Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    The incredible shrinking Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia Cherokee / Native American entry

    The incredible shrinking Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia Cherokee / Native American entry

    I haven’t watched the video embedded at the bottom of this post in a long time.

    I saw it while doing some fix up at, on the Elizabeth Warren Refusal To Meet With Native Americans page.

    Every time I see progressives sing the praises about Warren, I think about how willingly they dismissed and attacked the native people whose identity Warren wrongly assumed for employment purposes (and only for employment purposes).

    History and truth matter, but you will not see much of that anymore at Wikipedia, which has reduced Warren’s Cherokee and Native American problem to just a few sentences, almost all of which are defensive of Warren, buried in the 2012 Election section:

    In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren’s law directory entries from 1986 to 1995 in which she had self-identified as a Native American, and that Harvard Law School had publicized in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.[48] According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[49] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage, and several Cherokee groups came out against her. Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren’s hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.[50][51] [49]

    The problem has become worse since I wrote about the ethnic cleansing of the page.

    The Right Scoop asks the question, in another context, Why should a conservative bother using Wikipedia?  If Elizabeth Warren is the subject, then Wikipedia is not worth bothering.

    I was okay with the restored entry after we raised the issue of the removal of the controversy by a Warren supporter.  That restored entry was hardly comprehensive and was not what I would have written, but at least it was balanced and presented in its own subheading giving due weight to the high profile nature of the controversy which continues to define Warren’s political persona.

    Instead, an edit war resulted in a diminished truth in violation of Wikpedia’s own protocols.  Read through the Talk page, and you will see that attacks on this blog for being “partisan” substituted for factual analysis.

    Naive me.

    Anyway, here’s that video I mentioned at the top:


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    And to think why people wonder when I laugh at them for citing wikipedia as a source. Down the memory hole it goes…

    RickCaird | March 6, 2013 at 7:29 am

    Wikipedia is very useful as long as the topic is not controversial or political. In those cases there is a cadre of editors who insists on projecting their opinion rather than the actual facts.

    As such, there ought to be a warning that this is controversial material and is not to be relied on.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend