancestry section include how Native Americans have responded to Warren, positively and negatively, including a standing ovation at a forum? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This is premature as discussion on this topic only began a few hours ago, and seems like it was intended to game the system. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I am simply requesting comments for other editors for this discussion. Why is that improper? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The question is too narrow.  I don't think there's even been a formal RfC to decide where to put the ancestry controversy information.  I have proposed separating her family history and ancestry from the controversy itself, which seems more related to her campaigns.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PunxtawneyPickle, WP:RFCBEFORE: Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. Consensus seems to be forming to exclude, with no RfC necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it is proper for you have to have an opinion and also judge what the consensus is in the discussion. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe this reversion without explanation was proper, nor was the thread you opened at WP:NPOV/N#Elizabeth Warren, especially without notifying any of the editors here working on a compromise version. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the RfC tag for now, as an RfC seems premature as noted above (and also, the RfC question is very broad—it doesn't seem like anyone is proposing to include or exclude every single Native American reaction, so there should really be a more specific question, e.g. asking only about including vs excluding the ovation). -sche (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information included in Ancestry

I am concerned that the following paragraph: "In mid-February 2019 she received a standing ovation during a surprise visit to a Native American conference, where she was introduced by freshman Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), one of the first two Native American women elected to the US Congress.[38][39] Haaland stated, “Indian Country needs strong allies like Elizabeth Warren, whose unwavering commitment to Native communities and Native American women and children is needed in this political era.”[40]" found under "Ancestry" has nothing to do with Warren's claim of or actual Ancestry and thus should be removed or placed somewhere else. Also, it sounds politically motivated and not based on what the section heading claims all statements under should be about, and is, thus, not fit for this section. Suggestions would be helpful, but I know that this just doesn't fit with the section wherein it currently sits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firesondiego (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we move the ancestry section down and retitle it "Native American ancestry controversy"? Maybe place it at a new section 3, considering: "The subject of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry came to national attention in April 2012, when she was a candidate trying to unseat then-Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican incumbent."[1]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Its current placement below "Early life" does not seem consistent with the consensus from the above straw poll.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is too much detail. It is also misleading because other sources say Warren has not shown support for Native Americans in particular in Standing Rock. TFD (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Stories from August 2019:

After drawing a standing ovation, Warren said, “I have listened and I have learned a lot” from conversations with Native Americans in recent months, describing herself as “grateful” for the dialogue. [...] Manny Iron Hawk, 62, who lives on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation in South Dakota, said Warren “did excellent” in her Monday appearance and has done a good job of addressing her past mistakes. “I think she did. A person has to admit their mistakes and move on."[2]

Haaland told the audience, which, during Warren’s speech, had swelled to include a few hundred people. "I say that every time they ask about Elizabeth’s family instead of the issues of vital importance to Indian Country, they feed the President’s racism." Moments later, Warren, who strode onstage to a standing ovation, apologized anyway.[3]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Filmography

I propose removing or seriously revising the Filmography section: she is not an actress and it does not make sense to present appearances on a talk show and documentaries as such. She has been a guest on many talk shows besides Bill Maher in 2014, IMDB lists 58 credits as "Self", including several with Stephen Colbert, Morning Joe, Jake Tapper, and five more with Bill Maher. It would be unencyclopedic to list all of these here, which are clearly quite routine for major figures, and silly to continue to list just those currently in the article. A couple sentences for the documentary appearances could be merged with the In popular culture section. Reywas92^Talk 05:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this version? [4]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recipe book

I am removing the mention of the fact that Warren submitted a few recipes to her cousin's fund-raiser for a small rural museum, a recipe book entitled "Pow Wow Chow". This recipe book, like many of that age, was a money-maker project used by countless church groups and other small organizations to raise money. (I remember those years quite well myself, and still treasure my Ely Catholic Womens Cook Book which I still use to make Slovenian potica.) (And my daughters use to make "Watergate Salad", a must have for their Christmas table.) The only news sources that seem to find this information worthy of print are Breitbart, The Daily Mail, etc. [5]. Just because this info was mentioned somewhere does not mean that it is worthy of mention here on Warren's bio. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The source you removed was politifact.[6] Also in that search you link there is huffpost and washington post.[7][8] So I am not sure your claims are accurate. PackMecEng (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure but reading the HuffPo article it is hardly something that we would be using for factual information, and note that the WashPo article did not even bother to do a Pinnochio check on the cookbook stuff. This was all political spin. I don't usually get too concerned about WP:recentism, but it certainly exactly fits what happened in this case very well. Gandydancer (talk)

This was all political spin based on what? If you have something that agrees with that it might be worth adding to the article as well. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The recipe thing belongs in the article. Other reliable sources that cover it include the following:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2012/05/17/pow-wow-factor-elizabeth-warren-touted-native-roots-in-84-cookbook/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/10/elizabeth-warren-shows-democrats-how-to-lose-in-2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-native-american-texas-bar-form-apology.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/elizabeth-warrens-family-ties
SunCrow (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If the recipe belongs in the article, the other, more positive reactions belong as well. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the links SunCrow. I was going to revert my edit and was not too happy to see it done for me... And now someone else has stepped in and that complicates things... Gandydancer (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If we point out that the recipes were good, we should also point out they appear to have been copied from other published sources.[9] TFD (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

TFD, here is the problem here... These recipe books used to be compiled by groups, such as church groups, as money makers. People added their family favorites, perhaps one of "Mom's" or "Grandma's" family recipes or a recipe given to them by friends or family who may have copied a recipe from a news paper, or perhaps they got it directly from a newspaper themselves. At any rate, newspaper recipes are not copy righted. I've been here long enough to remember this very same suggestion brought up some time ago with editors saying she plagiarized one of the recipes! - we've got to put that in her article because it is quite a serious thing! Well it's not. The woman who put the book together worked for a small museum with local Native American stuff and it was meant to use recipes submitted by local women from, I think it was five, tribes, to make money to help run the museum. Knowing that Warren had Cherokee ancestry she asked her to submit a few. When we include this sort of stuff it can be difficult to include enough information to avoid slanting one way or another. In my experience these are the times it is best to leave the information out - if you cant say it fairly in two or three sentences leave it out. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems tangential to me. Most sources only mention it in passing, and it's not relevant to her primary claim to notability - it's essentially a footnote to a footnote. If we ever have an article about her ancestry controversy specifically, it might warrant a sentence there, but it seems massively WP:UNDUE for her main bio. --Aquillion (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Political Positions Not Listed

Senator Warren is one of the top Presidential Candidates running for President of the Democrat Party. What is amazing to me is that very little is mentioned in this article about her Political Positions, there is just one smaller section that talks about the Senator being a Progressive. If one looks at Wikipedia on Senator Harris' Political Positions one finds a long list of Political Positions, with a bunch of writing on each of her positions: 7 Political positions 7.1 Abortion 7.2 Animals 7.3 Campaign finance 7.4 Cannabis 7.5 Death penalty 7.6 Disaster relief 7.7 Education 7.8 Election security 7.9 Environment 7.10 Foreign policy 7.11 Guns 7.12 Health care 7.13 Immigration 7.14 LGBT rights 7.15 Net neutrality 7.16 Taxes 7.17 Trade 7.18 Voting rightsEaseltine (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been spun out to Political positions of Elizabeth Warren while Kamala Harris#Political positions is part of the Kamala Harris article. I don't see an benefit in lengthening this section, we should just emphasize what is important. If we say that Warren is a progressive, then the assumption is that here positions would be consistent with that. For example, one can assume she opposes the death penalty and we only need detail if she actually supported it. TFD (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I moved Political positions to its own top-level section. [10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump never promised to pay if Warren took a test

He said if she ever got on the debate stage with him then he'd challenge her to take a DNA test right then if she claimed to be Native American. He said in that situation he'd promise her. And, of course, it was obviously a joke.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/trump-dared-elizabeth-warren-take-dna-test-prove-her-native-american-ancestry-now-what/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA9OAM9coS4 (full speech - obvious joke)

“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage … ‚” Trump said. “And we WILL say, ‘I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ "

Plus, the test she did take didn't "show she was an Indian." The article says "Native ancestry," so even if you severely lack comprehension, and thought it was a promise, the condition wouldn't have been met.

So three factors: 1. He said he *would* promise her that if they debated on stage, which they never did. 2. The test she took didn't "show she was an Indian" 3. It was a joke and it was an obvious joke.

So I assume this will be quickly corrected right? I mean, I'm sure the fine editors of wikipedia aren't simply lying to try to make Trump look like he broke a promise. 63.155.107.98 (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/oct/15/context-donald-trumps-1-million-offer-elizabeth-wa/

"So Trump did say he would give $1 million to a charity of Warren’s choice, but he said he would do it while engaging with Warren in a political debate, presumably for president. We’ll leave it up to readers to decide whether this was a serious suggestion or a hypothetical scenario to amuse the crowd."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-dna-test/1645840002/

"A review of a video from Trump's rally in Great Falls, Montana, on July 5 shows that he made the offer in the context of a hypothetical presidential debate with Warren. Trump imagines turning to Warren during the debate and tossing her a DNA testing kit. "

"Verifiability not truth." lol this website, selectively enforce your rules to mislead people. Great model. 63.155.204.152 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Text adjusted to fit sources. Please assume good faith. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm genuinely shocked. Thank you. My only suggestion would be that it be changed from "if she could prove her Native American ancestry" to something more in line with his direct quote of "it shows you are an Indian." I say this because they have fundamentally different meanings and also due to the origin of this whole thing, which was Warren claiming her parents eloped since her mother was part-Cherokee and part-Delaware ( if she could prove her Native American ancestry ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLI3SU33tIc ).

Speaking of which, I don't see anything in the article about her claim that her parents eloped due to her mother being part Indian.

Sources: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/11/elizabeth-warren-punts-dna-test-native-american-an/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/CuttingEdge/geneticists-real-problem-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/story?id=58563279 https://www.dailywire.com/node/37177 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warrens-american-indian-claim-11549576347 63.155.204.152 (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Never heard about the elopement. Doesn’t appear to have been interesting to reliable sources, and therefore not really of interest to an encyclopedia. The Washington Times, YouTube, and Daily Wire are not good sources, particularly for anything political in nature. The WSJ is a usable source, but you linked to an opinion column which we don’t use for facts. WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The elopement quote is at Politifact.[11]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Trivia. Who's going to talk about that in ten years? O3000 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The elopement quote was the entire origin of her Indian ancestry claims. It shows up in numerous news articles - usually in the context of providing evidence that they didn't elope. 63.155.204.152 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The posted sources on the alleged elopement include ABC, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and Politifact. There are certainly more sources out there, but I think four well known news organizations should provide sufficient notability. 63.155.204.152 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The real question is where does it belong? Does it belong under her childhood section about her parents, under her Indian ancestry claim section or both? 63.155.204.152 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we need two sections. A short ancestry section where it is now, and a section under her career history beginning in 2012 to describe the controversy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut is right about splitting up the ancestry information. SunCrow (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

ABC and Politfact do not say this was the entire origin. WT and an opinion column are not usable for statements of fact. I see no reason to expand the topic. O3000 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm not necessarily proposing an expansion, just a reorganization. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The elopement was central to what she called her "family stories" but the controversy did not originate with that.Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Boston Globe story that Politifact links to suggests there is evidence that they eloped. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? The text was the result of extensive discussion. A clarification was needed -- but not more detail. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't most of this section just go under her 2020 campaign article? This article can just have a section under her 2012 career in addition to the ancestry section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really appear to have affected her campaign and I don't see a place for it there. If it actually becomes a big issue outside of Trump's rallies, maybe then. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it hasn't affected her campaign at all. The DNA test, the multiple apologies, the showing up at Native American events. No impact whatsoever. <eye roll> SunCrow (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why is the information about the controversy relating to her upcoming campaign here at all? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the current consensus. There's always some duplication in split articles. In this case, she was accused of faking minority heritage to gain entrance to schools (affirmative action), which would have affected her entire career. The evidence says otherwise as the schools said no. This is more about her career than her current campaign, at least at this time. O3000 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I hope the consensus will change in the future; I think it's odd to have a biographic article begin with what is mostly about a controversy. I think it would be better as "Ancestry and family history", with just a sentence about her parents eloping, and then a sentence referencing the controversies during her senate and presidential campaigns with links to those articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think the issue merits more than a sentence in the sections on her campaigns. The controversy has gone on since 2012 and has had a major impact on her public image. I like your earlier idea of having a section on the topic in the career section. SunCrow (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean a sentence in the Ancestry/family history section referencing the controversy, with links to either another section in this article or sections in her campaign articles.  I don't see the controversy as belonging in the career section.  This did not come up during her career and the controversy is not limited to her career.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh right, the 2012 Senate race info is under her career section.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Before this is archived, I want to make a point about the "elopement" that is missing from the discussion so far. A lot of the ancestry issue is driven by the innuendo that Senator Warren attempted to benefit from affirmative action. However, her own story is rather different. She has said that her parents were the victims of the racist attitudes of her paternal grandparents, Grant and Ethel Herring. The Herring's refused to let her parents marry because her mother was part Cherokee and part Delaware. Racist legacies in the US have played a role in the 2020 campaign so far, and the personal experience of having had racist grandparents is something Senator Warren even featured in a campaign ad. Put in this light, which is Senator Warren's own description, the issue is rather different than what the text currently says - that being "older family members told her during her childhood that she had Native American ancestry" - which I think borders on being deceptive. --LondonYoung (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the text of the article is accurate, but it leaves out that part of the story which is probably notable enough to be included.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"Ancestry" section is and has always been about the controversy over Warren's description of her ancestry

