Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Intro section

Here's the somewhat more temperate-sounding lead paragraph from about two weeks ago:

Ward Churchill (born 1948) is an activist who claims to be of mixed white and Native American heritage. He is co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM), and a tenured professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder. He is very vocal on Native American issues, the FBI and police states. His published work characterizes the United States as an imperialist power with a history of genocide.

Strikes me we've had a number of fairly POV changes to this. Is there a source on him being a 'radical leftist'? We've lost his claims of being of mixed heritage, his co-chair of AIM, and his 'vocalness' on Indian issues, etc. Are any of those either not factual, or not notable? And of course, we've 'gained' Eichmanns. Alai 06:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read your comments and you state: [He is] "co-chair of AIM." That is not factual. He is NOT co-chair of AIM. That is NOT factual. He is a director of an organization that calls itself Colorado AIM, based in Boulder. It is a small organization that does not follow the leadership of the American Indian Movement. The American Indian Movement is a national organization that is lead by Vernon Bellecourt, Dennis Banks and others. Churchill has nothing to do with them, except for the fact that the members of the national AIM DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CHURCHILL IS AN INDIAN. Also, you state: We have lost "his claims of being of mixed heritage." And then you ask if this is "not factual." There is tons of information in the article itself that clearly calls into question his Indian ancestry. There have been tons of independent studies done on his background and NO ONE has been able to verify his claims of being an Indian. He has stated on various times and various newspaper articles of being either Creek, Cherokee, Keetoowah or Metis. He changes the story depending upon who he is talking to each week. He does NOT appear on the tribal roles of the Creek or the Cherokee or the Keetoowah or the Metis, and I provided tons of information to back up those statements. He has NOT provided any evidence of any of the tribes that he has claimed over the years. There is information in the section of the article that deals with the fabrications and there is a long list of articles listed at the bottom of the article that are different, for the most part, than the articles mentioned in the article that dispute Churchill's claim of being Indian. For example, in Hononlulu recently he claimed that he is a Keetoowah, but in the article I cite an article that quotes the Keetoowah directly and state flatly that he is NOT a member of their tribe. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claim that he is an Indian--other than his word for it. But every tribe that he lists, and it changes all the time, says that he is NOT a member. The burden, at this point, is on you to prove that it should be listed in the introduction. Indian people don't claim him because he is NOT one of us. Since I had to rehash all of this, I find it hard to believe that you have been reading the other comments on this Talk page.-----Keetoowah 22:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of it. It seems fine to me, but the comments about him being "of white and Native American heritage" that's wrong and it will NOT go into the introduction. All of the rest of it can stay. But until he provides definitive evidence that he is a member of a American Indian tribe then the claim that he is American Indian is bogus. The Indian claims are fully covered in the section that deals with his fabrications. If you put the Native American heritage allegation in the introduction then you are choosing to ignore all of most of the comments on this Talk page and you are NOT attempting to reach a consensus. I have problems with the your attempt to call him the co-director of the Colorado AIM. Yes, he is co-director of Colorado AIM, but hardly anyone in Indian Country considers Colorado AIM a serious organization. It is also written so that the reader gets the impression that Churchill is part of the American Indian Movement, which he is not in anyway. It is written like this: "the American Indian Movement" which leads one to the AIM page. Churchill has NOTHING to do with the national AIM organization. So the way that it is written is deceptive. But I can live with it. However, I would prefer that if there is a link to the national AIM then it should be further down the article--specifically where the national AIM criticizes Churchill for being a fake Indian. But the reference to him as a Native American in the introduction is a sham and it won't happen. I have tried to build a consensus with you by talking to you about why the NPOV tag was placed on the article when you didn't even attempt to voice your complaints, but the reference to his claimed Native heritage in the introduction is a bridge too far.-----Keetoowah 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is so obviously NPOV and should be tagged as such. Any reading of this and the previous edits to the page would see the obvious NPOV expressed in this entry.

Above comment was by Calicocat. (Please remember to 'sign' your comments with ~~~~.) Alai 05:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah, these are not my comments, these are an earlier version of the article, changed largely by yourself. There's no burden on me to justify my edits (or in this case, comments and questions) that does not fall equally on you. And please moderate the tone of your statements; you do not have sole editorial control to determine what "won't happen" in this article. Thanks for the clarification on AIM, if that goes back in, clearly the wording and linking will have to be watched. I have not 'claimed he's an Indian'. If you read the earlier version, it does not "claim he's an Indian". It "claims" that he claims to be of "mixed heritage". Unless you're saying he's never made any such claim, you cannot dispute that statement's factuality. If you feel that this needs to be balanced with some statement that the fact being claimed is disputed, or the amount of his Indian blood being unclear, small, etc, that seems fair enough. I shall attempt to craft a suitable wording, which I invite you to improve on. Alai 05:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Alai:It is not up to you to decide to put something the introduction and that it will be the only choice. You are not the watchdog of this article.--Keetoowah 18:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's some kind of factional dispute between Colorado AIM and the national AIM. This page is pretty interesting: http://www.coloradoaim.org/why.html which says among other things:
The Keetoowah Band have their own genealogists. According to Band Chief John Ross, "When Ward applied for enrollment, and it should be pointed out that we invited him to do so, he had to provide documentation just like anybody else. We checked it out. He's who he says he is. End of story." The punchline is that the Keetoowahs formally verified that Churchill is "at least 3/16 Cherokee Indian by blood." This quantum accrues strictly from his lineage through his mother. "I was asked if I wanted to try to document my father's [Creek] side of things," Churchill recalls, "because he was at least as much Indian as Mom. But he's dead now. I never knew him, and I don't know my relatives on that side. So I just let it go. I make the reference in my self-identification out of respect, but I've never claimed the quantum because I don't believe in [quantum]. To me, it's no different whether I'm 3/16 or 3/8. You don't measure identity by either pounds or percentage points unless you're some kind of Nazi."
The fact that you claim that John Ross is the Chief of the Keetoowah Band,
I think you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to being insane. I did not claim Ross is the Chief of the Keetoowah band; I quoted a page I found that cites him as being the Chief.
You are only adding to my claim that you are NOT acting in good faith by attacking me personally. If you knew that Ross used to be Chief and that he was impeached for being a lousy Chief, then you would not have quoted him in that manner--implying that he is the current Chief and implying that his opinion should be respected. But you readily admit that you don't know much about the topic. So your best defenses for your ignorance is to hid anonymously and to attack me personally--neither of which tactic makes your case for you. These tactics only support my argument that your don't know the topic and you are acting in bad faith.----Keetoowah 06:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
which he is NOT,
I had not heard this was under dispute. If the Colorado AIM page claims Ross is the Chief and you say otherwise, obviously there's a disagreement between you and them, and as an outsider I don't see why I should go by your say-so. If you're saying Ross is some kind of imposter, how about some evidence.
indicates how very little you know about the topic
I don't claim to know anything about the topic, aside from having spent a couple minutes Googling around trying to make sense of the bizarre disputes happening on this page. Actually another minute of Googling finds http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/cherokee.html which says Ross "led the tribe for several years in the 1990's", which is consistent with the 1994 quote attributed to him as Chief. http://users.aol.com/donh523/navapage/keetoo.htm also mentions Ross as Chief (presumably correct at the time the page was written). http://www.unitedkeetoowahband.org/ mentions George Wickliffe as the current Chief. So, it sounds to me like you're engaging in typical propaganda tactics. I cite a page quoting Chief John Ross in 1994 and you respond saying Ross isn't Chief. That's like if I quote President Bill Clinton as having said something in 1994 and you respond by saying Clinton isn't President. What matters is that he was President in 1994. As for whether Chief John Ross did in fact make that claim in 1994, well, it sounds like you've got a disagreement with the Colorado AIM about that; only one of you can be right, and I have no reason to think that it's you.
and why you are commenting anonymously. You don't know what you are talking about and you are ashamed to tell people who you are so you can hide your ignorance.--Keetoowah 20:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's a complete non sequitur. Making up a nickname like "Keetoowah" and logging in under it is supposed to tell people who I am?
Once again, you are attacking me personally. Another violation of wiki policy and you aren't adding anything to the discussion about Churchill.--Keetoowah 06:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I now know why you are commenting anonymously why you believe the article is not NPOV. You don't have anything to back up your claims other than made up comments on a partisan Web site. The gentleman that you quote is NOT the Chief of the Keetoowahs. Also, Ross never stated those comments. If he did then why isn't he quoted in the Denver Post article which specifically asked the Keetoowahs whether Churchill is a member and the Keetoowah band specifically stated that Churchill is not a member. I can tell you why because Ross never stated why you quoted him as saying and that's why this lie can only be found on the Colorado AIM Web site. Also, the Keetoowah Band does not have their own genealogists, that is just a damn lie. The band does not money for that type of thing. This is just lies and propaganda and that's why you are posting anonymously.--Keetoowah 18:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That page I linked earlier has Ross criticizing Churchill but not claiming anything about Churchill's ancestry. Ross is trying to distance himself from Churchill and I can understand that. I don't see that Ross has denied making the 1994 quote.
It goes on to say the Bellecourts (of national AIM) have some kind of vendetta against Churchill, that they have an agenda to reserve to themselves the right to decide who is an Indian and who is not, yada yada. Amusingly, it claims that the Bellecourts themselves are only 1/32 Indian. From my outsider point of view it looks like a typical internecine political activist's squabble. Since none of this stuff is mentioned in the wiki article, it's obvious that the existing coverage is blatantly one-sided. And, there's practically no coverage of Churchill's work over the years, except as related to the current attacks against him. Anyway, although I feel entitled to put the NPOV tag back, I'd like to invite one of the non-anon posters to put it back instead.
Once again, you are not acting in good faith. You are posting rumours anonymously and then you are making false allegations against other people like Vernon Bellecourt, who actually founded the American Indian Movement. No wonder you are doing anonymously because you don't want to get sued for defamation. Also, if anyone places the NPOV tag back on this anonymous user's suggestion then the assumption will be that you are also not acting in good faith.-----Keetoowah 20:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Geez, you lunatic, YOU don't get to decide who's acting in good faith and who isn't. I suggested that a logged in user put the tag back, as an appeasement gesture to you who can't stand anonymous tags. But since it apparently really doesn't matter to you since you see it as bad faith either way, I guess I may as well put it back myself.
And once again, you are attacking me personally, which lends credence to my claim that you are not acting in good faith and that you lack substance behind your arguments. It is rather childish really, you don't have anything of substance to add so you hid behind your anonymous postings and attack people that disagree with you personally.--Keetoowah 06:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You guys might wanna check just about everything you have here, starting with the year Churchill was born. Next, you might check the footnotes on that coaim quote you have citing John Ross. The actual Ojibwe News article says nothing of the kind. Check your sources.

