![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
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]"
I disagree. This is relevant, long standing info. You need a consensus to remove it. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 00:22, 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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This was all political spinbased 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)
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)
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 rights Easeltine ( talk) 15:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
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.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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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
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)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley-Pie ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
@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)
Unless it evolves into something critically important, Warren's affiliation with Albright doesn't really belong in the lead paragraphs because:
--20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 Boston Globe conclusion is not repetitive. It is important to acknowledge the conclusion. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
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!
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
(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)
appear to have been copiedlets 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)
so-called recipe plagiarismit 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)
What happened?She submitted text someone else wrote and had it published under her name. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
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]"
I disagree. This is relevant, long standing info. You need a consensus to remove it. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 00:22, 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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This was all political spinbased 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)
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)
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 rights Easeltine ( talk) 15:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
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.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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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
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)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley-Pie ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
@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)
Unless it evolves into something critically important, Warren's affiliation with Albright doesn't really belong in the lead paragraphs because:
--20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 Boston Globe conclusion is not repetitive. It is important to acknowledge the conclusion. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
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!
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
(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)
appear to have been copiedlets 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)
so-called recipe plagiarismit 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)
What happened?She submitted text someone else wrote and had it published under her name. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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)