It would make no sense to have a section that is really about "ancestry" in the absence of controversy. This section is not about factual questions like "does she or does she not have DNA that indicates some Native American ancestry" or "does she or does she not have family members who are accepted members of an official tribe?" The section is about what she said about her ancestry, why she said it, what she did (DNA test, apologies, meeting with Native American leaders, embracing Native American Issues.) We also cover some significant responses from others, both negative and positive.

The coverage continues to evolve, for example NYT coverage of Native American responses at recent Native American event. Some of the "established" material in the section seems less important as time goes on, for example this old story that I proposed deleting but someone restored and asked to have discussed:

During a 2019 public appearance in Sioux City, Iowa, Warren was asked by an attendee, "Why did you undergo the DNA testing and give Donald more fodder to be a bully?" Warren responded in part, "I am not a person of color; I am not a citizen of a tribe. Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry. Tribes, and only tribes, determine tribal citizenship, and I respect that difference."(ref to WaPo story)

I propose we remove or shrink that wordy material and add some more recent info. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't understand your first paragraph - perhaps with more feedback I will figure out what you mean. As for removing the wording you mention, I have no problem with that - her position seems to already be well-covered. What new stuff were you thinking of adding? Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: There have been several claims on this talk page that material should be removed from the section because it "has nothing to do with ancestry." I think the test should be different: does the material relate or not to the controversy about her ancestry.

News stories about Warren's continued outreach to Native American communities always put that outreach in the context of the ancestsry controversy. Those recent stories are a resource for this section. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a bold edit [12] renaming the section to "Ancestry controversy" and moving it below the 2020 election section where it can discuss everything about the controversy until the present. We can't decide on what goes in the section until we can agree on what the section is intended to be. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:Words to avoid, I have removed the term controversy. There is no proof of wrong doing on Warren's part, and Wikipedia should avoid giving the impression that there is. The controversy, where there is one, is mainly generated by the actions of her political opponents. Wikipedia should avoid adding fuel to that politically generated 'controversy'. LK (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that the new placement and the present wording are excellent. It is good to see our hard work end so successfully. Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that 'controversy' is best avoided and that a biography is better off putting such things in sections where they belong naturally rather than creating controversy sections as dumping grounds / containment vaults for criticism. In this case, a controversy over her ancestry belongs in the ancestry section; it shouldn't replace the ancestry section, or cause the whole thing to be labeled as a controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the ancestry section is too long. It should mention that she claimed Native American ancestry, which was supported by subsequent DNA testing, and that her ancestry claims have attracted controversy. But the place to describe that controversy is where it occurred - in her first Senate race and in the 2016 and 2020 presidential election cycles. Her policies on Native Americans are a separate issue and belong in their own section. TFD (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In this article where there is little information in each campaign race section, I think it's best to have just one section at the end.  The section doesn't have information about policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Per above consensus I put Haaland back in Ancestry. We can rephrase or rework. It's a counterpoint to Native Issues. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "DNA and Native American relations" PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

--- “ Trump responded by denying that he had made the challenge.[134][135] “ is factually inaccurate.

Should read: “Trump responded by questioning whether her native American ancestry was “1 in 1000” [percent of her total ancestry] and responded that Warren likely “has as much Native American ancestry as I do”. Trump added that he would be willing to pay $1 million if he could administer the DNA test, which Warren was unlikely to ever agree to doing.” (per the same video referenced above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.132 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

First Foray

Re: ”Warren's first foray into public policy began”

Today “first” was removed, and then put back. Coming into this later, I also believe “first” should be removed because of the subsequent verb “began”, which doesn’t make “first” completely tautological but is unnecessary, because without it, it refers to her entire engagement with public policy, which seems appropriate. And it reads better. — Andy Anderson 23:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) FYI: Wikieditor19920, Joel B. Lewis

this is factually wrong

ARTICLE SAYS

"Warren lived in Norman, Oklahoma, until she was 11 years old, when her family moved back to Oklahoma City.[8] When she was 12, her father, a salesman at Montgomery Ward,[8] had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[5] He later worked as a custodian for an apartment building.[11] Eventually, the family's car was repossessed because they failed to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears.[5] When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant.[12][13]

Warren became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the state high school debating championship. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University (GWU) at the age of 16.[5]"

This is factually wrong as there was no-one called Warren who lived in Norman. It was Herring or Elizabeth, AND SO FORTH - she did nor become Warren until she married much later. Please change this to respect women¨s rights to their own name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Warren has chosen to use the name Warren, not us. Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard chose to use their maiden names, which we also respect. In my experience, where people have changed their names, we use one name throughout. TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

One precedent comes to mind: Hillary Clinton#Early life. Not that it has anything to do with a woman's right to her own name. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrupted search result for this Wikipedia page on Safari using Google, Siri Knowledge returns the its title as "Pocahontas"

When I used the Safari search bar with Google search to find this page by typing "Elizabeth Warren", the first suggested result from "Siri Knowledge" is this page, but the title is not "Elizabeth Warren" but "Pocahontas". I don't know whether the title of the page shown by Siri Knowledge comes directly from this Wikipedia page's html code or from somewhere else, but if it does, someone has corrupted it. Can someone have a look and fix the problem if it is at this end. Thank you.

