Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category Cherokee Nation

An editor added the category Cherokee Nation to the article. I do not support this edit because this is not the appropriate use of that category. The purpose of that category is to mark Cherokee Nation topics. It is not mark every single person that claims Cherokee Nation ancestry. It needs to be removed. You can review the edit here: Inappropriate edit of Elizabeth Warren article by adding inapplicable category. Even real Cherokee Nation members, which Warren is not, do not have that category on their article. See Wilma Mankiller example.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor, Seb az86556, removed the category today. I agree and it should stay off of the article. That is not the appropriate use of that category. It is used for Cherokee Nation businesses, Cherokee Nation government, etc. It is not for individual Cherokees. And it definitely is not for people that claim Cherokee ancestry but cannot prove it. Please leave it out of the article. You can review that edit here.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Warren's claimed Indian Ancestry

The Wikipedia article keeps being edited as if there is conclusive proof that Warren has Indian ancestry. The genealogist, Child, that has been working on the issue for Warren has never stated that premise. All of his comments have been clear in that he believes that she has Indian ancestry, but not enough evidence has been produced so far to back up that definitive claim. Please read today's Boston Hearld, it points out that the original document that had the world Cherokee was a marriage application, not a marriage certificate and it does not indicated how much Indian blood that Warren's great-great-great grandmother, Snow, had. We don't know if Snow was full blooded or if she was one half or if she was one eighth, etc. We just don't know that exactly Snow's percentage was, if anything, and that is exactly what Child has been saying in several articles. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect that doubt. It is not possible, based upon the reliable sources, to state that she has Indian ancestry. I have been attempting to edit the article to reflect the facts only: (1) she has found a document that leans toward proving her ancestry, but does not prove it and (2) the principal investigator has consistently stated that more research needs to be done. I am happy to discuss this facts here on the talk page because there is no need for a edit war.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see those efforts ("as if there is conclusive proof") at all. What really applies here is WP:UNDUE, with a dose of WP:RECENTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I don't think it belongs in the 2012 US Senate run section. A brief one or two sentences can go in a Personal life section, and the rest belongs on the Senate election article. This is a small thing that the Brown campaign is picking up to try to win an election. Once there's evidence that the voters of Massachusetts use this in their decision making, it'll belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't think Warren has ever claimed to have a specific percentage of Native American heritage, so I'm not sure why that's an issue. Additionally, the Warren campaign has not stated that the marriage application is hard and fast "proof" of her genealogy, but rather submitted it for exactly what it is: Evidence that back in 1894, one of Warren's relatives self-identified as Cherokee. She's not applying for tribal benefits here; she simply stated that SHE believes she is part Cherokee, and the marriage application gives some credence to why she believes that. Arbor8 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the "incident" has unfolded over a substantial period of time. 1) Warren has long been touted as squeaky clean; 2) For decades through to the present, Warren has "allowed herself" to be presented as part-Native American; 3). Her critics finally said, Hey this claim is pretty self-serving and (by implication) is there really sufficient basis for Warren to be making such a claim?; 3). Perhaps most critically, Warren's campaign overreacted by issuing a statement that "the candidate never authorized Harvard Law to claim her as a minority hire"; 4). Despite her campaign's implied innocence, it was newly publicized that Warren herself had listed herself as part-Native American in several directories that she must have known would be consulted by Harvard and any prospective employer; 5). Her actual percentage of Native American ancestry (1/32 apparently) is arguably insufficient to have permitted the kinds of claims/assumptions which were long-allowed by Warren; 6). The issue is a loser for both Warren and Brown, but it's more of a hit against Warren's pre-controversy image.
Based on the length of time Warren has been associated with Native Americanism, it seems likely that this revelation will remain a permanent part of this article and unlikely that WP:NOT#NEWS will disqualify it. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe we should also consider the SOURCE of the argument to remove said section & commentary. The fact that this particular incident may be pivotal to Warren's political aspirations, is a very important event in her personal history. By attempting to bury this incident, you are a) ignoring the fact that it may be a career changing incident ; or b) you are biased, and are attempting in a miniscule way to hide this incident.

I have viewed your past edits (* Those bringing up the arguments against the section - and documenting this, evidently, embarrassing incident & personal choices on the part of Warren ) , and I am leaning towards one of my possible scenarios. You know what you've edited, you know what you're doing on Wikipedia. I'm positive we all know what I'm inferring to here, without my need to ... directly point fingers. Kyanwan (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyanwan, please refrain from attacking other editors. We're here to discuss content, not cloak and dagger theories. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I'm directing "attacks" towards you personally as an editor. There is only one thing which I would even consider attacking on Wikipedia, and that is bias. This is a neutral information source, designed to present all information in a neutral fashion. Facts are all we should be concerned with - whether they are beneficial to a subject, or detrimental. Please do accept my apologies for reading your contributions history, as well. I can link you to your history page if you'd like. We do have a knack for verifying sources here, and ensuring they are legitimate & reliable. (Sorry if I come off as pompous, I don't particularly like being called a "theorist".) Kyanwan (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The part of the scandal that is irresistible to reporters is not the heritage but the lies. She claimed Native American heritage, then when asked to give details, dissembled. Asked to confirm the extensive Harvard references to her as an example of diversity, she said she NEVER claimed it. When reporters found HER listings where SHE claimed to be Native American, she said she just wanted to find fellow Native Americans. Thus far, it is a drip, drip, drip of revelation, excuse, debunking. Still waiting for another shoe to drop, namely, if she ever used her Native American non-heritage on a grant or job application, or the strong likelihood that the family lore was wrong. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

She didn't "dissemble," where is the Herald claim that she "dissembled"? She was confronted and asked for details. Most Americans today who know they are of distant Irish or Polish ancestry might not be able to cite chapter and verse which great or great great granparent on demand. She then gave recollections as to it being something her aunt told her, and genealogical records CONFIRMED it.

As far as Harvard, what happened is that HARVARD made a big deal of it to showcase diversity. Lots of people who are African Am3ircan or part African American have their minority status is showcased or trumpeted by their employer without the individual doing the "extensive referencing."-[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.186 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear Warren has "dissembled". In fact it occurs in the second of the two sentences on this subject currently in the article

Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore, and thought it would create opportunities to meet people like her, but eventually she "stopped checking it off".

It's been pointed out that the appendices listing professors who claim minority status don't identify which minority status is claimed, and thus would be utterly useless for bringing her into contact with "Native American... people like her".Andyvphil (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter is more serious than idly chitchatting that one is Polish or Irish (neither of which enjoys tribal sovereignty in the United States). An article in last week's Indian Country magazine included this, "“It is one thing to claim to have had an Indian somewhere in the family tree, but it is much different to then use that unexplored notion to check a box indicating concrete Native ancestry,” says Robert Warrior, director of American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."

Warren didn't just casually mention it once or twice, she repeatedly allowed herself to be identified as American Indian for decades at events and in press releases, and she herself specifically self-identified as Indian in multiple official directories. Is it true that "records CONFIRMED it"? Not quite. Just as Warren listed herself as an American Indian, five generations ago one of her ancestors listed herself as an American Indian. Was the ancestor's self-identification accurate? was she half Indian? one-quarter? a poser wannabe? The ambiguity is a major reason the old hand-written application isn't nearly as useful as, for example, having even a single family member listed with the Dawes Commission (that's the type of listing for which pro-Warren activists are desperately searching). Even with all that being true, the current article wording is fine for now. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems necessary to note that currently there is no evidence that any Warren ancestor ever listed themselves as American Indian (so, apparently, Warren was the first to formally make this claim). The so-called marriage application has now been rejected by genealogical societies, and the supposedly-Cherokee 3x-great grandmother had actually identified herself as "white" in the 1860 Census (per reporting by the UK's Daily Mail). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When I mentioned the lies, not the Ancestry being responsible for this whole mess, I was referring to what started the ball rolling; asked a softball question about Harvard touting here as a minority, she gave an evasive and nonsensical answer to a Boston Herald reporter. That is the "dissembling", and what made the press start to frantically dig.