--jwpaine

Please explain how this (current text) Ward L. Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American academic and activist of part Native American descent. The author of many books and articles, he is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). He is very outspoken on Native American issues, the FBI and police states, and his published work characterizes the United States as an imperialist power with a history of genocide. In 2005, Churchill became the subject of intense media scrutiny because of an essay he wrote in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Is stronger than this: (last edit by me)? On what basis did you make this reversion? Ward L. Churchill (born October 2, 1947), is one of the leading scholars of American Indian studies in America. Of partial Native American descent himelf, he is a tenured professor and former department chairman of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder, in addition he is co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). Author of many books and articles, he is particularly outspoken on Native American issues as well as the FBI and police states. Some of his published work characterizes the United States as imperialist power with a history of genocide.

In 2001 Churchill wrote an essay in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2005, following a broadcast on Fox News' O'Reilly Report, Churchill became the subject -- some argue target --of intense media scrutiny and an going public debate. This article's focus is primarily on this debate the key issues of center on freedom of speech, academic freedom and Churchill's own ethnicity.

Other controversies section

Regarding, "It was Lord Jeffrey Amherst, a British General, who suggested this plan in 1763, a decade before the United States government existed," I believe this sentence is correct. (Though more specifically, Amherst was the British Commander-in-Chief in North America during the finale of the French and Indian War.)

Also, it may be that a commander at Pittsburg -- I think his name was Eycher -- carried out Amherst's suggestion during Pontiac's War. The author of my source, the book The Conquerers ISBN 1931672075 by Allan W. Eckert, however, has not always proven to be factually unimpeachable in his books on the American frontier. (The controversy regarding whether the Shawnee Chief Bluejacket was of white or native descent being a foremost example. Though some controversy remains, it's pretty clear that Eckert was wrong, and that Blue Jacket was not a white captive raised by the Shawnees. See Ohio History Central and Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society.)

T'would be a shame if Churchill fabricated facts, when an actual event all the while bore him out. (Although not regarding the US government per se. But at least Amherst and Eycher were a part of that fun-to-bash, and often-times richly-deserving-to-be-bashed, group, the Anglo-Americans. ô¿ô Mar. 09, 19:40:20 UTC

Churchill Has Never Claimed to be an American Indian

This header seems dubious. He's claimed to be confirmed 3/16 Indian, and implied he's more likely to be 3/8, right? Alai 08:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's claimed to be 3/16th Keetoowah, but the Keetoowah flatly state that he is not a member of their band. He has claimed to be a member of the Cherokee Nation but he does not appear on the Cherokee Nation roles. He has claimed to be a member of the Creeks, but he does not appear on the Muskogee Creek Nation roles. Guess what? His parents do NOT appear on the roles of any of those roles either. NO ONE is these tribes claim him or his parents as members. So he is a FAKE INDIAN.--Keetoowah 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Keetoowah apparently require 1/4 quantum for membership and 3/16 is not enough. So, he is not a member. He doesn't dispute that. He says he has never claimed 1/4 quantum and says this is because he doesn't believe in quantum. Keetoowah, everything you say seems to be distorted when it's not flat-out false. So I have to read everything between the lines. "[T]he Keetowah flatly state that he is not a member of their band" can simply mean that they confirmed 3/16 but that it wasn't enough for membership. From my point of view I don't care about this. The page is grossly NPOV just for concentrating on this issue so much, while completely ignoring Churchill's 10+ published books which I'd like to hear more about.
Once again, you are commenting completely anonymously. You are accusing me of lies and distortions when the you commit and tons yourself. The Keetoowah Band never, ever confirmed that Churchill is 3/16th or anything else. The fact that you state that is a flat out lie. If you want to hear more about his 10 plus books you are more than welcome to go and read them and then write articles on them, but that doesn't make him an Indian any more than you making up the story that Churchill can confirm that he is 3/16th. If he is then why doesn't he just provide the evidence. Also, your personal attacks on me are unwelcome and indicate once again that you acting in bad faith and that you do not care about the article other than take out facts that you don't like.--Keetoowah 06:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churchill Has Claimed To a Member of Four Different Tribes and All Four Tribes Have Said Wrong!

Churchill has claimed that he is Cherokee and he has claimed to be Metis and he has claimed to be Creek and he has claimed to be a Keetoowah, but he can't prove any of this.--Keetoowah 17:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we start by agreeing what Churchill claims?

A recent edit summary said: Churchill never claimed to of indian descent, heading for entry changed to non-NPOV language

And basically made a wholesale deletion. Oh well. This seems clearly wrong to me; he's been documented as having made such claims. Can we first of all agree an appropriate wording as to what he has claimed about his ancestry? (Let's separate out the question of their accuracy for the sake of present discussion.) One report has him saying his mother is 3/8 Indian, and implying, in much vaguer terms, that his father was 'just as much' or something like that. Has he made other specific (different or otherwise) claims on that? What precisely has he claimed about tribal membership? The editting on this page does not make great what's being changed for reasons of accuracy, what for neutrality, and what from personal dislike, so it'd be useful to have a summary of what's in dispute. Alai 07:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

proposal for reorganizing this article

This article, in its current form, is one of the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It is an appalling mess. To deal with it, I think we need to define a basic structure, like this:

  • Intro
  • Biographical details
  • Work (writing and activism)
  • 9/11 essay controversy
  • Other controversies
  • Links, etc.

