Talk:Elizabeth Warren

This recent edit has a misstatement of the source[1] First of all it takes the "South American" thing out of context. The full quote is Bustamante has said that due to limited Native America databases, he compared Warren’s DNA sample to recent samples from indigenous populations in South America rather than Native Americans in the U.S., which does not say they weren't Native American. They were Native South American. Secondly the overall conclusion from the piece you gave was 'Not a yes or no answer' None of the experts and industry executives who spoke to ABC News -- including scientists who have worked with Bustamante -- directly refuted his conclusions. Instead, they contended that the underlying science is apt to be flawed because the Native American gene databases for tribes in the U.S. are so thin –- making conclusions like Bustamante's all but useless from a scientific perspective. "It's hard to say that there is a definitive conclusion, especially if someone has such small amounts of Native American ancestry," said Dr. Nanibaa’ Garrison, a faculty member in the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. "When you're testing someone who might have an ancestor more than four or five generations back, that's when it becomes very hard to piece out that ancestor from all the other ancestors that the person has," Garrison added. "It's not a yes or no answer." Andre 🚐 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The wording implies that Bustamante said the evidence was definitive, when in fact he said it was strongly supportive of her claim. That's why there is a policy against using analysis by journalists as reliable sources. I support removing the text. TFD (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Andrevan, the point is that Native Americans in the United States (specifically Cherokee people and Delaware people) and Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Central America and Indigenous peoples of the Americas#South America are not all interchangeable.

The point is that this, and other sources I can add, clarify that Warren claimed North American Native heritage, and the DNA test did not confirm that. But it's been misrepresented as if it did. That is the only point I want to make with these additions, as it continues to be a misconception about this incident. I can add other sources by geneticists that confirm the 23andMe database he used has no significant DNA from North American Native populations. That's why it was "useless" to confirm her claim; but she tried to do that, and people are still trying to do that. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The DNA test strongly supported Warren's claim of some small Native American admixture which gives evidence, but not conclusively, to her family story. Of course it doesn't prove that she was Cherokee or Delaware and I wasn't saying that all indigenous people are interchangeable, but that is how DNA research is done. They use stand-ins for different groups. But if there was something genetically similar to South American indigenous DNA in Warren's white European heritage, that gives some evidence (not proof) of her story. Beyond that you're veering into original research synthesis. The "useless" quote was taken out of context. It clearly states in the source that none of the experts refuted what Bustamante said, they simply said the science was flawed and inexact. Andre 🚐 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Read the new source I've added. I'm not not trying to be mean here but you don't seem to be understanding how these tests work. Please also check out the Warren syllabus:

• SYLLABUS: ELIZABETH WARREN, CHEROKEE CITIZENSHIP, AND DNA TESTING

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The claim is false, the science is "inexact" and "flawed", and even if (big if) it was evidence of something it is not proof of anything, least of which her claim of Cherokee, Delaware or any other North American Native heritage. It is by the very definition of the term "useless" in proving the claim. --ARose Wolf 19:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The DNA test showed evidence that there was some historical basis for Warren's family story, which is not the same as a credible claim to Cherokee or Delaware tribal heritage. However the original edit I reverted was not as clear as the current article text. Right now it explains this complex issue in what I consider to be a reasonable and nuanced way. Before the implication was that the DNA test was useless - well, it's not useless full stop given the Donald Trump bet phrasing (which of course he did not honor). It might be useless for tribal sovereignty since that isn't how you get sovereignty for a tribe. But it has a usage. It shows that the family story that Warren grew up with wasn't just a fabrication, but based on something historical. Without weighing in on whether it was proper to talk about the way Warren did. Andre 🚐 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

As far as I can understand it, you've addressed my issue. I'm fine with the latest edit as it seems to capture the issues that I was objecting to with the first edit, so I'm going to leave it alone and let it stand for now. Andre 🚐 20:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@Muboshgu: While Warren has more recently walked back her claim to be fully Native American, the category is for those who claim "Native American Descent". This is different. After the many meetings during the campaigns she admitted she's not a citizen of a Nation (which Native Americans already knew), and has no tribal ties (ditto), but she still makes the distant ancestry claims - with the disputed DNA test and her statements about her ancestors. The cat exists precisely for people who aren't citizens, and who have no proven ancestry, but believe they have ancestry "somewhere back there" (in addition to those who make what others believe are simply false claims). She fits the category. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I self reverted. If we're only talking about partial descent, afaik she does still say that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

that's like saying I must be old because I have some gray hair. I was 18. 2600:1004:B14C:5298:34ED:EAA6:7AB7:4743 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Warren was a diversity hire, she is the only Harvard professors till that time whograduated from a public college. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-21/from-oklahoma-to-harvard-elizabeth-warren-trod-a-tricky-path Unselfstudier (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

That article doesn't say anything about her being a diversity hire. If being the first Harvard professor from a public college is an acheivement, it's one the article implies she earned by drawing "notice, and then acclaim" teaching and doing research in other universities. OrangeCroutons (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

the Dr. Phil story, while not currently cited this way, was cited in several articles and biographical profiles of Warren. I'll look. Andre 🚐 05:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

In the area where the article lists children, it says "2, including Amelia". It is know that that Warren's children are Amelia Warren Tyagi and Alexander Warren. It would be useful to change the information to include Alexander Warren, as of current it is difficult to glean his existence from the current article. Thanks for reading, and have a great day! Emrehozchan (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Liu1126 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As a former chair of hiring and advancement at Harvard, I take exception with you ludicrous statement that Ms Warren received no preferential consideration due to her claims of indigenous heritage. You lose credibility when you cover for her. This site, which I have given substantial donations to,absolutely must show the good, bad, and ugly, otherwise you are nothing. 2601:249:8780:6530:4D57:406:3A73:8FBD (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done for now: The article does not state that she received no preferential consideration. It does, however, attribute statements that she received no preferential consideration to other reliable sources. If you are able to provide other sources of equal quality stating the opposite, please do so that they can be included. Please also keep in mind that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers – while we appreciate your financial support of the site, none of us receive any compensation. Tollens (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This line claims that Elizabeth Warren was in the top ten most popular senators according to the poll, but the citation explicitly says that she was the 18th most popular senator in the poll. I suggest changing the text "10" to "20" > Warren was rated among the top 10 most popular senators in an April 2024 poll by Morning Consult. 65.24.241.138 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Where's the description of why she changed her name? 71.183.30.26 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What are you talking about? She took her first husband's name when she married him. Acroterion (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And the article discusses this in the first sentence of Elizabeth Warren#Personal life. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is incorrect information in her bio. She ran against incumbent Scott Brown, not Tim Scott who is from a southern state. The bio incorrectly links to Tim Scott in a couple of places. ~2025-31855-18 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: The article does not state that Warren ran against Tim Scott, and correctly identifies Scott Brown as the incumbent whom she defeated in 2012 to become the first female U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

It identifies Tim Scott as Warren's predecessor as Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Warren's successor in the ceremonial Order of precedence of the United States. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]