On a similar note, in a discussion of her Senate Campaign, after a month of wall-to-wall stories, bad answers and attempts to change the subject, this topic has without a doubt met and answered any questions of WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. It is a MAJOR part of the campaign, which only has 6 months left.

The only part that probably IS WP:UNDUE is the fact that she plagiarized the recipes she contributed to "Pow Wow Chow". The copying doesn't seem to resonate, and isn't like academic plagiarism, the local media seem to have picked up more on the fact that she thought expensive exotic recipes stolen from a fashionable French restaurant in New York reflected her family's Native American heritage. More an "out of touch" criticism.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

I removed a bit of content about "a genealogist" (who is not named by the Boston Herald cite) saying that Warren's great-great-great grandfather was a member of a Tennessee militia that rounded up Native Americans during the Trail of Tears. I removed it because it has no bearing on whether Warren is or isn't part Native American nor on whether she benefited from identifying herself as Native American. It's just inflammatory coatracking, and it doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a BLP. Arbor8 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing... Warren's great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford actually existed and really did serve in a militia unit known for rounding up Cherokee and marching them to Oklahoma. [2] You deleted that factual information, but left Warren's bullshit claim that she's part Cherokee on the page [3]. The marriage licence showing a Cherokee ancestor doesn't exist [4] and the "geneologist" mentioned on the page who claims he found the license has Run to the Hills [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Trail of Tears genealogist you claimed "is not named by the Boston Herald cite", this Boston Herald piece [6] says he's "Paul Reed, a Utah genealogist who is a fellow at the American Genealogical Society". Perhaps you were referring to a different Boston Herald cite discussing Warren's lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk • contribs) 14:39, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

relevance of this trail of tears material to this article? 71.252.102.186 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE

I've removed the entire thing. Somebody explain how this, at that length, does not violate WP:DUE and what it has to do with her senate run. This article is, btw, a WP:BLP so... enforcement of that is first priority before anything else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we all agree that the WP:DUE argument is no longer reasonable I would call attention to any one that makes that incorrect argument to the words of Elizabeth Warren herself, as quoted in the Boston Globe today, Friday, June 1, 2012:

The Democratic candidate had conceded for the first time this week that she herself informed Harvard that she was Native American — in contrast to her initial claim that she was unaware the school had listed her as a minority professor until recently. And she is acknowledging that the controversy surrounding her heritage is hurting her campaign. Lee, MJ. Elizabeth Warren ‘concerned’ about campaign, Politico, June 1, 2012. & McGrory, Brian. Warren: ‘I won’t deny who I am’, Boston Globe, June 1, 2012.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the Washington Post, also from today Friday, June 1, 2012: The episode could have been a minor nuisance for the campaign. In a race in which the economy, jobs and debt are the overriding issues, it’s unlikely that whether Warren is Native American would matter all that much to voters. But Warren has turned what could have been a small problem into a major story line by not coming out with everything she knew about the episode from the start. David A. Fahrenthold and Chris Cillizza. For Elizabeth Warren, a bump becomes a hurdle, Washington Post, June 1, 2012.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree that coverage of this has exceeded what is due. (A problem that exists on many politician bio's during election seasons). If I were writing this alone, I'd add under her career section that she was listed in that professional book as a native american. (full thought, no back and forth). Then in a paragraph discussing a variety of campaign topics adressed add a single sentence that this listing became a campaign issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pared it down; the way it was, that issue outweighed the rest of the section. It deserves mention here, but it doesn't merit detailed coverage. To those who disagree: please get really familiar with WP:BLP and in particular the part about how controversial/contentious material may only be restored by consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus to make Warren's claims of Cherokee ancestry only one or two lines long. It IS a major issue in the campaign--right now the only issue--it has been for quite a long time. Once again, there is no consensus to pair down the section.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Better, but in my view still excessive — again, how exactly is this relevant to the campaign, and will remain relevant in the future (that's what we're writing for, see WP:NOTNEWS)? I would like to see this removed entirely and restored in a few months if by then it is still an issue (which I'm guessing it won't be). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to further paring; if there's a more general leaning towards complete removal I won't object. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. That is not acceptable. Nomoskedasticity pared down the subject almost to the bones, but complete removal is not appropriate or acceptable. Her claimed Native American heritage has been focus of most of the discussion so far in the campaign. If it was removed from the article entirely then we are treading on creating a white wash. It has been the topic of discussion in the campaign almost everyday for three weeks and to now just completely remove it without a valid reason is clearly whitewashing. It has been pared down and that takes care of the "due" issue. That is just not acceptable. Wikipedia does not censor.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A career of accomplishment is the focus here, many years of forthright leadership, not the passing fancy of Warren's political enemies. The teapot tempest about her fractional Cherokee heritage is not what the encyclopedia biography is supposed to be about. We will write very briefly about it if it proves to be a key issue in the campaign. If she wins her race it will be vanishingly small. If she does not win then we go with what reliable sources say were the reasons. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions above. But let me make clear that those are your personal conclusions and they are not the conclusions of any type of consensus. For example, you wrote, "If she wins her race it will be vanishingly small." Well, I don't know if we can say that. We don't know what the future will hold. We don't know if she is going to win. We don't know if the issue is going to go away, since it has not gone away yet. We don't know if if the emphasis on it will grow or fade away. We just don't know. So for you to jump to that conclusion is premature. Now, to quote Billy Joel, you may be right, or you may be wrong--we will not know until then. All we do know, right now, is that you personally believe that Warren's unproven Native American ancestry claim is a "teapot tempest" and with that comment I can't, at this time, necessarily disagree with you. But I also can't go so far to say that the whole should be removed because it shouldn't be.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The current, short paragraph is not undue, and is fine with me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Binksternet explains the situation very well and I am in complete agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that the entire quote from Warren is completely necessary. Can we just say that she believed herself to be some part Native American based on the oral history of her family? Arbor8 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very apt summary. I'd go with it. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'Trail of Tears' mention in this article is plainly WP:UNDUE, but even without its inflammatory associations, the factoid is simply unencyclopedic (and barely interesting as a factoid). --→gab 24dot grab← 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the controversy information?

I hear this all over the news about her being a Cherokee. I actually came to this Wikipedia article so I could learn the truth, the accusations, rebuttals, and facts of this major story regarding her campaign. An entire section about this is absolutely warranted (I remember "Maccacca" got a 500 word section all to its own). Lets make Wikipedia neutral and informative and discuss relevant and widely reported items regarding political candidates, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See above Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of action for you in the five references currently in use on that issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It is glossed over, and actually made more favorable than what I'm hearing. The information does not highlight that this is a real and genuine controversy. It deserves its own bold titled section. I just looked at Scott Brown's corresponding article, and he has a big bold sectioned titled "Plagiarism controversy". Can we at least be neutral Wikipedia? I know that its tempting for left-leaning authors to protect left-leaning candidates from controversy, but as an independent, I think BOTH articles warrant the bold section, because the information is current, it is widespread, and major points of the campaigns. Please stop protecting Warren, just give us the facts, its all readers want...not coddling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If "what you're hearing" is what forms your view on this, why don't you just stay with those sources? We're not going to echo them. This is an utterly trivial thing dug up by opponents; if you believe this is as important and relevant as they make it seem, you've been duped. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added the personal pov at the end there, but agree with the end result. This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to look big picture. All the daily updates, that's what newspapers are for. There are 2 boston newspapers. The Globe & Herald. The Herald at least writes about this every day. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place where you get every single detail on every candidates every pro/con come election. That's why you read newspaper articles, listen to debates, there's talk radio, town hall meetings, etc. We can not be, and should never try to become a substitute for all that.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Duped? Is this what you resort to? Personal attacks, in order to defend a political candidate? Why are you here? When does Wikipedia become an advocate and extension of a political campaign for a candidate? You approve of the bold controversy sections on one candidate (Scott Brown), but forbid one here, that has even more widespread coverage than Scott Brown's ever had. Furthermore, this controversy is more current than Scott Browns, yet his article still holds the bold title. I reiterate, this makes Wikipedia look like it coddles candidates, and your ad-hominem attack furthers that notion. When looking at both Scott Brown's article, and this one, the bias is obvious and irrefutable. Take down Scott Browns bold controversy item, if you refuse to put one up for Warren. Political candidate articles are only balanced and neutral when taken together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the Scott Brown-article. Can you point me to a section or part that digs up equally trivial mudslinging against him? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that the editor was indignant about this nugget (which was only removed AFTER the above discussion): Scott Brown#Plagiarism controversy. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA&WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"trivial mudslinging"?!? Warren has been running around for decades lying about being a Cherokee everywhere from professional directories [7], to law school publications [8][9], to cookbooks [10]. Only the kind of idiot who thinks that Ward Churchill is a scholar thinks this was a a misunderstanding or that she didn't benefit from lying about her ancestry... what other Harvard law professor went to a crappy third-tier law school like Rutgers? And where is the mention of any of that on this page? Nowhere, because wikipedia is run by a bunch of commie quislings who censor any criticism of leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

One drop

Ms Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee. The Cherokee follow a one-drop rule for inclusion. Bill John Baker, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, is also 1/32nd Cherokee. - Frankie1969 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite.

• 1. Warren would have been 1/32 American Indian only *if* her 3x-great grandparent had been 100% American Indian.
• 2. Currently, there is absolutely no proof that Warren is even 1% American Indian (or has "one-drop"). If proof is newly discovered, please provide it.
• 3. The Cherokee Nation does NOT follow a so-called "one-drop rule", but rather accepts all descendants of those on the Dawes Roll (see Cherokee.org, the official website of the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Nation#Tribal enrollment).
• 4. Bill John Baker is a descendant of Dawes Roll registrants; Warren is not.

Despite all that, Warren continues to insist that she "is Native American" and literally possesses genetic- (not merely cultural-) Native American heritage. Her own unsupported (unsupportable?) insistence is what keeps the story alive and Warren's credibility in question. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Family lore

On the quote, I basicaly agree although I'd be careful with the wording. The wording as is minus the whole quote - 'Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore.' Works well and is accurate per source.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Getting better... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the source I might swap out the word lore for stories. I know I've seen the word lore in print but I'm not 100% positive if she used it or if it's a subtle dig by others. Not sure either way.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proof

I've restored the heart of the story which is, of course, she hired a researcher to review her ancestry and that society could not find any proof of her claims.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The provided reference[11] doesn't currently state that Warren herself hired the researchers, so that's been removed. Of course, this week it was revealed that there are serious questions about the claimed 1894 marriage application, so the Genealogical Society refuses to cite it. As most know by now, the supposedly-"Cherokee" ancestor is actually listed as "white" in a primary historical document: the 1860 Census. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Warren never said "I am Cherokee and I can prove it" or "I am a specific percentage Cherokee" or "I am of Native American ancestry as defined by the US Federal government" or as recognized by the Cherokee Nation or anything of the kind. She said that she believed she had Native American heritage. That's all. It seems to me that other editors are projecting their own definition of what it means to be Native American onto Warren's prior statements, when there's no evidence at all that they apply. For that reason, none of the dithering about to what degree Warren can or cannot "prove" her heritage belongs in this article. Arbor8 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant. Yesterday the Boston Herald reported that Warren contributed recipes to a 1984 Native American cookbook (the unfortunately-titled "Pow Wow Chow"), signing each of the five recipes as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee". A different Boston Herald article included this:

• "Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics...said that Warren’s claim that she didn’t list herself as a minority to gain an employment advantage is not believable. “This is what happens when candidates don’t tell the truth,” he said. “It’s pretty obvious she was using (the minority listing) for career advancement.”"

--→gab 24dot grab← 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookbook? You know how many people talk about themselves as "Italian" or "Mexican" in cookbooks when they present their pizzas and enchiladas? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is unaware that Warren's participation in the cookbook was actually touted by her as evidence of her American Indian ancestry. Per the Las Vegas Review-Journal (5/15/2012): "The Warren camp now says (and this is not a script from "SNL") that she is 1/32 Cherokee because her cousin was the editor of the book "Pow Wow Chow."" Despite what her sycophants may pretend, no one seriously thinks Warren was merely claiming "honorary ethnicity". --→gab 24dot grab← 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That quote is from an opinion column. Please stop trying to "disprove" something Warren never claimed in the first place. Arbor8 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's silly to pretend this is merely 'an opinion matter'. Per WP:V, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". It is demonstrably verifiable that Warren's choice to sign her writings "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee" constitutes her "claim" or "tout". Here are three headlines discussing the matter; two use 'claim' and one uses 'tout':

• Headline: "Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American heritage in 1984 cookbook called Pow Wow Chow", UK Daily Mail, May 17, 2012, [12]
• Headline: "‘Pow Wow’ factor: Elizabeth Warren touted native roots in ’84 cookbook", Boston Herald, May 17, 2012, [13]
• Headline: "Cookbook claims Elizabeth Warren is of Cherokee descent", Fox Boston, May 17, 2012, [14]

Verifiable non-opinion reporting informs us that Warren explicitly claimed to be (or 'touted herself') as "Cherokee". That's a separate matter from the validity of her claim. I don't believe anyone cites the cookbook to disprove Warren's ancestry; the cookbook has been cited to prove that Warren personally chose to make these claims. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, you are free to think whatever it is you're thinking. It doesn't belong here, though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, article Talk is precisely the place to park verifiable sources which may or may not make it into the article. The editor may wish to review the guideline at WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages, which explicitly states, "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." --→gab 24dot grab← 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your personal interpretations don't belong, and that's all you've been giving us. And don't refer to me in the 3rd person. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've quoted and linked to more than a dozen WP:SOURCEs, so plainly I have been "giving" more than mere "personal interpretation". Regarding your protestations about my use of the third person, see here.

