Image 01 Image 03

Cherokee controversy restored to Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page

Cherokee controversy restored to Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page

In my post yesterday, Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed, I noted that the lengthy explanation of Elizabeth Warren’s false claim to be Cherokee had been almost entirely purged from Warren’s Wikipedia page.

My post set off some pretty vigorous debate among editors at Wikipedia.

One of the editors, who did not get his way, said my blog post should be ignored because Legal Insurrection “looks like a fairly standard-issue wingnut blog. Why should anyone take it seriously?”

A “standard-issue wingut blog”?  I beg to differ.  According to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign spokeswoman, we are full-fledged “right wing extremists” here for calling her out on the Cherokee issue.  Give us some credit!

Anyway, this whole incident has been an eye-opener as to what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia.  The good news is that the open nature of Wikipedia sorta, kinda worked here.

The attention of this blog caused significant changes to be made, including restoring a subsection devoted to the Cherokee issue (now called “Cherokee self-identification” instead of “Cherokee self-identification controversy”).  Prior versions were much more detailed, and explored Warren’s obfuscations.

Does Wikipedia now give the full story of how Warren used the false claim to be Cherokee in a very strategic manner in her professional career and how she did not come clean during the campaign?  No, but at least it does provide some more detail and links to sources which do tell more of the story.  I’d like to see further improvement of the section.

As of this writing, the section reads:

Cherokee self-identification

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren’s law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her background as Native American ancestry.[52][53][54] Warren said she identified as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background.[55][56] Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration[57] and sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.[52]

The Brown campaign called on Warren to “come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record”. Warren’s campaign responded that she was proud of her heritage and denied any wrongdoing.[58] Warren’s claim angered many Cherokees, who questioned why she did not continue to list herself in directories or reach out to other Indians if she truly wanted to meet people like her.[59] A group of Cherokee women sought to meet with Warren but were unsuccessful; one member of the group from Warren’s home state of Oklahoma said her claim was “shameful and extremely disrespectful not just to Cherokees but to all tribes”.[60] A group of Cherokees started a website saying, “You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!”[61] In response, a Warren spokesperson emailed Politico a recycled statement that had been circulating for days.[61]

Warren said she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed Native American heritage, and stated, “Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect.”[62]

The New England Historical Genealogical Society initially announced in May 2012 that they had found evidence for Warren’s claims, but later recanted, saying, “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”[63]

A Washington Post fact check article reviewed some of the claims and concluded that her claims to be Cherokee were not adequately documented, although noted this did not preclude the possibility of “traces of Native American heritage”.[64]

We will continue to watch the page to make sure there is no further ethnic cleansing.

One of the reasons we are starting (soon!) a website devoted to documenting Elizabeth Warren’s history is that the truth about a powerful politican still matters.  All of it.

Update 1-30-2013 — We created our own, Announcing


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“…Legal Insurrection “looks like a fairly standard-issue wingnut blog. Why should anyone take it seriously?”

Really, do these idiots have ANYTHING besides ad hominem with which to work!?!?

I am constantly amazed at the vacuity of the Collective when you look under the hood.

Professor, you might want to explore the liberal act of gun control narrative cleansing by the Media…

December 24, 2012, A school armed security guard who is both a woman and black stopped a bad with a gun at a high school days after the Newtown shooting.

No one got shot except the bad guy.

Gunman killed at Sullivan Central

oops… the above article was Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:00 am | Updated: 11:36 am, Mon Dec 24, 2012.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own set of facts. Congrats on the ‘win’.

There should be a section in the Warren Wikipedia post:

The Rise of Elizabeth Warren Anti-Cherokee

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 8, 2013 at 9:40 am

The scary thing is that Prof J is careful not to speculate about Warren’s “Cherokee” history. It is 100% fact driven. But that idiot says to disregard it not because any of the facts are in dispute, but because he doesn’t like Prof J’s politics on other issues. Pretty telling.

He also ridiculed a recent post about Agenda 21. I haven’t followed that issue much at all, but since he says paying attention to it is nutty, then I’m pretty sure that means I need to be much more informed about it than I am.

Keep an eye on that entry. It will change again. Wikipedia entries that become the subject of public comment will oscillate with respect to their content.

The nice thing is that there will be a record of the changes, with names ultimately attached.

First — congratulations for getting the Cherokee controversy re-introduced!

I was about to attempt adding Pow Wow Chow Cookbook to Warren’s Wiki Publication section noting her contributions — “Cold Omelets with Crabmeat” and “Crab with Mayonnaise Dressing” — until I recalled that she’d plagiarized the recipes….

    Ragspierre in reply to Bruno Lesky. | January 8, 2013 at 11:05 am

    I am slightly disappointed/surprised that Warren’s business career is not detailed in the Wiki entry.

    You know…the part about her using low-interest loans and flipping distressed housing…???

    Seems germane, since she is such a champion of the “working man” an’ all…

    Just like Teddy Kennedy and John F’ing Kerry…

To our friends and visitors from Wikipedia: The reference to “wing nut” inevitably brings to mind this video:
So, if you, like are going to make that kind of comment, you need to realize that you are acknowledging that you are a “liberal weiner.” You’d best say it with a smile.

It also helps to actually read the content of a document, or a blog, before you characterize it.

Pardon my crudity, but in re: the proposed webpage detailing all of her shameless obfuscations; lay the leather to the old nag!


The Professor correctly points out that Wikipedia has no credibility. None.

Now, we are to celebrate their credibility?

Go ahead, cite Wikipedia. Nobody will ever question your credibility….the Professor fixed them.

On October 7, 1861, the Cherokee Nation concluded a treaty with the Confederacy. Did Senator Warren’s claimed Cherokee ancestors fight with the Confederacy? Many Cherokees did. Did her ancestors own slaves? Many Cherokees did. It is time we learned the full story of Senator Warren’s ancestry.

Dear Professor Jacobson: Can you get me into Cornell Law School as a full blooded Indian? Because now that I know there is no repercussions for lying I am putting it on all new applications for everything.

funny how they use agenda 21 as a litmus test like anyone who mentions it is crazy.
well hers pelosi mentioning it in 1992 and pushing for the US to implement it.