Can we at least agree on a neutral introduction? This is my proposal:

Ward L. Churchill (born 2 October 1947) is an American academic and political activist of mixed Native American heritage. He is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). In 2005, Churchill became the subject of intense debate in the United States because of an essay he wrote about September 11, 2001 attacks.

With appropriate links, I think this is starting to head in the right direction. Keetoowah, can you please try to shorten and focus your comments and get behind creating a lucid, fact-based, NPOV entry? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for biased opinions which you seem to be determined to make this article into. There's a lot wanting here in terms of presenting an honest, fact-based article and too much "raw text" still remains as well as one sided links. The idea should be to create an article worthy of an encyclopedia, not some message board ranting and raving.-- Calicocat 19:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should NOT refer to Churchill in the introduction as "of mixed Native American heritage." It has not been shown that Churchill is of mixed Native American heritage. What do you mean by that phrase? Are you stating that Churchill is part one tribe, Cherokee, and part another tribe, Metis? Are you stating that Churchill is part Native American and part white? Let's say that he is 3/16th some kind of tribe (we don't know which one because he changes every day), which isn't clear, and he has not provided the information that is standard in Indian Country to prove such a thing. However, let's assume that he really is 3/16th (which is fantasy) why are you referring to him as "mixed Native American." And you are NOT referring to his white background which I assume means that he is 13/16th white? Why? Are you trying to imply that he is he is mostly Native American? Because he is NOT by any stretch of the imagination. Or am I to infer that he is mostly Native American and he is part of several tribes. My response is that is absolutely incorrect because he is NOT mostly Native American and he has not proven that he is a member of any tribe. Why are you referring to his heritage at all? If you want to talk about racism, what is more racist than pretending to be a member of a different race than the one you are. He is white. Why are you trying to make case that he is "of mixed Native American heritage"?--Keetoowah 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it should just say, "has dedicated much of his life and professional career to Native American Issues," or something along those lines. Calicocat 19:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

  • These long quotes from Ken Lawrence, AIM, the interview with Goodman have got to go. "An encyclopedia article is a work of synthesis, not a regurgation of raw source material" (User:Adam Carr). A couple of short quotes are ok, in support of a given assertion.
  • The issue of ethnicity is, IMO, a canard. We should simply report that it is a controversy and report what he claims (ie, "3/16"). Then we direct readers to external sites.
I covered this topic in a much earlier discussion on this Talk page, but since you obviously chosen not to read the comments above then I will go over it again. You make a blanket statement that someone pretending to be a different race than they are is a "canard." Nice word. But you don't give any justification for your conclusion that it is a "canard." Other than expressing your personal opinion. What is that personal opinion based upon? Do you have personal experience in Indian Country? Are you a Native American yourself? Why do you feel it appropriate to just blow off the valid concerns of 90% of Indian Country that does NOT like white people coming into Indian Country and stealing jobs from qualified (or more qualified) Natives by people like Churchill. Churchill is stealing jobs, money, attention from actual Indians and it is a damn shame that non-Indians who don't work or live in Indian Country just stand back with a haughty attitude like yours and say, "Well, I think the ethnicity issue is a canard. Look at me. It does NOT affect me, therefore, I will just ignore and belittle the complaints of people in Indian Country because it will make me look above the fray and somehow objective." WRONG! It is just the opposite. In my mind it calls into question your motives because in Indian Country this is a damn big deal and yet you are willing to just shrug your shoulders and ignore the complaints of about one million people (the approximate number of people that live in Indian Country). I know damn well that if someone was pretending (i.e., commiting a fraud) to be something that they were NOT to steal jobs, money, speaking engagements from YOU then you would NOT just stand back with a uncaring attitude and shrug your shoulders and ignore it. And if this article is changed and there is no fair mention of the real, live controversy in Indian Country about Churchill's fake Indian stories then you are turning Wikepedia into a joke. It is as if, as I have stated before, someone runs around Nazi Germany, who is a WASP, claiming to be a Jew and commenting on how difficult it is to be persecuted as a Jew in Hitler's Nazi Germany. And, as I stated before, do NOT even give me a lecture about using the Nazi and Hitler analogies because Churchill uses these types of Nazi analogies all the time. What brought him to national attention and what does he call anyone that dares question his background as an Indian? Nazi. Therefore don't waste time trying to shoot down that analogy because Churchill has already gone down that road. It is difficult enough for many, many people in Indian Country to find good paying jobs. We don't need a fake Indians coming into Indian Country and stealing jobs from the actual Indians. And do NOT even give the argument that: "Ok, may be it is a valid issue. But it is not as important as. . .blah, blah, blah." WRONG! The guy has made a whole career out of pretending to be an Indian and all of his writings refer to Indian Country, etc. The fact that he CANNOT prove that he is a member of any tribe goes to the heart of who he claims that he is. He is claiming to be a defender of "his People." If he isn't an Indian, which he isn't, then he is commiting a huge fraud. Yes, I know you believe that the "ethnicity issue is canard." What horse crap. It speaks to who he claims to be. I have given many reasons why is it not a canard and you have given absolutely zero reasons other than your broad, sweeping conclusion that it is a canard. You state it--the word "canard" that is--so easily but you provide absolutely no reasoning or defenses for your vast, sweeping conclusion.--Keetoowah 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churchill is under fierce attack in the US at the moment. Wikipedia should not participate in this battle but simply describe it. Your comments please -- Viajero 13:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What can be included

A few weeks ago, Keetoowah wrote:

I added into the article the written opinions of people that have researched Churchill's Indian ancestry and 99% of these Indian folks point out that Churchill has not provided the basic information required to prove that he is an Indian. I put it up last night and it much of it was taken down early this morning. It was information where I provided sources for the comments.