Anyway... Regarding the many references I've cited, my thinking (anyone's thinking!) absolutely does belong here at Talk. Per WP:Etiquette, "Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you". If you believe I have somehow breached a Wikipedia guideline, please elaborate at my User Talk page; thanks! --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, you need to stop this; this is a WP:BLP; I advise to take any of yoru future additions to this talk page first to hear what others have to say about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren said, "I’m proud of my Native American heritage" [15]. It's a huge lie and every reasonable person knows that it rates mention on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.214.76 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It cannot possibly be a lie; read the statement, understand, then see that it cannot be a lie. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I be proud of my imaginary Nobel laureate heritage? A factually-insupportable self-serving statement is ALMOST a lie, and a candidate shouldn't be surprised if critics call it a lie. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could be proud if one of your ancestors had won a Nobel prize. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Alas, I cannot present proof that my ancestor won a Nobel prize (no proof actually exists). So, if I were to run for office and publicly state, "I'm proud of my Nobel laureate heritage", I would fully expect criticism from those whose families include actual Nobel prize winners and criticism from anyone who values honesty. If I'd said similar things for decades, I cannot imagine keeping my unsupportable claims out of campaign coverage. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not an apt metaphor, because there's a finite list of people who are Nobel laureates. More apt would be someone who says "I'm good with my hands because some of my ancestors were carpenters." Well, now, that may be true and it may not be, and really there's no solid way to prove that it isn't. Plus, since so much familial history relies on oral tradition, it could very well be that I always grew up hearing that my ancestors were carpenters and simply assumed that it was true. Now, I understand that there are specific criteria for being classified as Native American in certain circumstances, such as scholarships and tribal memberships. Warren never claimed to belong to an official classification of Native American. Rather, she repeated what had been passed down to her by her family -- that Native American was part of her heritage. Therefore, whether it can be proven is immaterial and doesn't belong in the article. Arbor8 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop pretending that what might be said by a vague someone is exactly the same standard that will be applied (rightly or wrongly) to a candidate for public office; a candidate's unretracted claim is a news event, and may build over weeks and weeks to become a major news event. Consider User:Arbor8 preferred example...
If a candidate had for decades listed himself in published directories of those with carpentry ancestry, and if a candidate had for years allowed his employers to pretend that his "carpentry ancestry" was an example of the employer's diversity in the building trades, and if a candidate had signed his name "Joe Shmoe, Cabinetmaker" in a how-to book, and if a candidate had (almost nonsensically) showed off a callous on his hand "just like carpenters have", and if a candidate had remarked that he's "proud of his carpentry heritage"... well that candidate is going to be asked for details and if details are not forthcoming or credible then that candidate will have himself created a news story where none would otherwise have existed but for his needless braggadocio.

The article should contain all that is notable per verifiable sources (as allowed for biographies of living persons). The editor perhaps hasn't noticed that I haven't added anything to the article about the complete and utter non-existence of any proof that candidate Warren actually has any bonafide American Indian ancestry. However, it seems remarkably biased to try and hide this story, as WP:Candidates and elections#Information to be included plainly states, "For many candidates, a good deal of independent, verifiable information should be available. It can include:...News events from the campaign". Frankly, this has been the biggest news event of the campaign, by far. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article? The article already states her claim of Cherokee ancestry was challenged and that she had no factual basis for it and has since backed away from claiming it. I don't know what "all that is notable" means as notability is a standard for article subjects, as far as I am aware. Jesanj (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the article as it stands does not mention the extent to which Warren asserted her Cherokee background and it certainly does not state she had no factual basis for claiming it. There are just two measly lines devoted to it when her claims of Cherokee heritage existed over decades. Barring serious objections, I plan to create a separate section within the article on this issue. It probably deserves its own article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a serious objection to a separate section on this issue: it would be completely WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers can confidently conclude "family lore" has no factual basis. See my reply below. Why not propose a sentence to include into the article based off of the Atlantic piece? Jesanj (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that readers would be justified in concluding that Warren's claims are unsupportable (not merely unsupported), but the article does not currently make that plain. It hasn't just been "proposed", it's actually been added and reverted a few times already; certain editors prefer to keep both terms ("unsupported" and "unsupportable") out of the article, despite the fact that multiple sources have applied the terms to Warren's claims. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. " Notable, relevant; probably not, if she were still just a Law Professor, but in a Senate Campaign? Arguably THE issue in the campaign, perhaps unfortunately, but nevertheless factual. They have a pact to exclude Super-PAC money that isn't mentioned, and should be. The fact that Warren has relied on platitudes and sound-bite attacks thus far has meant she hasn't had much to fall back on once the scandal hit. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof one way or another as to Warren's Native American heritage. Please read this quote:

Warren’s statements come as genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society were unable to back up earlier accounts that her great great great grandmother is Cherokee. While Warren’s great great great grandmother, named O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on a electronic transcript of a 1894 marriage application as Cherokee, the genealogists are unable to find the actual record or a photograhic copy of it, Society spokesman Tom Champoux said. A copy of the marriage license itself has been located, but unlike the application, it does not list Smith’s ethnicity.

To state in the article that "Genealogist Chris Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society researched Warren's claimed native ancestry, but Child was unable to find support for Warren's claim.[48][49]" suggests that her claim must be false, which is not accurate at all. Then to note that Warren' ancestors are not included in the Dawes Commission rolls without explaining why to not be included would certainly not "prove" a lack of ancestry is misleading to our readers. Keep in mind that this is an article about a living person and if the article is going to suggest that she has lied about her ancestry we need to either cover it in great detail (which would not be appropriate for a WP bio) or only mention that it has been brought up as a campaign issue. I will remove Edmonton's edit which was boldly added while discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Child researched the genealogy, and found a document, which was a family newsletter that REFERRED to what the person called a Marriage Application. This was mis-reported by the Warren campaign, and Warren herself, as having found the Marriage License that proved Cherokee heritage (and where everyone gets 1/32). Child had not said that, and has not actually seen the document referred to (there is only a description of what was on it). The License has been found, and it does NOT list the membership, and the document anecdotally referred to as a marriage application CANNOT be a marriage application, because they did not exist in Oklahoma on the date of the document, 1894. It COULD be an application to get Cherokee lands, but not a Marriage License, and if it is such an application, it was evidently turned DOWN.

Lack of registration proves that she could not claim Native American ancestry insofar as the Federal Government defines it, and that the EEOC claims of Harvard (and according to the EEOC officer at Harvard at the time, Warren) were false. That is not the same as a proof that there is no possibility that SOME Native American biological heritage. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, "lack of registration" is not proof that registration wasn't possible. Frankly, there is no proof that Warren isn't Native American, and she herself continues to insist that she is. There seems no encyclopedic reason to hide her accomplishments on behalf of the entire Native American community (and all "people of color"). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Warren's Claims of a Cherokee Background

There should be a whole section devoted to Warren's claims of a Cherokee background. It has been a major part of her life for decades, and the controversy about its legitimacy has been covered by hundreds of sources. A new piece in The Atlantic does an excellent job of summarizing the issue and would be a great source. See it HERE. MiamiManny (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says it has been a major part of her life for decades? The topic is covered here already. Given WP:SS, one would think such content that exists here would already be at United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, but it's not; there appears to be a much stronger argument to be made for content inclusion there. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Warren herself has prominently included her Cherokee heritage in her biographies over the course of decades. If it wasn't a major part of her life, she certainly wouldn't include it in a brief bio. See another good source HERE. Warren has also discussed her Cherokee background in several interviews and mentioned numerous family discussions about her Cherokee background while growing up. Barring serious objections, I plan to create a separate section within the article on this issue. It probably deserves its own article. MiamiManny (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please quote a RS that shares your conclusion. I see an objection above. While it is possible a sub-article could exist eventually, I do not agree this article is the place to start. It should go to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I gave you sources, so I am not sure what would satisfy you. If Warren saw fit to included her Cherokee heritage in her biography in law school directories, why should it be excluded from her biography here? Also, she identified herself as a Native American long before she ran for Senate, so why would we limit its mention to the United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 article? One's ethnicity is a core part of one's being and Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage and the resulting controversy belong in her biography. Again, could you please give us a compelling reason why this issue and the ensuing controversy should not be more prominently featured in this article? I still haven't seen one. MiamiManny (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a "cross-over" part-time editor of Wikipedia from MA curious how this topic has been handled. I must say reference to this controversy seems poorly addressed. At a bare minimum, the paragraph discussing this should be flipped around. The start of this is Warren's earlier action, the reaction is the Brown campaign questioning this. My version would be:

"Warren during the 1980s and 1990s listed herself as a minority of Native American ancestry in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, a directory of law professors. This and additional references of her being minority or Native American became (has become?) a controversy in her US Senate race, with the Brown campaign and the Native American Rights Fund questioning whether Warren was right to have listed herself in this manner and whether she benefited professionally from this assertion. Warren explained her decision to list herself as Native American by pointing to family lore of a Native American ancestor that would maker her 1/32 Cherokee. [47]. No documentation of this has been found. A thorough examination of the controversy was written in the Atlantic [16] User:dkhydema (talk) Dkhydema (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