Search result for Wikipedia's page on Elizabeth Warren returns it with the title "Pocahontas"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley-Pie (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the article as of 26 September and there's was nothing wrong with it. The wikitext does contain the markup <ref name="pocahantas">, but if that is what is confusing Siri that is a parsing problem at their end. Pocahontas (nickname) has been redirecting to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump for a long time. I don't see anything in Wikidata that links Warren to this name. My recommendation would be to contact Apple about this very embarrassing result; I run Linux so I don't have access to Safari. -- Beland (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Warren taught with "emergency certificate" not supported by cited sources

None of the three sources mention her having such a certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:85 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed that information. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/official-records-contradict-warren-story-about-being-fired-for-pregnancy https://www.foxnews.com/media/resurfaced-video-warren-fired-pregnant

"I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married," Warren, then a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview posted to YouTube in 2008. "My first year post-graduation, I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called. 2600:1700:1111:5940:F161:61E3:17C4:5FB3 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's just a Warren quote, no independent verification. Subjects don't get to write their own biographies at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the board was trying to fire the principal when Warren claimed he told her not to come back.[13] TFD (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Political issue positions

This article is seriously lacking in its coverage of her political positions. She has it all listed on her website, can we get some of that added?Ndołkah (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the main page of her positions? It would be too much to include everything here. Gandydancer (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We could include major issues as an executive summary to be comprehensive.99.145.194.98 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there is already enough information in the article. Most readers want just general information and if they want more, they can navigate to the positions article, or follow the link to her web page. TFD (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy in date of announce for president

I don't know if this belongs here, but the fourth paragraph states that she announced her candidacy "On February 9, 2019", while the sub-article "2020 presidential campain" (I don't know the correct term for this, I'm sorry) says that she did so "On February 8, 2019" If you compare the information provided by CNN covering this event to a calendar, the correct date turns out to be the 9th of February, but I'm still not entirely sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixflu.bat (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Felixflu.bat: I can't find anywhere we say February 8. Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign does not contain "February 8" anywhere in the article. Perhaps you could provide the exact title of the article where it says February 8. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss it's not in the separate article "Elizabeth Warren 2020 Presidential Campaign", but under "2020 Presidential Campaign" in the article "Elizabeth Warren" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixflu.bat (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Felixflu.bat: Ah, I see it now. Fixed, thank you for pointing that out. (The term you were looking for is "section".) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Madeleine Albright

Unless it evolves into something critically important, Warren's affiliation with Albright doesn't really belong in the lead paragraphs because:

1. The lead is meant to be a brief biography of the person. As Warren does not work in foreign affairs or serve on the relevant Senate committee, her foreign policy advisor is not a lead-worthy fact
2. Inserting it in-between her time at CFPB and her first Senate campaign makes no chronological sense
3. The information is better suited for Political Positions section (I've added a source to back up the claim, by the way).
4. Keeping it would invite others to add who her housing, education, defense, agriculture, healthcare, etc. advisors are as well. As I said, that's not what the lead is for.

--20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Woko Sapien (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Readers don't know who Albright is and why it matter. In fact there is no mention of Warren's views on foreign policy at all, so it seems trivial who is advising her. I find it interesting btw, but that's not the criterion for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the sentence: "In her campaign memoir, she cited Madeleine Albright as her principal foreign policy adviser." from the Political positions section of this Wikipedia article.

The sentence cited a July 23, 2016 The Real News Network story "How Progressive is Elizabeth Warren?" by Thomas Hedges featuring Salon.com opinion columnist Bill Curry, in which Curry says: "In her campaign memoir, she cited Madeline Albright as her principal foreign policy adviser. Albright is obviously the most iconic figure of the most hawkish wing of the Democratic Party. I sure would like to know more about that."

Warren's 384-page 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, mentions Albright in only one sentence on page 228 of chapter 6 "The Battle for the Senate" about her 2012 Senate campaign: "Madeleine Albright came to help, and she spent a day talking to me about issues from all around the globe."

Seven and a half years ago, on Thursday, March 29, 2012, during Warren's first Senate campaign, Albright was a special guest at a noon luncheon fundraiser for Warren at the Taj Boston hotel and was a special guest with Warren at an hour-long conversation roundtable talk and Q&A with students at 3 PM at Bridgewater State University, 30 miles south of Boston.

Newross (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's why interviews should not be considered reliable sources for facts. TFD (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking the acutal source itself. I did get the initial information on https://therealnews.com/stories/thedges0722warren Then I checked elsewhere and found that famous actor John Cusack said the same thing over twitter here https://twitter.com/johncusack/status/1174466165869035520 I figured since both realnews and John Cusack stated this that it was the actual case. Spoonydude84 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Polls

The polling chosen for that section seems to be cherry picked. The majority of polls do not have her in the lead. The way it is currently written is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4200:AA60:C9CD:CFE8:E28E:6A5C (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in her biography

In the article, in the "Early life, education, and family" section, it is mentioned :"Warren and her husband moved to Houston, where he was employed by IBM". However, he did not work at IBM but he was a NASA engineer according to source 5 and also her biography in the French arcicle.

Patrick DVF (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The source says, "Her husband worked for IBM, a subcontractor for NASA," Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Boston Globe

The Boston Globe conclusion is not repetitive. It is important to acknowledge the conclusion. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this update is informative. Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:PunxtawneyPickle and User:Gandydancer that one factual sentence about the Globe story is not excessive in a paragraph rehashing the accusations it disproved. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It belongs as a succinct conclusion (which was removed), as well as an elaboration of their findings (which is still there). So, it should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The current phrasing says, "A comprehensive Boston Globe investigation concluded that her reported ethnicity played no role in her rise in the academic legal profession." I would prefer, "Her reported ethnicity played no role in her rise in the academic legal profession." TFD (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the ancestry/Native American relations section contains the following sentence:

"A comprehensive Boston Globe investigation concluded that her reported ethnicity played no role in her rise in the academic legal profession."

The second paragraph of the ancestry/Native American relations section includes the following sentence:

"A 2018 Boston Globe investigation found 'clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools' and that 'Warren was viewed as a white woman by the hiring committees at every institution that employed her'".

Each of the two sentences cites the same source.

I couldn't care less which one of them stays, but we don't need both. SunCrow (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. We should keep both, and there are several other users who agree with this. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Did Warren take advantage of affirmative action by claiming Native American ancestry? This article cites many such claims, starting with Scott Brown in 2012 (3 different RS for his claim.) Should this article cite an equal number of debunking stories? Or does it make more sense to mention the very comprehensive Boston Globe report in each paragraph where we report the varied attacks different people have made? HouseOfChange (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Warren’s foreign policy record

I propose a section in the main article that addresses Warren’s foreign policy record. My concern is that if a factual, objective contribution is proposed that can be misconstrued for any reason as slander, it won't be permitted. Facts that are not complimentary and are controversial about a major politician are scrutinized to absurdity and censored relentlessly. The term objective, as it relates to journalism, has also been captured by people who call themselves journalists but serve up propaganda. It's completely fair to suggest that what I am doing, asking for more foreign policy content as it concerns Elizabeth Warren, is some insidious form of electioneering.