I see no reason for written opinions of people (along with source for the comments) should be erased from the article. There seems to be a question about WC's claim to authentic Native American ancestry. Let's address this by saying:

  • Churchill claims to be a member of X, Y, Z, etc. tribes (and spell out precisely which tribes); and,
  • Others question Churchill's claims, saying, blah, blah, blah (i.e., insert the research by Indians pointing out that Churchill hasn't proven his Indian ancestry.

I received a private e-mail complaining about K's tone, but in view of the reception he originally got here, I'd say he's showing remarkable restraint. Let's stick to addressing the issues. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Stylistic Concerns

Paraphrasing

Full-texts belong at Wikisource. Paraphrase when you can, make direct quotes (with ellipses, if called for) when you can't. This article is getting far too long.

Style

You may be right, but nobody's ever going to be convinced if your attempt to prove it is entirely unreadable. Grammar, spelling and overall readability are important. The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can instantly correct your own mistakes and deficiencies. --69.245.192.52 19:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) That was me; I thought I was logged in. --Jpbrenna 19:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I did a little googling, and found this gem of an article [1] in an online newspaper. I should recruit the writer to join our project, it's so evenhanded. Okay, now that I've glanced at the talk and skimmed one online source - I guess I should actually read our article! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

What's all the fuss?

Look, I'm Jewish and anti-Communist, but I also believe in free speech. If this guy wants to make a fool of himself with wild remarks, why should we Wikipedians get in an uproar?

Democracy now describes him as:

Ward Churchill, a professor in the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Churchill is a well-known activist with the American Indian Movement and author of a number of books on genocide against Native Americans and the US government’s COINTELPRO program. [2]

Hmm. He published an article saying essentially the US had it coming to them, even if the attacks weren't justified in themselves (which seems self-contradictory in left-Hegelian way typical of campus Marxists). He asserts that by America's own standards as applied to bombings in Iraq, the attacks are justified: civilian buildings containing military targets are fair game. But it's not clear what sort of parity he's really talking about.

He claims that the US has caused so many deaths that it opens itself to retribution, or something like that. Anyway, he resigned to "clear the decks for action" so no one will accuse him of neglecting his job while defending his remarks. Rather noble, in a way.

... and the little Eichmanns thing was a referenc to Hannah Arendt's comment on Eichmann as the epitome of "banal evil", someone who while not positively malicious seeks self-advancement as a cog within a malicious machine. So I guess he was saying that average or upper-class Americans are evil in the same way as Eichmann for profiting from our "evil system".

Okay, you either agree with him or not. Why should the article be so hard to write? Because of the anti-Semitic verbiage? Ho, hum. Everyone picks on the Jews, what's so special about this guy? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone picks on the Jews, what's so special about this guy?
Well Ed, people usually don't ask Jews first to prove their ethnic origins. I mean, you have written about Jewish subjects; has anyone ever cast doubts on whether you are a "real" Jew? Should it matter? -- Viajero 20:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since you have made the comparison between people in Indian Country questioning Churchill's Indian background and being a "real" Jew. First of all, being a Jew or not being a Jew is matter or choice. It is a RELIGION. Being an Indian or not being an Indian is a ludicrous question because you are either born an Indian or you are not born an Indian. It is more analoguous to being pregnant or not being pregnant. Either you are pregnant or not, you can't be a little bit pregnant. The comparison to being a Jew is ludicrous. An Indian is a person of a certain RACE. You are born that way. Now, you may have Jewish parents and they raise you as a Jew, so in a way you are born a Jew. But you can also choose to convert to Judaism. You can't convert to being an Indian. I find it amusing that a couple of non-Indians are talking about whether someone is faking a certain race whether it should matter or not. I think that it proves my point. To people in Indian Country, when some white guy comes in and pretend to be of another RACE, and he steals jobs and calls himself the voice of all Indians, yes it IS a damn important issue. Viajero you keep asking the question whether is should matter--as if the opinions of real Indians do not matter. You have not provided explanation on why is it should not matter. All you have done is state flatly that it is a "canard." You have reached a conclusion but you have not given any reason for that conclusion.----Keetoowah 23:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For many jews, being Jew is certainly not ONLY about religion. And one does not necessarily become a jew because he converts. This might be your opinion, but it is not necessarily everyone opinion. Anthere 06:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Look: First of all this discussion about the finer points of when someone is considered a Jew by other Jewish people is way off the point that I keep making that Churchill claims to be an Indian but he has not provided proof of it. It is way off the point that in Indian Country when someone lies about what RACE they are then people in Indian Country find it offensive and unacceptable. Dear Anthere: I don't claim to know all of the finer points of Jewish heritage and I never have. And that is what this discussion is about. I am not Jewish so I throwing my hands up and stating that I don't know, but what I'm not doing is what Churchill does and PRETEND that I am Jewish. And yes I was speaking for myself up there. Yes, there are Jewish people that do not consider Jewish convert real Jews. I think that cuts into the argument that Viajero was attempting to make. Anyway, one is born an Indian or they aren't, they can't "convert" to being an Indian. However, Ward Churchill has attempted to "convert" to Indian-ness!--Keetoowah 14:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like his critics are stooping pretty low to discredit him. But I don't think it has anything to do with the validity of his September 11 remarks, or whether he had a legal or academic right to make them. Let's separate the issues: (1) He shot off his mouth (or spilled ink?) about 9/11, and Fox pundits went after him. (2) Some people question his Native American "Indian" credentials.
I'm not sure who made this "stooping pretty low" comment. There is no date stamp.----Keetoowah 23:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That was Ed Poor, who did sign (see below), but there was a paragraph break. (Never quite sure what to do about those myself, to be fair. To sign each para, to sign at the end...) Anyhoo, history confirms this. Alai 04:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Once again, how is it "stooping pretty low" to ask if a man who claims to speak for all Native Americans to prove that he is member of any tribe at all. Once again, I am hearing a conclusion but I'm not hearing any reasoning behind the conclusion. Once again, what I am hearing is that another non-Indian is simply ignoring the opinion of most Indians in Indian Country and just simply, arrogantly blowing off our reasonable questions about his claimed heritage. I have heard that it is: (1) a canard and (2) stooping low, but I have NOT heard any reasoning for this broad-based conclusion.----Keetoowah 23:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about whether they're being fair to him, but on whether the article describes all POVs about him fairly. (You might want to take a peek at Ann Coulter and my lengthy comments at talk:Ann Coulter for counterpoint. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the article looks much improved to me (but I'm no expert on the topic). Can we agree some wording on this for the intro section? "Claims mixed white and NA heritage" seems good to me, but has been deleted or reverted multiply; qualifying this with how controversial it was met with the same fate. "Makes controversial claims about his heritage" would be a possibility, but might be over-cautious. Broadly speaking isn't it at least agreed he is at least half-white (at least 3/4, by some accounts); has some NA ancestry; has vague relationships with various tribes; is a full member of no tribe? Though as Ed says, agreed facts are less important than agreed reporting of different views. At any rate, if there are no immediate, drastic changes from this version I'd be happy to drop the disputed tag. Alai 04:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I understand Churchill's use of the term "little Eichmann," both in his original article and his later explanations, it was intended as a specific reference to Arendt's "banality of evil." This should be included in a discussion of this term. Whether or not one agrees with Churchill, one should recognize that he was not accusing anyone of the World Trade Center of committing crimes as heinous as Eichmann himself, but asserting that as Eichmann knowingly facilitated Nazi extermination policies, technocrats at the World Trade Center knowingly facilitated U.S. policies which, in Churchill's view, made the World Trade Center a terrorist target. As to defining Native Americans by bloodline, this is not much different from the Nazis, who defined Jews by bloodline. I don't think it is wise for Wikipedia to decide "Who is a Jew" or "Who is a Native American."Sentience 21:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ken Lawrence text moved here

I have moved the text here: /Ken Lawrence. If it is to be used, it needs be summarized. Viajero 21:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AIM text

I have moved the AIM text here: /AIM text. It is too long and rambling to be included as such, but there may be useful information which can be summarized. -- Viajero 21:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viajero that all those texts are far too long. Keep in mind that this article should be a summary of this guy life, and should be meaningful for anyone to just understand who is is, what is principles are, what he did etc... Think of him dying tomorrow... What would be MOST important to remember and qualify him ?

Generally, we can notice that in most cases there is an ongoing controversy, an article on a topic grows till it becomes enormous and completely non-balanced. Then it takes months for the article to go back with a balance report of the events.

I suspect that when an article gets fat with ongoing even, then the whole mass of comments added on the spot should belong to a wikinews article. And only after the dust settles should the wikipedia article be cleaned up, and the information SUMMARIZED to become part of the encyclopedic article. Remember, encyclopedia does not necessarily mean ALL information about the guy should be there, nor only one majority point of view. It seems to me most ongoing articles on wikipedia are just suffering this. Additions of rants.

Has there been discussions yet on how to link wikinews articles to encyclopedic ones ?

Anthere 06:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minimalism in action?

Ward L. Churchill (born October 2, 1947, Peoria, Illinois)is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM).

Some articles have over-flabby lead sections, but this one is just anorexic. The first paragraph -- or three! -- clearly needs to allude to the substantiative issues addressed in the articles, especially: his ancestry, and the disputes thereof; and his writings and statements about 9/11. Those are, after all, why he has an article here -- not for the reasons in the heavily redacted current text. We need to establish some consensus as to structure here, not just indulge ourselves with large unilateral edits -- especially ones that duplicate large amounts of text for no evident reason. Alai 08:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however the table of contents lays it all out, so in this case a short lead might be best since there's so much POV here, but it's heading in the right direction...

In the talk pages and in some early versions there was better NPOV writing which might be restored, but, again, with such a hot topic, perhaps it's best to start with a sold NPOV paragraph and build from there.

Copyright infringement issue/Disputed Artwork

The issue of the painting is potentially a serious one and one that should be watched and treated carefully in an NPOV way. If you have any doubt about that just look into copyright law and cases. This is not the same as bringing up things like a late payment on a phone bill or if someone drinks milk directly from the carton. Calicocat 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How much dirt could be dug up on you if the full force of the right was out to get you? Whats dangerous here is that Ward Churchill is just a kicking off point as Newt Gingrich has said -- Ward Churchill is the first in what will be a purge of academia. As an article in counterpunch.org said, the right wants America´s universities to sound exactly like Fox News.

Dear Wilbertoki: Please sign your comments like the one that you posted above. As to substance, it does NOT comment on any specific aspect of the WC article, it is only a rant about how you believe that the right-wing is "purg[ing]" academia. According to policy, Talk pages are NOT supposed to be about your personal rants, but about discussions about improving the article. That is not what you are doing here. I'm not interested in your paranoid rantings. What I'm interested in making sure that the WC article clearly indicates that many, many people dispute highly the claim by Churchill that he is an Indian because 90% of the people in Indian Country that have had personal exposure to the guy know that he has NOT proven that he is a member of any Indian tribe and that he constantly changes what tribes he claims to belong to, etc. Your generalized paranoid rantings are not helpful or welcome.-----Keetoowah 15:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah, it is clear by your own admission you have an axe to grind here and your contributions and comments will be viewed in that light. May I point out to you that Ward Churchill is famous for his scholarship on Native America and infamous, some might say, for the 9/11 essay? May I also point out to you that there are also non-Jewish scholars of Hebraica, non-Italian scholars of Italy, non-Arab scholars of Islam, and scholars of the classical world who are not dead Romans? He is not famous for being a "fake Indian". I presume that he is not the only individual whose "Indian-ness" can be questioned, but none of rest would be worthy of an article in Wikipedia solely on those grounds. Sure, ok, we mention it is a controversy, but it can NOT dominate the article. The issue of whether he is or is not a "true-blooded" Indian has no bearing at all on his writing. The matter is, as I said above, a canard. -- Viajero 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).
I never, ever stated that someone has to be an Indian to be a scholar of Native American issues. There are many great scholars of the Native American culture who are NOT Indian, Ward Churchill just does NOT happen to be one of them. The fact that you are talking about which I never, ever stated--e.g., non-Jews being experts on Jewish studies--is a canard. See I can use pedantic phrases also. Ward Churchill is a fake Indian and you want to defend him because you are sympathetic to his rants concerning America and 911. However, just because you are sympathetic to his rants does not mean that he speaks for all Indians or that he is an Indian at all. Also, I never, ever stated that the Indian heritage issue should dominate the article, I've only stated that it should be treated fairly and he should get a pass as a fake Indian because he is spouting off comments with which you are sympathetic. And finally, don't make such definitive statements about how the article is going to be, like this: "but it can NOT dominate the article." You aren't the final arbitor of how the article is going to look. Don't think you are.----Keetoowah 20:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Keetoowah, I am sorry I didn´t sign my post I am new here. I would like to add a section to the article on Ward Churchill discussing Churchill as a symbol,a rallying cry for a general crackdown on leftist dissent in American Universities, but I thought I should propose it here first because I am new. It would be completely NPOV. I can cite some examples of this, Campus Republicans have marked the doors of professors who they disagree with politically Campus Republicans. Marking doors is a violent and intimidating act. Ward Churchill has said "No less than Newt Gingrich said, 'We're going to nail this guy and send the dominoes tumbling,'". Ward is the first domino. If you have watched the O´Reilly Factor lately it is clear that Bill using all his power to have Churchill removed from his position. The issue here is not Ward Churchill´s ethnicity. I live in Southeastern Connecticut and we have two Indian Casinos. A white guy wrote a book here titled Without Reservation questioning the heritage of all the Native Americans, basically stating they are imposters. It is a low blow and a red herring and why Keetoowah do you ally yourself with people like Bill O´Reilly who don´t care at all about Indians and are only using Ward Churchill´s ethnicity as an easy way to discredit him to achieve their political goals as I quoted before to have our universities sound just like Fox News. --Wilbertoki 16:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wilbertoki, I don't watch Bill O'Reilly. I have no idea what he has been saying. I believe strongly in the First Amendment and as I have stated in earlier posts that Churchill has a right to say whatever he wants to say. However he does NOT have a right to claim that he is an Indian and that he speaks for ALL Indians when he is NOT an Indian and he does NOT speak for all Indians. No one has a right to engage in fraudulent activity. All I have been saying is that the accusations against him, concerning his Indian heritage need to be put in proper perspective. I keep hearing from Churchill supporters is that even though he is a fake Indian they don't care. Well, may be they don't care, but most people in Indian Country DO care. Look: I don't care that O'Reilly is a right-wing tool, if he is criticizing Churchill's Indian claim then great. But I don't know that because I don't watch him. Most of the people that are criticizing Churchill are left-wing people. You can't tell me that Dennis Banks, the man that started the American Indian Movement is a right-winger. Besides, what difference does it make if Banks is left-wing and O'Reilly is right-wing? If Churchill is lying about his claimed Indian heritage and he deserves criticism, what difference does it make where it comes from. But this discussion is beyond the point of this article. I just want to make sure that Churchill's claimed Indian heritage is put into proper perspective. I want to make sure that the point of view of the Keetoowah Band is properly represented in the article or otherwise the article is just an advertisement for Churchill. Viajero took out those comments, deleted them entirely. That creates a misrepresentation of the whole topic. I understand where you are coming from, in a political way, but that is not the issue here. I don't think that the accusations should be the focus of the article, but deleting damning information for Churchill just because you want to defend the guy is NOT fair.-----Keetoowah 19:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When did WC ever claim to represent all Indian tribes? What has his point on "little eichmanns" have anything to do with his heritage? Has he relied on his supposed native american roots to make this point? I think his racial-cultural heritage is a red herring, thrown up by partisan interests to attack him rather than deal with his thesis directly. And what methodology does AIM use to determine or deny native american heritage? Why is much credence placed on their seemingly arbitrary assertions? --Argon 02:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, I would like to point out that while AIM is against WC, the Colorado chapter are supporters and have started a petition for him. I would like to know more from you on why you do not like Ward so much. Is it only because he claims to be an Indian and you feel he is not? Or is it that you feel he reflects poorly on Indians? Scott Richard Lyons wrote this article at http://counterpunch.org/lyons02192005.html. He writes: If Churchill is in fact 100 percent white - which no one will ever know for certain - then what exactly would that make him? Seems to me he would then occupy that time-honored position of a colonizer going Native; that is, taking on the habits and perspectives - not to mention the politics - of the colonized. He would be what racial theorists call a race traitor; one who denies and decries white privilege by refusing to participate in whiteness as a system of privilege. How exactly would that harm Indian people? I know real Indians who do a lot worse.