HUGE problem with the attribution in this version and the one on the Article page. namely "with the Brown campaign" questioning....etc. The Boston Herald and just about every New England columnist has run with this non-stop for a month. Brown has been asked to comment at every stop, and has pretty much been limited to saying she should just come clean, answer all the questions reporters ask her, and that she is making it worse. A month ago (when he first said it) that would have been the best campaign advice she had ever gotten. The Brown campaign has every interest in staying as far away from this as possible, and has done so. I am sure the Herald is also not happy with your mis-attribution.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that even the "1/32 Cherokee" claim is bogus. The marriage cert doesn't show it and no marriage cert applications were in use there until 1897. Andyvphil (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. It absolutely should be a more expansive section within this article. Barring a compelling reason to the contrary, I plan to create a separate, objective, and well-sourced section on the Native American issue within the article. MiamiManny (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That idea has been addressed; read through this section. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the inclusion of a separate, expanded section hasn't been addressed and as everyone can plainly see, no one has voiced a compelling reason against the creation of an expanded section. Again, can anyone raise a compelling objection? Please speak up now. Thank you. MiamiManny (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Seb_az86556, you are wrong. It is time that we developed some kind of real consensus here. I believe that editors that have watched and waited concerning Warren's controversies being constantly removed and deleted and edited out of existence has gone on long enough. That silliness is going to stop. Warren's claim that she is a Cherokee has made its way into the national dialog, but not in this Wikipedia article. There has been way too much censorship and that censorship is coming to an end. If the Cherokee thing has lasted a day or two or may be a week and then went away then I can understand how the "undue" argument made sense. However, (1) her lack of candor, (2) her wild, borderline racist comment about all Indians have high cheekbones, (3) the allegations about receiving special affirmation action treatment in hiring, (4) the way that Harvard and Penn held her out as a minority hire, (5) the fact that various genealogists have looked into the documentation of her Cherokee claim and they have not been able to find one shread of documentation to back up her Cherokee claims, and (5) now the allegations about plagiarizing recipes from Better Homes & Gardens, etc. Censoring all of these controversies has gotten out of control. All of this information is going to be incorporated into the article because they are notable topics and they are being discussed in the real world (not the Wikipedia world). They will be incorporated in a manner that does not violate BLP, but they will be incorporated. Also, the argument that only censorship of these issues was appropriate because consensus demanded it no longer applies because there are several editors that believe that topics are notable and as longer as they are incorporated in a manner that does not violate BLP. To continue to censor these five topics can no longer be justified with the false argument that consensus demands that we censor. There is no longer any consensus to censor. The censoring must stop.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a "real consensus" already, the general agreement that this stuff is small potatoes and not worthy per WP:UNDUE. If it derails her campaign it is big enough for inclusion, otherwise not. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FALSE. You are claiming that there is a consensus to suppress information relating to Warren's Cherokee background. No such consensus exists. If anything, I see a growing number of editors who desire a more significant section dedicated to the issue. MiamiManny (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no censorship going on here. We're just following wikipedia policy. This is an article about Elizabeth Warren, not about the last month of her 2012 Senate campaign. The issue should be covered in the 2012 campaign section with weight in accordance to its relevance to the entire campaign. This is a major campaign, with dozens of stories, dozens of polls, hundreds of events and campaign speeches. Even though this issue has only appeared in a few reliably-sourced stories (out of hundreds of other stories), it already takes up a third of the 2012 campaign section. If anything, more material should be cut back. johnpseudo 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A short paragraph would probably suffice for this topic: perhaps two to four sentences, and keep the good citations. No doubt this is a made-up controversy, but a reasonably notable one. While we have to be NPOV and not give UNDUE weight, certainly, at this point, a brief mention is enough, but one sentence will probably confuse neither our core readership nor a moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I don't see what's wrong with the current wording, except that I'd like to see another good source or two; BLPs should have lots of cites. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, please stop accusing editors who disagree with you of censorship. It's tiresome. The fact that she never, ever claimed that she was a specific percent Cherokee should put to rest your concerns (1) and (5); (3) and (4) would belong on the articles of the universities, if they belonged anywhere, and honestly if her record as a recipe plagiarizer ends up having an impact on the campaign, I'll eat my hat. Arbor8 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not point out any specific editor. What I stated is a fact. There is censorship going on. This is a fact and it is not a personal attack on anyone. There are several issues that are notable but have been removed from the article under the false claim of consensus where the only consensus that has been reached is that editors who want to remove these items have been consistent and persistent in their refusal to cover these topics and there attempts to ignore the editors who disagree. That is fact. Now, may be not all of the issues need to be covered in the article, but some of these issues do need to be covered because they are now, three weeks later, clearly notable as part of the campaign. Her attempts to have a genealogist find someone, anyone, as a member of the Cherokee Nation and that genealogist could not find anyone is a notable fact that has been removed without valid reason from the article. It is merely a matter of time before it is properly placed back in the article because the so-called consensus no longer exists. There is no absolutely no rule that states that once something is agreed to a certain consensus that is it a consensus forever. And the attempts to repeat it over and over does not make that fact less so. There are many editors that find the information important and notable and the proper mention of her failed attempts to prove her claimed ancestry in article is now appropriate because the topic just has not gone away--regardless of the previous consensus. The attempt to keep the information out is censorship and there is a basic rule to Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not censored. I'm sorry that you find my pointing out the basic rule of Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not censored is tiresome, but whether you find it tiresome is not the standard to judge these things. Also, the repetition of "consensus" when consensus no longer exits is not the standard either. Consensus can and does change and that point has been reached. The Warren controversy has gone national and it has lasted well past three weeks and there are several editors who have reached the independent conclusion that the information is now notable and as long as the information is presented in a NPOV then the information can be returned to the article.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You ignore the big picture. The difference between your suggestions and what we are doing is the difference between an op-ed piece and an encyclopedia. You find a small fact that you know is negative and you want to paint Warren black with it, in a fashion appropriate to certain kinds of journalism, but we are writing an encyclopedic biography. We consistently weigh various facts and decide what is central to Warren's life. All else is thrown out as unimportant or non-critical. This little Cherokee heritage story serves primarily as a political wedge applied by Warren's political enemies, a campaign stratagem certain to be relegated to the dustbin of history if it proves ineffective. There is no need to go into greater detail than we already have. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: What you are saying is simply not true. It is as simple as that. Your response is completely outside of what we are supposed to be discussing here. Your response assumes, incorrectly of course, that you know what thought process that I am going through. It is quite clear that Wikipedia rules state that you are to focus on the article and not on the editor. You have no idea that I, and I quote you directly from above, "you find a small fact that you know is negative and you want to paint Warren black with it". You don't know if that is what I want to do or not. I have not stated that is what I want to do. I have never said that. You are attempting to put those words in my mouth. This attempt by you is clearly a violation of good faith editing on your part. I have stated that I believe, and other editors believe likewise, that there are certain facts about Warren that have come to light recently that are notable and should be worked into the article. I have stated repeatedly that the information MUST be put back in the article in NPOV manner. So your comment is untrue on several levels. It is an attempt to put words and thoughts in my mouth and brain, which is not what we are supposed to be doing here. Also, the whole focus of your comment is incorrect in that we are supposed to be focusing our discussion on how to make the article better. I have pointed out over and over again that there are certain facts about her life that have been brought to light in the last two months that are notable and should be put in the article in NPOV manner and that the manner in which they are covered should not violate BLP. Please stop attempting to put words in my mouth. Also, I would ask both you and Arbor8 to stop focusing on me as an editor and only focus on the facts of Warren's life and how to make the article better. Now, you might think it is unimportant that a fairly famous person has been holding herself out as American Indian (I base that on your statements above) when it is clear that she cannot prove that she is American Indian and you might only see a discussion of it as a mere political strategy of Scott Brown, but Native American folks, especially enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation such as myself, do find her unproven claims to be notable and her claims need to be covered by this article in a proper manner, which includes pointing out how she has held herself out and then she tried to find documents to support it, but was completely unable. Several times, Warren has held herself out as Cherokee. Also, Harvard and Penn held her out as an example of a Native American law professor and she went along with it--even though she had not worked through the due diligence required to determine accurately whether she had native ancestry or not. This fact is notable and it keeps being removed. The fact that she just recently attempted to do the due diligence using a genealogist and that genealogist was completely unable to confirm even one native in her background is notable and important to people in Indian Country--especially to members of the Cherokee Nation. Now these two facts can be supported with reliable sources and they can be incorporated in a neutral POV manner. But whenever there are attempts to develop these notable facts (facts that are important to her life story regardless of the election) these attempts are censored. The censorship of these important, notable facts about her life needs to end.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize you were so involved personally with the issue. Perhaps you are too closely involved to see the big picture. The nontroversy about supposed Cherokee heritage is not a big issue until and unless it affects the campaign. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: Once again, I will have to ask you to stop focusing on me as an editor and focus on the facts of the situation. You are not supposed to comment on me. It is I that sees the big picture. She claims that she has being Native American is been a part of her life since she was born. Those are her words, not mine. She listed herself as Native American on the dean's deskbook and now we learn today from the Boston Globe that she self-reported to Harvard that she was Native American for Harvard's equal opportunity statistics. The article from today's Boston Globe makes is clear that the issue has not ended. It is now clear that the campaign is being effected by it. Also, you argument does not go to the heart of another issue--which you keep ignoring. She says that she is Native American and she has stated it over and over then there needs to be a discussion of it in her personal history section of her biography. Clearly the topic belongs in both the campaign section and it belongs in the early history section of her biography. There needs to be a discussion of how she hired a genealogist it find some evidence of her claim, but that genealogist could not find any information. There also needs to be a discussion clearly about today's development. Your statement that the issue is not important has become almost laughable at this point since Boston Globe reporters are putting a microphone in her face and demanding answers--almost four weeks later.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The attempt to turn this campaign issue into something that must be given a great deal of copy on the Warren page suggests that some editors believe that Wikipedia should become an extension of a candidate's campaign propaganda. Wikipedia does not take sides in political campaigns. All things considered, the article's present copy is adequate and fair. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, this talk page is NOT a place to discuss the motives of editors such as me (and at least six or seven or other editors) and then insult the motives of the those editors, therefore, Gandydancer, please do not comment on our motives. Please focus on the article and the facts of the article. I've stated this basic premise of Wikipedia several times and it is time that it be respected. I am merely stating that she has stated over and over again, in response from questions from the Boston Herald, the Boston Globe, prominent members of the Cherokee Nation, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Association of American Indians, Breitbart, Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, Denver Post, etc. This issue has grown way beyond the day-to-day back and forth of a campaign. Now, on May 25, 2012, not only did the Boston Globe raise the issue that Harvard Law School was listing her as a "woman of color" (WOC) in Federal filings and that the Harvard employee in charge of the Federal filings clearly stated that Harvard would not have listed Warren as a WOC without her self-identification, which directly contradicts her claim that she doesn't know why Harvard would say such a thing. Also, on the same day, May 25, 2012, Breitbart reported that the Harvard Women's Law Journal listed her as a WOC as far back as 1993 (long before she was hired as a tenured law professor at Harvard) and the authors of that law journal article specifically outline in the article their methodology for putting someone in the article and they stated that they used the law dean's deskbook but they did not stop there. They worked hard at reaching out to each and every one of the women to specifically ask them for: (1) their permission to be listed in the Journal article, (2) verify their minority status, and (3) to verify their current position and contact information. Warren was a visiting professor at Harvard at the time so it is clear that the authors had the ability to contact her and probably did. The day that she was announced as a new tenured professor at Harvard the dean of the law school at the time (Robert Clark) tipped off the students who held a vigil in her (Warren's) honor. Also, it is time to stop calling the whole thing a mere campaign strategy of Brown. This topic has grown way beyond that. There are questions about violations of Federal guidelines in relation to Federal affirmation action hiring reporting. It has dominated the campaign for over a month. It is wrong that this article in Wikipedia specifically censors the information that the New England Genealogy Association ("NEGA") was specifically hired by Warren to find Warren's native ancestry in response to these types of questions and NEGA wes unable to find one Indian ancestor. That fact has been put in the article several times and it keeps getting removed with arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny. The consensus argument is no longer valid because there are at least six or seven (I need to read through all of this discussion to get a better idea of the number because it could be higher) who do NOT agree with the so-called (faux) consensus. That word (consensus) has been thrown around over and over again by the loudest editors, but the claim of consensus is NOT based in reality. The argument that this information violates BLP is a false complaint because it is clear that if the information is handled in a NPOV manner, which will require the cooperation of all editors, then BLP will not be violated. Remember she is the one who claimed American Indian ancestry in the law dean's deskbook and she is the one who was approved the listing as a WOC in 1993--two different sources at Harvard confirmed this: (1) the author's of the Harvard Women's Law Journal and (2) the Harvard employee who handled Federal EEOC filings with the Feds, who himself is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. She states over and over again that being native has been part of her life from the beginning and she clearly claimed that ancestry while she was working her way up from a University of Houston law professor through University of Texas, Penn, and then Harvard. This is an important part of her LIFE, not just this campaign. I understand why editors are losing focus because of the campaign, but as the information grows it is clear that the native issue should integrated fully in the article, not just in the campaign section, but it should have its own section as part of her life--and that is based upon her comments, not mine.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton, are you suggesting that everything that is in this morning's Boston Globe should also be in Wikipedia? That would clutter the place up quite a bit, I'd imagine. Arbor8 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbor8, I agree with you that ALL of the different things that have been reported would clutter things up a bit. I think that basic things need to be covered and the fact that a well-known, highly respected group such as the New England Genealogy Association ("NEGA") was specifically hired by Warren to assist her in researching her native ancestry and that well-known, highly respected group could not find one shred of evidence to support her claim needs to be in the article. That fact, more than the Boston Globe information or the Breitbart information, speaks to the heart of the manner more than anything. But this fact keeps getting removed based upon the false arguments of (1) consensus and (2) BLP. Those are false arguments as I pointed out above. Also, the argument that Warren did not claim a certain blood quantum and therefore all information about NEGA's efforts must be removed is a non sequitur. It is not required that Warren claim a certain blood quantum to make NEGA's work notable for purposes of Wikipedia. That is a red herring. The information is important in that a well-known, highly respected organization dedicated to genealogy specifically researched her native background claims, at her request, and they were unable to find any form of support for the claim. It is also not required that the article repeat ad nauseam the whole back and forth of NEGA's work (e.g., first NEGA thinks they find something, newspaper reporters falsely claim 1/32, and then NEGA does more research, based upon research done by others, and then NEGA completely backs off their original claim of 1/32, and then NEGA goes completely quiet out of fear that they have done damage to NEGA's reputation). I think is sufficient that we mention that fact because: (1) it is a fact (2) it can be supported with reliable sources, (3) it is notable, and (4) leaving it out misleads the reader of Wikipedia.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that Edmonton, nor any other editor of Wikipedia feels that daily news should have a place in Wikipedia. I, personally, am annoyed by it. Elizabeth Warren's albatross of longstanding claims of Native American heritage - which were used by her employer for Federal classification reasons - are a legitimate concern for her trustworthiness, and reliability. They have also been turned into a media issue for over a month. That's 1 month of regional news coverage, and national news coverage as well. In today's day and age of rapid media, and short lived news stories which literally get their fifteen minutes ... I do believe that citizens of our future deserve to know of the issue.

I'll dig lightly, as I'm a bit busy at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark - Senator Clark - in 1899 was involved in a bribery scandal. I do not see that he was convicted, however - it was noted for history's sake. Senators and Senatorial candidates - are important to the history of the United States of America. Their history, their accomplishments, and their blemishes - are all relevant to their personal story AND our national story. Because you (by the way, I'm saying this on your opinion that the scandal should be erased from Warren's Wikipedia biography) or someone else disagrees that the pimples should be recorded along with the citations ... does not make it the ethical thing to do. The primary goal of a repository of information is to be just that - a repository of information. This is not a repository of promotional or derogatory information - it's a repository of ALL information. I would say - it is best to keep it that way. If you are unable to neutralize your views for the sake of humanity, perhaps it is time to step aside, grab a cup of coffee (my favorite drink, I'm sure you may have your own.) - and think about it for a bit. Then - contribute neutrally to topics of mankind's interest. Blemishes and all.

Also one last suggestion. If you wish to discuss a topic with people who are presenting thought out arguments, you should give your peers a slight bit more than a oneliner in response to each argument. It gives a disingenuous air to your argument ... to reply in such a curt fashion. Just a thought. Kyanwan (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The amount of coverage in the mainstream media to the topic merits its own article. It should be censored, nor restricted to only a minimal mention with no discussion or mention of public reaction allowed. This indeed looks a lot like censorship. Redhanker (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"The amount of coverage in the mainstream media." WP is not a newspaper. "It should be censored." I love Freudian slips. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Has Warren herself commented publicly on the issue? If so, that should be less controversial to place in the article, as it is her own words about herself. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As the weeks have passed the story has grown rather than faded, and it seems certain that it will continue to grow. The section belongs here at this article rather than at the campaign article because the matter began decades ago and affects Warren's credibility as an intellectual and advocate (not merely her viability for one particular campaign). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nursing...

Warren's nursing history is not needed here. I pray that we will not need a long argument to explain why I have deleted it twice... Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight given to an unimportant factoid. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Even two sentences gives undue weight to this trivia, as would her clothing size, weight, IQ score, grades in law school, children's sports, or such nonsense. Two sentences, well supported by multiple sources, are well enough for the issue of her ancestry. This is Wikipedia, not MassachusettsSenateRace2012Pedia. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

clothing size, weight, IQ score etc would all be relevent if she claimed she had the HIGHEST/LOWEST/FIRST in any of those in state history!

nobody cares whether she breastfed during an exam; the issue is whether she will get a pass on making another ludicrous, preposterous, claim. 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

definitely needs to be in the article. especially after the governor's quote yesterday that the voters of massachusetts are "not interested" in te veracity of her various claims. 66.105.218.13 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note: These two edits are the only edits made by this stable IP address. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

no, i made several other edits as well, but they were vandalized.

oh well. i won't bother again. whitewashpedia clearly in the warren camp. 66.105.218.29 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that editors are referring to this unsupported claim by Elizabeth Warren: “I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey”.[17]. That quotes Warren in context and verbatim, but the self-aggrandizing claim is preposterous, of course. Until a reliable source uses it as an example of Warren's undisciplined speaking or her needless braggadocio or whatever, the claim could only be used in this article as her claim (that is, we editors cannot in the article opine on the nonsense of Warren's claim); based on that limitation (at this time), the factoid seems unusable in the article at this time. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. I question everyone's focus on the word "first", however. Has there ever been a nursing mother ANYWHERE in the history of ANY bar exam?! First, shmirst, if she actually did this, she would have been all over the evening news!

This is one of the few claims that should be easy to disprove. 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Credibility: Elope? Breastfeeding?

Elopegate

Anyone going to add the latest whopper -- that her mother's Indian blood forced her parents to elope? Turns out it was...TO THE FAMILY PARISH!

LOL. keep digging, Liz.

I won't bother adding it since it will surely be vandalized. But someone should at least add her nicknames "Lieawatha" and "Fauxcahontas" here -- even the LIBERAL papers are starting to use them! 66.105.218.30 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the section on ancestry claims should be expanded into a larger section on Warren's overall credibility. News reports yesterday note that Warren has finally, after weeks of denying it, admitting that her employers did learn of her claim to Native American ancestry directly from her. The matter is discussed in this Washington Post article entitled, "For Elizabeth Warren, a bump becomes a hurdle", "Warren has turned what could have been a small problem into a major story line by not coming out with everything she knew about the episode from the start."[18]. A separate Washington Post opinion piece yesterday noted, "Not long ago, we encouraged Elizabeth Warren to stop digging herself into a hole. She’s still digging."[19].

Now, secondly, other reports today reveal Warren claiming to be the “first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey” (news organizations have labeled the claim "practically impossible to prove or disprove"[20]).

Thirdly, despite evidence that they were actually married in a local church, there are new reports that Warren claims her parents were forced to "elope" because of anti-Indian bigotry. Here are two news reports discussing the matter:

• "Warren said. “My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope. ..." Asked what made her mother’s family distinctly Native American, Warren laughed and replied, “It was exactly what I said.’’ Asked again, she responded, “One side was Cherokee and the other side was Delaware.""—Boston Globe, June 1, 2012, [21].
  
• "Warren continued to argue... “My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope,” she told the Globe. ...David Cornsilk, who co-founded “Cherokees Demand Truth From Elizabeth Warren” [said,] “...What matters is that she’s honest. And I’m seeing that she’s not.”—Politico, June 1, 2012, [22]
  

Any thoughts on creating this new section named "Credibility" or similar? --→gab 24dot grab← 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A standalone "Credibility" section would be too hurtful to her and her family[23]. I think all of her life narrative remarks are crucial to who she is and should be interwoven with her standard WP life biography. For example, the elopement could be mentioned following the sentence that described her working class parents, one of whom is apparently of Native American descent on both sides. Similarly, her TARP Oversight section mentions her work on foreclosure mitigation, which could include her own personal investments in buying foreclosed people's homes at deep discounts[24]. Cheeseburrito (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason my comment here was deleted? 66.105.218.38 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Now this: Boston Herald, June 3, 2012[25]:

• "Elizabeth Warren has been tripped up on another chapter from her colorful “family lore.” Last September, [a Warren speech said]: “My grandmother drove a wagon in the [1889] land rush..., and she...lived to be 94 to see her youngest grandchild, that’s me, graduate from a public university...” Turns out Warren’s grandmother, Hannie Reed, died Nov. 13, 1969, [the year before Warren actually] graduated from University of Houston."
  

Compared with her other credibility-straining claims, at least this Warren-"whopper" is a provable lie. It seems as though a "family folklore" section may be indicated. --→gab 24dot grab← 07:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Her national notability is due primarily to the issue of her Native American notification, so it should not be surprising that the significance and coverage of this issue is in fact dominated by this one issue. In such a case, it would be appropriate to create a dedicated for the issue apart from her biography, just as the Watergate controversy could not possibly be covered entirely in the biography of Richard Nixon. Redhanker (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. Her "national notability is due primarily" to her work with the Congressional Oversight Panel to create TARP and her work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Just reminding those who are coming in late to this party. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

100% false. Redhanker has it correct.