Can we let the facts, let the actual content of speeches made by politicians that in retrospect are not complimentary, that do not show a good side, but nevertheless are about issues that are critical to the country speak for themselves? Are we permitted to post them here? I'd like to think so.

The opportunity on Wikipedia is to question the very foundation of our electoral system, regardless of the candidates or personalities but that won't happen when we have "fans" of politicians who won't tolerate what they perceive to be criticism of something that can't be criticized.

As for the actual content, Warren's foreign policy record is no further than a mundane web search, moreover her voting record is (we would trust) publicly available. Finally, all anyone has to do to gain some perspective on Elizabeth's Warren foreign policy record is to look for themselves. Unfortunately, they won't find any relevant content on Wikipedia because it is being censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.11.215 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We have information on her foreign policy at Elizabeth Warren#Political positions and at Political positions of Elizabeth Warren. What, if anything, do you think is missing? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to incorporate "the political positions of Elizabeth Warren" here. I discovered the other page incidentally after posting about (what I feel) is a lack of reporting on her militarism and foreign policy record.

• In 2017 Warren voted in favor of raising the defense budget to $700 billion dollars, including an additional $60 billion for military operations in countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The bill increased military spending by $80 billion in total, and even surpassed the $54 billion increase requested by President Trump.

• Warren has aggressively lobbied for General Dynamics and Raytheon. Two defense contractors that have hired former military to use the media to press for more weapons spending and aggression.

• After voting for huge defense increases, Warren bizarrely proposed action to make the "military more environmentally friendly". (More funding? More special funding? The military itself is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions)

• Warren rejected a constituents suggestion that the U.S. force Israel (don't censor please!) to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid. (No one asked Warren if the US should at least ask Israel to cease building illegal settlements, with or without further aid)

• In 2012 Warren stated that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons." A statement which contradicted then defense secretary Panetta.

• Dishonest (too strong?) about Venezuela: "The Venezuelan people deserve free and fair elections, an economy that works, and the ability to live without fear of violence from their own government" The election was free and fair, sanctions have harmed Venezuela, and the US has threatened military intervention repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.11.86 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quote that has been removed over 6 times from the Wikipedia talk section:

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.9.56 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia "censors" is also open for debate - content has been removed for any number of reasons. I don't have access, but it's likely someone who found the content unwelcome simply cut and edited her (Redacted)' from 2014 - which they may still decide to do here. Why someone would remove the content is curious because many voters have no problem with what they feel is Israel's right to defense of itself. Presumably the motivation for removal is based on an idea of whether or not people will feel positively about the candidate. If there is a way to put an end to that kind of editing I'm all for it but it is difficult on Wikipedia because it has been decided (?) a different set of standards apply to prominent politicians i.e biographical. Probably with good intentions but the pages simply won't allow substantial fact based, objective, critical journalism. We already know what the press won't allow!

Oh. This again. I see. This is why WP:SECONDARY sources are better than WP:TERTIARY. The reason I'm going to redact that quote for the seventh time, if you're counting correctly, is that she never said that. You're quoting from a Huffington Post piece, which is misrepresenting what she said according to a Cape Cod Times piece. You're using some Huff Post contributors in a bad game of telephone over the direct quotes from Warren. She never made the statement you're alleging she made. Some bad left-wing commentators are not an improvement on the local reporter.

As for everything else, you haven't provided one single source for any of them, and again I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what happened.and why. We edit Wikipedia with a neutral point of view. You're not presenting a neutral point of view. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.12.231 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

converting "6 to 10 generations" into a percentage.

The current article quotes Elizabeth Warren's DNA testing as indicating an ancestor in a range of "6 to 10 generations ago". Basic math that enables this to be expressed as a percent as 1/2^6 through 1/2^10. This is not original research, but grade school arithmetic. This corresponds to a range of 1/64 through 1/1024 or 1.6 through 0.098 %. For those who might not be good handy with a calculator and need a reference, I suppose they could check this fact-checking resource already cited: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/the-facts-on-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Vikingo999, according to that FactCheck.org link, the "1/1024" figure was only introduced by "a Republican spokesman and an op-ed writer", and by Trump in a tweet. So, why would we change from what the report actually says "six to ten generations ago", to what highly POV actors say? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu, the mathematics of this are absolutely non-partisan. In fact, my suggested addition is a clarification of an otherwise highly misleading statement. The number of ancestors one has x generations back is simply 2^x, and therefore an individual is a priori 1/2^x. In the spirit of remaining neutral, one might surmise a statement like "10 generations" a bit deceiving and seemingly not so distant when in fact the number of ancestors that far back is enormous. Wikipedia is a forum for truth and my motivation is to correct this annoying regurgitation of "x generations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It probably will not surprise you that this has been discussed before (search the archives for "fraction", for example). The current wording is the result of quite a lot of work and you would need consensus to change it. I would not support your proposed change, for reasons that have been discussed at length. -sche (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So you think "six to ten generations" is "highly misleading"? Why? Because it's not a teeny tiny fraction? The facts are not "deceiving". It seems you want to add this for the same reason as Trump and the Republican spokesman/op-ed writer: partisanship. We stick with what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu, I'm sorry you think this is partisan - nothing can be further from the truth, i.e., I am democrat but that's besides the point. How about this: the statement "my grandmother is 2^7 years old". Was that confusing to you at all? How old is my grandmother, is it easy for you to tell how young she is? The mathematical variation here is EXACTLY what we are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or a Whig does not matter. Nor does your logarithmic example that doesn't make any sense. What you are doing, clearly, is trying to make Elizabeth Warren's ancestry look worse for her, in a partisan manner. I believe a percentage is far more confusing than saying how many generations back her Cherokee ancestry appears to have been. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I'm merely stating a mathematical identity, nothing more or less. To state some relationship at 10 generations is so absolutely ridiculous that it takes a bit of thinking to perceive it. I'm sure that with less than 10 generations I'm probably related to George Washington. It's like saying that my cat is 1 femtoparsec away from me right now. Is it so ill to wish to put things in the proper perspective, as so many wonderful wikipedia articles do on dispassionate topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

