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].

Q: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Gus Kenworthy ? Call it a good news-bad news scenario for  Gus Kenworthy .
 The outspoken freestyle skier  broke  his  thumb in training on Thursday.
 He  tweeted out a picture of  his  X-Ray  along with one of  his  freshly casted hand and included this quip: "It won't stop me from competing (obvi) but it does prevent me from shaking Pence's hand so ... Silver linings! "
 Kenworthy  has previously said  he  would not go to the White House as part of the traditional visit the U.S. Olympic team makes after the Olympics.

A: Positive
****
Q: 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.

A: Neutral
****
Q: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Vladimir Putin ? Russian President Vladimir Putin  participates in a forum of regional and local media organized by the Russian Popular Front in Kaliningrad  Russia. (Alexei Druzhinin/Pool/EPA)
A day after unveiling dramatic new weapons — including a nuclear-powered cruise missile — that sparked talk of a return to Cold War tensions   Russian President Vladimir Putin  suggested that  he 'd reverse the collapse of the Soviet Union if  he  could.
 Putin 's comments on the 1991 collapse of the U.S.S.R. — which bound Russia and many of its neighbors while exerting influence in Eastern Europe and abroad for almost seven decades — came at a question-and-answer forum held Friday in Kaliningrad. Taking questions from the audience  the Russian leader was asked what event in his nation's history he would have liked to change.
 Putin  has been been leader of Russia in some form or another since 2000  making  him  the longest-serving Kremlin leader since Joseph Stalin. This week   Putin  used  his  annual address to announce a series of new weapon technologies that  he  dubbed "invincible " including nuclear-powered missiles that would be difficult for conventional missile defense systems to combat.
 Putin  is easily expected to win next weekend's election  with a poll conducted last week giving  him  almost 70 percent — almost 10 times the share of the vote of  his  nearest rival  a candidate from the Communist Party.
Despite  his  regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union   Putin  told the audience on Friday that  he  wouldn't want to live in any other period than the present. Asked about  his  dreams for the future   the Russian president  said: "I want our country to be successful  powerful  stable  balanced and looking ahead."
 Putin ’s new missiles could probably strike the U.S. The old ones could  too.

A:
Positive
****