Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Yngve Slyngstad ? Norway ’ s $ 1 trillion sovereign wealth fund will this year step up its assessment of the risks posed by climate change to its investments in power producers   oil firms and basic materials companies   its CEO told Reuters on Tuesday . Separately   the board of the central bank will soon decide whether to blacklist from the fund one or more companies -- either in the oil   steel or concrete sectors -- for producing too much greenhouse gases   the central bank chief told Reuters . The fund   which invests the proceeds from Norway ’ s oil and gas production for future pensions in stocks   bonds and real estate abroad   is one of the world ’ s biggest shareholders   with stakes totaling 1 . 4 percent of all listed companies . In recent years the world ’ s biggest sovereign wealth fund has become a more active shareholder   trying to influence companies ’ attitudes . Among them are the way companies report on climate change   such as their carbon dioxide emissions   or whether companies have scenario analyses of how more heatwaves   droughts or floods might affect their earnings .  Chief Executive Yngve Slyngstad  said the fund would first focus  its  efforts on electricity producers . “ That is ... the sector that we will first go through and think about in this scenario . The two next ones will be ( basic ) materials and oil .” “ By far the largest ... is electricity producers   which of course has been a specific focus for us because of the so - called coal criteria  ” he said referring to the fund not being allowed by parliament to invest in firms that derive more than 30 percent of their revenue from coal . The proposal to potentially exclude one or more companies in the oil   steel or cement sectors over excessive greenhouse gas emissions is under review by the board of the central bank . “ We have received some recommendations on potential exclusions based on that new criteria . The board is working on the issues ... It ’ s not going to be long  ” central bank governor Oeystein Olsen said   declining to give a more precise timeframe . Slideshow ( 2 Images ) The moves come as the fund is proposing to drop oil and gas stocks from its benchmark index   which would reduce over time its stakes in oil and gas companies . That proposal is under consideration at the finance ministry and will be voted by parliament at a later stage . DOUBLED ITS RETURN IN 2017 Also on Tuesday   the fund said it doubled its return on investment in 2017   beating its benchmark   as strong global stock markets boosted the value of the portfolio . It earned a return of 13 . 7 percent in 2017   up from 6 . 9 percent in 2016 . “ The fund ’ s cumulative return since inception has passed 4   000 billion Norwegian crowns ($ 511 billion ). One out of four crowns of return was generated in 2017   after a very strong year for the fund  ” Slyngstad said in a statement . “ Again   our equity investments returned strongest with a return close to 20 percent .” The fund ’ s biggest single company investment at the end of 2017 was in Apple Inc ( AAPL . O )  worth 66 billion crowns   ahead of Nestle ( NESN . S ) at 51 billion and Royal Dutch Shell ( RDSa . L ) at 50 billion . Apple was also the biggest single contributor to the fund ’ s returns in 2017   ahead of Chinese tech group Tencent Holdings ( 0700 . HK ) and Microsoft ( MSFT . O ). The fund ’ s size is equivalent to $ 200   000 for every Norwegian man   woman and child . The government withdrew 61 billion crowns during 2017 to pay for public expenses   compared with 101 billion crowns in 2016 .  Slyngstad  earned an annual salary of 6 . 7 million crowns   or roughly $ 855   000   in 2017   while  his  chief investment officer for equity strategies   Petter Johnsen   earned more   with 7 . 4 million crowns . By comparison   the country ’ s prime minister   Erna Solberg   earned 1 . 6 million crowns .

Ex Output:
Neutral


Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Elizabeth Warren ? Senator Elizabeth Warren (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Donald Trumpâs taunts may turn out to be the least of  Elizabeth Warrenâs  problems if  her  refusal to apologize for  her  false claims of native American heritage angers the Left.
Since the issue was first raised during  her  2012 Senate election campaign   Senator Elizabeth Warren  has acted as if questions about  her  past claims of Native American ancestry were simply racist.  Her  assumption was that the more President Donald Trump called  her  âPocahontas â the better it was for  her   since his insults are a badge of honor on the left. But as  she  prepares for what looks like a run at the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination  it turns out the man in the White House is not the only one who thinks thereâs something fishy about  Warren âs attempt to brush off criticism of  her  fibs.
The fact that  Warren  has been involving  herself  in Native American issues and spoke to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) earlier this month is a tipoff that  she  is thinking about more than what will be a cakewalk to reelection in Massachusetts this fall. The Native American controversy is a potential liability  and not just because Republicans will never let  her  forget about it. In what is likely to be a brutally competitive 2020 Democratic race with a large field of candidates  for the first time   she  can expect some fellow Democrats to chime in about  her  past claims.
That ought to provide plenty of motivation for  Warren  to dispose of the issue  by apologizing for what  she  can call a misunderstanding based on what turned out to be a family myth. Simply saying youâre sorry and leaving it at that goes a long way toward silencing critics in any crisis. But it appears that  Warren  isnât choosing that path. Instead of putting the controversy to rest   Warren  has chosen to embrace it.
If it was only Trump calling  her  âFauxcahontas â  Warren  would probably have let the issue rest and relied on the willingness of the media and other liberals to label the president and anyone else lobbing the epithet at  her  as racists. But once  Warren  heard The Daily Showâs Trevor Noah mock  her  false claims of Cherokee ancestry   she  likely realized that Republicans werenât the only ones ready to finally hold  her  accountable for  her  decades-long pose as a minority. A similarly critical piece about the issue by a Cherokee activist  published on the left-wing ThinkProgress website  also made it clear that the cover  she âs received from fellow liberals on this point is vanishing. More important   she âll likely be facing off against actual minority candidates  such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker  in 2020  at which point the authenticity of  her  background will again become an issue.
 Her  solution was to give a series of interviews and speeches in which  she  admits that  her  past assertions cannot be backed up by the record  but continues to insist that  she  did no wrong  asserting that the notion of  her  Cherokee identity is a long-cherished part of  her  family lore that was handed down to  her . When  she  told the Boston Globe  âI know who I am â it came across as defiant.
The falseness of Warrenâs claims about  her  heritage seems clear by now. Though  Warren  keeps saying that  she  was told  her  motherâs family was part Cherokee and Delaware  there is no proof that this is true. Both genealogists and historians have examined the birth  marriage  and death records of  her  family and found no trace of either tribe. The tribal rolls also show no one in  her  family as having been a registered Cherokee or Delaware. Thatâs a point on which Native American activists have been assertive with respect to other whites seeking to gain either a fake minority status or access to some of the privileges or income available to tribal members in an era when casinos have become a lifeline for their communities.
While  Warren âs puzzling choice to try and have it both ways can be attributed to poor judgment  it also demonstrates the fatal appeal of identity politics on the left.
Faced with these inconvenient facts   Warren  appears to think a strategy in which  she  can be anointed as a sort of honorary Native American might serve to undermine any criticism. In  her  speech to the NCAI   Warren  admitted that  âYou wonât find my family members on any rolls  and Iâm not enrolled in a tribe. And I want to make something clear: I respect that distinction  I understand that tribal membership is determined by tribes  and only by tribes.â
Yet rather than leave it at that   Warren  didnât apologize for past claims of identity and then asserted that  she  had never used those claims to get ahead in  her  career  even though that is disputed.  She  also went on to say that whenever  she  is attacked for  her  past fibs in the future   she  would âuse it to lift up the story of your families and communities.â And indeed   she  has lately signed up to co-sponsor some bills of interest to Native Americans that were promulgated by other senators.
But at the same time   she  hasnât apologized for listing  herself  as a Native American during the course of  her  career as a law professor  which may have given  her  a leg up in the fierce competition for coveted spots on the Harvard Law School faculty. Nor has  she  stopped sticking to  her  unsubstantiated story about  her  fatherâs family opposing  her  parentsâ marriage because of  her  motherâs tribal ties;  she  even retold it during  her  speech to the NCAI.
While  Warren âs puzzling choice to try and have it both ways can be attributed to poor judgment  it also demonstrates the fatal appeal of identity politics on the left. In a political culture that prizes any link to victimization   Warren  still canât resist holding onto  her  past claims  even though a simple apology would seem the smarter move.
 Warren âs supporters point to the fact that Scott Brown   her  2012 Senate opponent  didnât seem to profit from his campaignâs emphasis on the âfake Indianâ issue. But once  she âs competing for liberal votes in Democratic primaries  rather than counting  as  she  did then  on  her  party uniting behind  her  no matter what the opposition says  it will be a very different story.  She âll likely discover that the game  she âs playing is a lot more dangerous on the national stage than it was in Massachusetts.

Ex Output:
Neutral


Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Kim Jong-un ? In August  Trump told the North Koreans what to expect if they made any more threats against the United States: “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” That warning didn’t deter  Kim Jong-un  from conducting a nuclear detonation and additional missile tests  part of  his  quest for the capacity to execute a nuclear strike on the American mainland.
The other day  Sen. Lindsey Graham  R-S.C.  told The Atlantic that “there’s a three in 10 chance we use the military option” — a figure he raises to “70 percent” if there’s another test. Based on their conversations  he says Trump “has 100 percent made up his mind that he’s not gonna let Kim Jong-un” deploy “a missile and a nuclear warhead that can hit America effectively.”
 Kim  has shown no penchant for suicide. The only circumstance in which  he  would be likely to fire nuclear-armed missiles is if North Korea or  his  regime were under surprise attack — leaving  him  nothing to lose. In this case  the remedy wouldn’t cure the disease; it would cause the disease.
The hawks speculate that the North Korean despot would use these devices to intimidate us while forcing South Korea to accept reunification under  his  rule.  He  might figure that an American president would not risk the radioactive obliteration of Los Angeles or Washington to save a distant ally.
But for Kim  the risk of being wrong on that gamble would be annihilation. And if we want to remove any doubts in  his  mind  we could turn over some of our nukes to the South Korean government — which would have every reason to retaliate.

Ex Output:

Positive