sce, thank you for the suggestion. Indeed I found the prior discussion of this issue in the archive stimulating and comprehensive. However, we are left with the observation that if there is indeed so much tremendous amount of activity on this point, then the current statement is lacking and therefore I still suggest addition to clarify (particularly since the American population probably isn't boned up on their statistics math) by specifying a fraction. The current statement is an absolute joke and I don't see how our replicating it, simply because it's from a primary source that is clearly partisan in nature, makes that better. Anyone using a common genetic test (Ancestry, 23andMe, etc.) will refer to percentages, not generations, in interpreting their genetics precisely to avoid this issue. Why obfuscate this fact further? (This goes without saying that this precise part of the wiki page - as we all can see - is going to become highly viewed and scrutinized in the near future). We are simply talking about the right units here, not content. (And let's please pre-emptively avoid this business that inheritance isn't completely 50 pct at each stage, it's an extremely good approximation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Vikingo999, this matter is contentious and challenged, so the burden is on you to provide a reliable, independent source that backs up your specific proposed change, and to gain consensus right here on this talk page before implementing your change. Your claim that "the American population probably isn't boned up on their statistics math" is offered without evidence and even if true, is not relevant, because Wikipedia articles are written for a worldwide audience, not an American audience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, of course - but obviously we are talking about an upcoming American primary and/or presidential election so the claim is a bit relevant, I would say. By analogy, would I write an article about Brexit and refer to USD instead of pounds or Euros? Of course not, the units merely reflect the relevant topics/substance.

People look to wikipedia to "fact check" nonsense, so I would argue that it's worth our clarifying numerics when useful. If adherence to consensus wins out over logic, then I'm not going to waste my time discussing it further. I rest assured that others with revive this debate in the future, undoubtedly, as happened here and common sense will probably win out, eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Vikingo999, you're calling the "six to ten generations" comment "nonsense"? There's no "logic" in that belief. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You can do much better with your logic, Vikingo999, because this issue is in no way analogous to the use of clearly proper currencies in an unrelated article. Also unpersuasive are your predictions that this debate will be revived. You do not possess a magic crystal ball. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say. No more and no less. This is not a fact checking website. There are plenty of those and Wikipedia is not among them, because fact checking is original research, and that is not Wikipedia's role. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, I do appreciate your correction. Indeed wikipedia is not a fact-checking site: I had meant to infer that individuals find great value in utilizing facts found on wikipedia as sources in their own fact-checking and that we therefore have a duty to adhere to the truth as stringently as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump's comment in the Native American ancestry section

Trump didn't offer a million bucks if she proved "her Native American ancestry", the quote was “if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.” A very different statement as almost all Americans with ancestors that go back hundreds of years in America have at least a tiny amount of native ancestry, like Warren, but aren't "an Indian". 137.205.1.247 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Financial Crisis and the myth of Elizabeth Warren

This page (and other wikipedia pages of well known US politicians) should try to objectively address how the media has shaped the public's perception of the Senator and Presidential Candidate. Ms Warren is widely perceived to be someone who challenges various corporate systems, yet there is very little evidence that this is the case aside from her speeches and media coverage. Of note is her effort to create the CFPB which is a Federal Agency with no power to address or refer criminal behavior in US finance. Moreover the CFPB functions as a marketing agency for Wall Street products - i.e cautioning the public about how they might be harmed but indemnifying far riskier activity like jumbo mortgages for wealthy consumers.

do you have a link about CFPB functioning as a marketing agency for Wall St? also, its interesting to note that CFPB went after prepaid credit cards like Russell Simmons' but didn't go after Warren's friend Suze Orman, who had a prepaid card that she said would help people's credit (it didn't, making it a huge fraud.) its bad enough that Warren is even friends with someone like Orman, but this level of hypocrisy is pretty amazing. too bad the media has ignored the story, so we can't mention it in the WP article. Mbsyl (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No section for Warren's <blp violation redacted>?

Shouldn't there be a Controversy section, given the large amount of scandals she has had involving statements she has made that range from extremely questionable to outright lies? And why do we not say what percent Native American she is? This information is super hard to find...almost like there's a PR campaign to hide the figure. There is mention the cookbook where she called herself Cherokee, but not the fact that she plagiarized recipes from NYT??? What's going on here??? Can anyone else see how suspicious this is? Mbsyl (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Controversy sections become WP:COATRACKs of NPOV failures.

Is there a reliable external source detailing her “list of lies”, and has someone else discussed this list in a reliable source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article237751529.html how about this SmokeyJoe? its not perfect, but its a good start. Mbsyl (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not a list. Wikipedia must not be the first to compile the criticisms as a list; if it did Wikipedia would become the leading source for it, and Wikipedia must follow, not lead. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• That's an opinion piece, so we could at best portray it as the opinion of the author; we can't cite an opinion piece for statements of fact. And obviously we can't devote a section to an opinion piece, either. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mbsyl, I don't see the need for a "controversy" section and I agree with SmokeyJoe's point. (See also WP:CRIT.) The article contains an entire section on the Native American issue, and its coverage of that issue has been substantially improved over the past year. The fact that Sen. Warren's DNA test found a high likelihood of a Native American ancestor is mentioned; I don't think a specific percentage is needed, and readers can do the math if they want to. You are right that the article doesn't say that she plagiarized the recipes in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook. The controversy surrounding Sen. Warren's claim that she has been a victim of discrimination based on pregnancy is mentioned in the article on her 2020 presidential campaign, and I don't believe it's significant enough to be worth mentioning here. Regarding the fuzzy math surrounding her health care proposal, that has been a major issue in her presidential campaign and ought to be mentioned in the article on that topic. I am not sure what other material you have in mind, but if it is significant and it is reliably sourced, you can certainly add it and see what other editors think. SunCrow (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mbsyl, WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS are discouraged because, as SmokeyJoe says, they become catch-all COATRACKS of POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

In case this hasn't been decided, I STRONGLY object to a "Warren's long list of lies" section. You Russians have to be a good deal more subtle if you want to throw the American election again. I don't like her, BTW, I support Biden. Verdana♥Bold 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions/promotions OFF the talk pages - nobody threw any election, nobody cares who your personal candidate favorite is. The TP's are for the discussion of improving Wiki articles. 50.111.9.62 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Pow Wow recipe