Is Binksternet the same user who keeps vandalizing my posts? Could the mods pls take some action here? 66.105.218.35 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

When the article was stubbed in 2004 (more than 8 years ago), Warren's notability was established by her writing.[26] Her notability has grown through her work with the Obama administration and her 2012 candidacy for the Senate. She would never have a Wikipedia article if her notability relied on her claims to Native American ancestry. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That may have been the case in 2004, but i'm willing to bet if you took a nationwide poll in the here and now, waaaaay more people would know her as "the 'Indian' lady" than "the 'TARP' lady". And that goes double (triple?) if we're talking news coverage.

Except in Massachusetts, perhaps. Here the conversation has shifted to her more recent whoppers. So her "notability" here is less for the Indian claims per se than for the overall pattern. 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Flip This House

i find this week's foreclosure bombshell more disturbing than any of the indian or credibility issues. did she REALLY flip 2 houses at the same time she was running around grousing about those who do likewise?!

doesn't this warrant inclusion here? this gets to the very heart of her beliefs/career/activism. 66.105.218.30 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor apparently refers to news such as this:

• UK's Daily Mail, June 2, 2012, [27], "U.S. Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren is back in the headlines after it was revealed that she took part in around 12 lucrative real estate deals using manoeuvres such as ‘flipping’ properties to make profits. Warren has in the past rallied against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures but that didn’t stop her using the controversial tactics to make fortunes."
• Boston Herald, June 3, 2012, [28], "Warren, a relentless foe of predatory banking and unfair foreclosures, faces new criticism over Herald reports that she herself purchased foreclosed-upon homes in the ’90s in her native Oklahoma."

The revelation that Warren simultaneously criticized foreclosure speculation while participating in foreclosure speculation seems newsworthy but perhaps not Wikipedia-worthy. It seems best to see how the matter unfolds. This section (which should have a more encyclopedic title) was moved to its proper chronological place by me. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those cites. One of the main Warren-bashers in the Boston media keeps talking about the "2" deals she participated in. I had no idea it was actually 12! 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad Rewrite?

The Cherokee section was much more informative a week ago. What happened?

While I didn't agree with the pro-Warren "spin" on much of the info, I never advocated deleting it (and certainly didn't do so myself!).

That said, thanks (I guess?) to whoever vandalized things in the right direction for once!  :) 66.105.218.12 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia's TPL guidelines, this section was not originally created at the bottom of the then-existing page[29]. Per WP:Talk page guidelines#fixlayout, I've moved it to its proper place. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "heritage" exactly?

This is truthiness at its worst. Every time someone asks now whether Warren is Native American, she answers with variations on "I have Native American heritage". Seems to me she has gone from claiming to be 1/32 Cherokee to claiming she is 1/32 "Cherokeeish".

Is she trying to get off on a technicality here? 66.105.218.12 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia's TPL guidelines, this section was not originally created at the bottom of the then-existing page[30]. Per WP:Talk page guidelines#fixlayout, I've moved it to its proper place. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cold Open

Who added "Cherokee Indian" to the opening sentence?!

For an issue so hotly contested, it seems pretty ridiculous to slip this in unqualified. At the very least, it needs "self-proclaimed" or "alleged" or something.

Even then, though, I don't think it's appropriate. The matter is far from "settled". 66.105.218.22 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia's TPL guidelines, this section was not originally created at the bottom of the then-existing page[31]. Per WP:Talk page guidelines#fixlayout, I've moved it to its proper place. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Skydiver99 added it. I've removed it. The reference to the Senate campaign is sufficient. Would overload the lede if we tried to explain it there. Andyvphil (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry for posting in random locations, 24dot. I didn't realize the "end of talk page" rule!

What about when subjects are RELATED tho? E.g. "Cherokee Issue #3" (say) on the heels of "Cherokee Issue #1" and "Cherokee Issue #2"?

I've tried (inconsistently, I admit) to group posts by SUBJECT. I'll rein that in, but are there, in fact, exceptions to the "end of page" rule? 66.105.218.38 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They're called subsections; see WP:TALKNEW. Use three equal signs instead of two. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight and Coatrack in Senate run section.

Imagine a page about Elizabeth Warren's senate campaign. Suppose that page was 80% about this so called "Cherokee self-identification controversy". That would clearly violate WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The same principles apply here.

The section is already overly long and undue. To stick it into a section about her US Senate run so that most of the section is about this so called controversy is clearly violating the rules. FurrySings (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, have to disagree. A Senate campaign is what it is. If you use the metric of what issues have captured the interest of the voting public and been subject of actual watercooler debate, the Cherokee issue is it. Coverage has been non-stop, and it is right at a time when people begin to focus on the campaign. I would agree that in an ideal world, there are issues that SHOULD be more important, but as I said, a campaign is what a campaign is. There has also been more coverage of Elizabeth Warren over the last month than over the whole rest of her life. Not relevant if she is still just a Law professor, but coverage is king for elections.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better wp:recentism predicts that this will happen. It might become more balanced as time goes on. Ayzmo (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

With regards political articles of both parties, consensus is that Wikipedia would rather be a POS blog than an encyclopedia. Nothing to do but bow to consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From WP:COATRACK:

An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability.

The kerfuffle over Liawatha-the-blonde-applicant-for-victim-status is so far the main claim to fame of her campaign. If you think other aspects are worth mentioning supply the text and we'll see if it sticks. Nobody even bothered to mention that she won the dem nom for a day or so (until I added it) but the whining on this page about the "undue" size of the controversy section never abated. It needs to be covered in the detail necessary for an otherwise uninformed reader to understand and begin to reasonably evaluate the issue. As reported by the RS. Period. Andyvphil (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on coatrack is one thing. The BLP violation is quite another. Please redact the portion that's an attack on a living person.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is Talk rather than article space. Redaction (that is, strikethrough) seems unnecessary, as reliable sources on this controversy have routinely included commentary poking at Warren's prevarications via sobriquets such as "Liar-watha" and "Liawatha". Nationally syndicated columnist George Will noted, "The kerfuffle that has earned Warren such sobriquets as "Spouting Bull" and "Fauxcahontas" [and "Liar-watha"] ...has discombobulated liberalism's crusade to restore Democratic possession of the Senate seat... Warren's adult dabbling in identity politics is pertinent because it is, in all its silliness, applied liberalism."[32] That same column reported, "Warren's campaign tried...claiming victimhood". --→gab 24dot grab← 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I wil post on BLPN for outside opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Posted Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elizabeth Warren (Talk page comments)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

Sheesh, editor User:Andyvphil was OBVIOUSLY paraphrasing from a source (George Will mentioned sobriquets and the explicit terms "kerfuffle", "blond", and "victimhood"). I both quoted from and linked to the source (again, [here). --→gab 24dot grab← 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Will's piece until seeing your link to it at the noticeboard, but the parallels you note confirm that I've accurately described the issue, hard as that is to tell from the Wikipedia article without a lot of reading between the lines. Andyvphil (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm requesting outside opinion. If people agree with you that it's acceptable, so be it, I'll not bring it up again. On the other hand, if people agree that it's out of line, I'd hope you'd accept that.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• As an administrative note, WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. There is a line between a serious discussion of reliably sourced criticism on one hand, and abusing an article talk page as a platform to vent one's personal animosity and contempt for the article subject on the other. That line is repeatedly being crossed on this talk page. Please consider this a general reminder to review the talkpage guidelines and to use this page for its intended purpose. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I felt that Furry's re-write was appropriate and fair, but it didn't last long. I'd like to see it returned to the article but it does not look very hopeful at this point.

Andyvphil, just because some people consider it to be very clever to call Warren "Liawatha", etc., does not mean that WP editors should should do the same. Also, you state, "Nobody even bothered to mention that she won the dem nom for a day or so (until I added it) but the whining on this page about the "undue" size of the controversy section never abated." She won the nomination in the afternoon and it was added the next morning. Gandydancer (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)