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

---

My edit regarding Warren's plagiarism of a recipe was removed with no explanation given. Anyone want to explain? Mbsyl (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Do you have anyone citing a copyright violation of a recipe? Did the book claim that any of the contributors invented the recipes instead of having them handed down or hearing about them? Think about it. Why would anyone use a term like "plagiarism" related to a recipe? What is your point in including such an accusation? O3000 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it was explained. What source says it was plagiarized? None of the currently-cited sources say that. Your edit was a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

O3000 - please AGF. i don't understand your logic behind thinking that a recipe can't be plagiarized. you are asking the wrong questions. the real question is, does an RS say she did it. I provided a link that says she did it. If you are saying its not RS, that's another issue. Northbysouth - perhaps none of the sources say it because my source was deleted???????? it seems you might be new to this, so i suggest you hang back and learn a little more before getting involved with BLP. you already broke the 2 reverts in 1 day rule, so you should be temporarily suspended soon, unless that rule is selectively enforced. i was suspended the very first time i did it...

https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/19/flashback-elizabeth-warren-plagiarized-cherokee-cookbook-to-prove-ethnicity/ https://nypost.com/2012/05/21/a-recipe-for-trouble/ Mbsyl (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to assume good faith if your edit history doesn't make it look as if you were hired to insert dirt into left-wing BLPs, and if it didn't include things like this[14]. My suggestion, if you want to continue to edit BLPs on Wikipedia, is to carefully read WP:BLP, and hold it's provisions to heart. LK (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Federalist nor an opinion column by a conservative columnist in the NY Post are reliable sources for factual claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof how many large publications must implicate themselves in a libel conspiracy before we think that maybe there's a reason that Warren never refuted these claims? the plagiarism and the source of the plagiarized material are both published. this isn't controversial IMO. i don't like Breitbart, but there's no way an established media company would be dumb enough to say she wrote a "word-for-word" copy of someone's recipe without there being proof of that. how about this...can we say that she has been accused and has not denied it?Mbsyl (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

i just typed out a really long response to you LK but it didn't go through because the other person had posted. is there any way to get back what i said? i can't find it. Mbsyl (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

i am guessing it is gone..that sucks. suffice to say, if you don't want to AGF, then give me a chance to prove you wrong and don't just say you don't really care enough to verify your claims after you have made them. lets talk on skype or something sometime if you really believe i am a paid conservative shill. here's something i think you can use to see i'm not conservative. go to the end of ralph nader's most recent noam chomsky interview and see that he mentions buying 10 books in exchange for him doing 20 minutes of video call for the book group. i can send you a picture of me with 8 of that book. and then i want an apology from you and i want an admin to warn you about AGF like always happens to me any time i don't AGF. i guess because its beyond imagination that someone can be very critical of antifa and not be a russian trollbot. even though the biggest anarchist intellectual in the world (the aforementioned Noam Chomsky) says antifa are the greatest gift the far right could ask for. Mbsyl (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Federalist is plainly a WP:BIASED source, which means their opinion that something related to one of their ideological opponents is a major scandal has less weight, at least in the absence of more mainstream secondary coverage. And the New York Post is both a low-quality source in general, and that cite is an opinion piece, so it certainly doesn't qualify. This is not WP:BLP-quality sourcing for something so negative and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

i agree they aren't good sources, but that doesn't mean you can't trust them about something like this. i think they are reliable in that they won't commit blatant libel with something that is so easy to verify as being false. imagine if they made this up...these are 2 published pieces we are talking about it - the cook book and the original recipe. it would take no effort to prove that they were reckless and libelous in reporting this if this was somehow made up. it is honestly beyond my understanding how you think this could not be real, despite the subpar sources. Mbsyl (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Kinda funny. Both the sources say that she plagiarized the recipe from Pierre Franey. Only the 1979 article by Franey says he would make it at the behest of Henri Soulé, who died 13 years earlier. And we don’t know whether Soulé developed it. That’s how it goes with recipes. I often look up recipes and find many identical versions. (And these weren't identical.) She never claimed to have developed the recipe. Indeed, she said it was handed down. Who knows how she got it or who developed it. Ahh, Breitbart knows.:) Seriously, this is not the kind of stuff we put in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

okay that is fair enough. i hadn't considered that extremely remote possibility that someone else perhaps plagiarized the recipe and gave it to her word for word. Mbsyl (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(restart indent) Ask your mom to show you her old recipe file cards some day. Lots of different handwriting. Asking your hostess or host for recipes was a typical compliment to pre-computer group dinners. Warren wasn't trying to pass herself off as a gourmet cook and recipe inventor; she was just sharing some recipes she had learned to cook as a way to help her cousin expand a cookbook. You have found a couple of partisan oped sources that call Warren's sharing these recipes "plagiarism." Per WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Or ask your mom if she has any old cookbooks compiled and sold by church groups as money making projects. I cherish my vintage Minnesota Ely Women's Cookbook and still use it from time to time. Or, ask Garrison Keillor about Minnesota Lutheran ladies use of Campbell's Soup in the recipes that they passed around and entered in their church cookbook, where a can of soup, especially mushroom, was used as the "universal binder", in Minnesota hot dish recipes. Nobody cared then (or now) where they got those recipes from. Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sources are fairly easy to come by.[15][16][17][18] It is widely accepted she did plagiarize the recipes in that Pow Wow Chow cook book. It comes down to a weight issue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, crappy refs are easy to come by, such as those that you are providing. And please, keep in mind that this is a BLP where we need to be extra careful about what we use, not less. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Politifact, The Hill, and Washington Post are not crappy refs. It is honestly concerning that you would say that. Wow. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not WaPo, it is an opinion column in WaPo. Politifact said nothing about "plagiarism". The Hill article was about an accusation by Trump, Jr. based on something from The Daily Mail. "Wow" did you say? O3000 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion column still a RS obviously, you are right politifact did not say plagiarism it said appear to have been copied lets not be pedantic here, and the hill says appear to be similar, word-for-word, to recipes published by a French cook in The New York Times and other publications around the same time. So yeah, all RS and all pointing to the same thing. Wow indeed. Again as I said before it is not a question if they were plagiarized, it is a question of weight for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you have completely missed the gist of these articles. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree to disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been discussed again and again and fortunately editors have used good judgement and agreed that the so-called recipe plagiarism is not appropriate for this or any other BLP as far as that goes. So it is good to know that the Lutheran Ladies Cook Book recipe submitters, or in this case the Friends of the Museum Cook Book recipe submitters, can sleep without fear of lawsuits...of which I've never heard of despite the thousands of recipes in these sorts of recipe books. Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue, it is a due weight issue. I am not even saying it needs to be in there. But let's not kid ourselves and say it did not happen or get coverage by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't see where anyone said that it did not happen. However, you are not correct to say that the links you gave were RS for this issue. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

When you said so-called recipe plagiarism it seems like you are saying it did not happen. Apologies if I am reading that incorrectly. If you feel they are not RS, would you rather I take it to RSN? PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sources are saying Trump, Jr., The Daily Mail, an opinion column, etc. call it plagiarism. It certainly fits no definition I've ever heard. She may have copied and added (there were five additional ingredients), or her grandma may have copied and altered. But, when did she claim this as her own work? Quite the opposite, she claimed they were passed down. What did she gain from this nefarious incident? And the claim is interesting as it states she copied it from Franey. But, Franey copied it from Soulé. So, is Franey a plagiarist? This is all so trivial. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying it might not be trivial that she plagiarized the recipes. Just that it happened. Also when she submitted them and signed her name to them is when she claimed them as her own work. The gain part is not relevant to what plagiarism is. None of the sources talk about the grandmother so that is not relevant here either. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps none of YOUR sources claim she got them from kin. And no, submitting them in no way is a claim that it his her own work. Cookbooks nearly always include recipes that are not the work of the book's author. I cooked from a NYTimes cookbook this weekend. By and large, the author did not create the recipes, and almost none included any original source. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, add the sources then. More sources the better, otherwise it is just WP:OR. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not adding more sources to something that is trivia. And, I'm not adding the word plagiarism to the article on Julia Child although much of what she put in her cookbooks was from recipes she picked up. O3000 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

putting your name on a book of recipes that you acknowledge are not all your original work, which i believe Childs does, is different from putting your name on a recipe and not saying that it is not your creation. i don't see why the creation of a food recipe is any less plagiarizable than any other creative work, so long as it is not an extremely simple or obvious recipe. if anything, the fact that all she added was her name, including zero creativity, puts this at the peak of plagiarism. songs are passed down by families too. if my dad taught me to play Smells Like Teen Spirit, I get to put my name on it in a compilation book of local songs in my community? if someone in her family did "pass this down" to her, she should have put that person's name on the recipe, but instead she took the credit for herself. Mbsyl (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No recipes are entirely the work of any author. Your claim that there was "zero creativity" ignores the fact that the recipe had nine ingredients as opposed to the supposed plagiarized article that had five. Your claim that she took credit for the recipe herself is (how can I say this politely) imaginative. Your comparison to a Nirvana grunge breakout song that made millions is absurd beyond... O3000 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

the articles i read say it was taken 'word for word' from the original recipe. i didn't see that she had added things. my mistake. i still think i would get in trouble if i turned something like that in with my name on it in grade school, much less as an adult. what about her other recipe, which Daily Mail said "A third recipe for Herbed Tomatoes appears to be lifted directly from a recipe in a 1959 Better Homes and Gardens magazine, down to Mrs Warren's instructions for how to enjoy the dish." Mbsyl (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This obviously doesn't belong in the article. The intent is to try to smear Warren. Warren submitted a recipe that was in her family. That recipe happened to originate elsewhere. This isn't intentional plagiarism, obviously. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you are completely wrong on all accounts. The question is if there is weight for it's inclusion. Not if it happened or if it was plagiarism, those are both established by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What happened? She submitted to a kin's book a recipe that she got from another kin. She made no money from it. She did not submit it for a grade or as a thesis. RS do not establish this as plagiarism. A mountain out of a thought that a mole once had about a hill. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What happened? She submitted text someone else wrote and had it published under her name. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she never claimed she wrote the recipe. And nearly all recipes in nearly all recipe books originated with someone other than the author. O3000 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Great get a RS to say that, your personal original research is not enough. Also she submitted it under her name. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE O3000 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTBLUE PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

what is it about adding food to food that is so difficult that apparently recipes are being plagiarized en masse? what is up with all of these recipes that are being copied "word for word" and only having the author's name changed? in my experience, people like to play around with food recipes and add their own flair. i would really like to see a link explaining this phenomenon of widescale word-for-word plagiarism of entire recipes. i can understand adding a few things and calling it your own, as she did with the Crab Omelet apparently, but a total copy? i guess recipes are cut out of books and pasted into scrapbooks sometimes, and then you forget where they came from and they become yours? i'm trying to understand your thinking here. Mbsyl (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

1.) She never claimed she created the recipe. That is false. Indeed, she claimed the opposite -- that it was passed down to her.

2.) The word "plagiarism" that you keep repeating in violation of WP:BLP is based on Trump Jr. repeating a deprecated source, The Daily Mail and other seriously flawed sources.

3.) No one knows the authorship of the original recipe.

4.) This was a charity book for a museum.

5.) Can you name one injured party or complainant for this Earth-shaking crime documented in reliable sources? O3000 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

it was my understanding that she put her name on the recipes, indicating ownership. my use of the word plagiarism is based on my understanding of plagiarism. plagiarism detection was my specialty in journalism school. i understand what it is. i have gotten at least 1 person fired for it. the original authorship for Warren's recipe is shown clearly in the Daily Mail article...."'Heat about one-half teaspoon butter in the pan. Add about one-third cup of the egg mixture. Let cook until firm and lightly brown on the bottom, stirring quickly with a fork until the omelet starts to set. When set slip a large pancake turner under the omelet starts to set. When set, slip a large pancake turner under the omelet and turn it quickly to the other side. Let cook about five seconds. Remember, you want to produce a flat omelet, not a typical folded omelet. Turn the omelets out flat onto a sheet of was paper. Continue making omelets until all the egg mixture is used,' Mrs Warren wrote.

The only difference in the recipes is that Mr Franey said the egg mixture should be 'lightly browned.'" - Daily Mail. i am still curious to hear how you imagine this all playing out in a way that was not plagiarism. warren's family member tears the recipe out of a publication or copies it down onto their own paper, and then warren changes a couple of words from that and calls it her own? Mbsyl (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note: is there any consensus of reliable references that uses the word "plagiarism" here, and does it involve appropriate weight in a BLP? If not, this discussion needs to be closed as an inappropriate BLP-violating forum. Personal analysis is not admissible. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone I know who cooks shares recipes they've been given or that they found. This woman is running for President! I don't think I've ever seen so many words expressed over such a trivial matter. This thread should be archived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Do they have it published under their name as their recipes and then have RS talk about it? I mean probably not right? Not saying it's not trivial but certainly a different ballpark than you talking with your friends. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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