I feel the same way as Scott, but I am not an Indian so perhaps I do not understand. But it seems to me if someone is publicly advancing the Indian movement and Ward was doing as party of the Colorado Indian Movement why are you so opposed to him. Is he harming the cause? I would like to understand your views on that. I believe one of the real tragedies of the Ward Churchill case is how vulnerable he is to attack because the people who should be supporting him are too busy infighting. If Churchill is fired it will be a blow to Ethnic Studies at all universities, a field which is not thought of highly by the people trying to get him removed. --Wilbertoki 04:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I might chime in on the artwork... Since that's originally what this section was about, for all of five lines. There was some reverting and re-editting between "copyright infringement" and "plagiarism". Now, I gotta say that if it was my art being photoshopped or traced the heck out of it, (or the person grading work submitted with that degree of duplication), I'd be using the latter term (or both, for good measure). However, this isn't about my judgement, so if we say the P-word, can we make sure it's sourced? (Likewise, if we want to start talking about him being hounded by right-wing attack dogs -- sure, if a notable source had said something like this, but opining it ourselves here is original research or worse...) Alai 08:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Alai, Wilbertoki, Argon: Thank you for asking questions. I really appreciate that. It seems that a lot of these wild comments start when folks assume things that are not true. Any way, the problem that most folks in Indian Country have with WC is that he is making outlandish comments that gives him a huge amount of publicity--which in and of itself is not a problem. The problem becomes when WC represents himself as an Indian. Why is that a problem? Well first of all, if he isn't an Indian then is fraudulent. But more important there is only so many times that national media focus on Indian issues in a year. If the national media allocates its small amount of let's call it "Indian time" on WC then the issues that important to vast majority of Indian people are getting ignored. Let's assume that WC IS Indian, which he isn't, under what authority is he given the right to speak for ALL Indians? Has he been elected to a tribal office? Is he the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation? No. Is he the Deputy Chief of the Cherokee Nation? No. Has been elected to the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council? No. Under what authority is speaking? The Cherokee people, of which I am one, elect leaders who represent us. We place in their hands the right to speak for us as a tribe. Our leaders do NOT speak for other tribes such as the Navajo or the various Sioux tribes. Thoses tribes have elected their own leaders. Our tribal leaders speak for us as a nation after long and difficult discussion groups, where we go over all of our concerns. How can WC who can't even prove that he belongs to our tribe, even though he claims to be a member, speak for our tribe? He can't. He does not attend the discussion groups. He does not attend the pow-wows. He does not work in the Cherokee Nation institutions, etc. He is just making things up and then he states that he is speaking for ALL Native Americans. How insulting is that? We in the Cherokee Nation have our leaders and WC is NOT one of them. How can he speak for the Navajo? He is not a member of their tribe. He does not attend their meetings. He does NOT live in Navajoland. Who is he to speak for them. He is a member of the Colorado AIM which is a very small group of Indians that live in Boulder and they do whatever they want to do. WC is using that small group to steal jobs and speaking engagements from real Indian people. He is making things and setting the national agenda for Indian issues. Most Indian people don't agree with the things that he says. He has a right to say them. Just don't claim that you are Indian, when you aren't and don't say that most Indian people agree with you when they don't. It is not true. Look: I know that you sympathetic to the things that he has been saying about 911, etc. but that does not make him an Indian and he should not be telling people that he is one. Also, why is everyone assuming that because I am criticizing his fake Indian stand that I am somehow a "right-winger" and that it is just a "canard" or "red herring"? What I believe is the source of all of those accusations is that the folks that are making them are blindly defending WC based upon on 911 comments and believe that he is getting a unfair deal in the media for those 911 comments. May be he is getting an unfair treatment in the media for the 911 comments, but the 911 comments have nothing to do with whether he is an Indian or not.----Keetoowah 20:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

comment to Calicocat

Calicocat, I restored some of the changes you did to the intro and the first section partly to bring them in line with the way we customarily organize biographical articles.

First, and this goes for all articles, the intro should be one paragraph of three to five sentences which sum up all the noteworthy facts about the subject so the reader can decide whether to continue. Normally, in the case of bios, this does not include place of birth or place of death, since that is usually not signifcant (assassinations, etc., excepted). It is also important to mention nationality, since this is international reference work.

Second, the "Early years" section which I restored is usually called "Life" on other biographical pages (or indeed "Early years" if the material warrants). Here, I am using "Early years" because that is all we know at the moment. We do not know what he did between leaving the army in 1969 and getting appointed to UC, the date of which we are likewise ignorant. This section needs to be fleshed out and turned into "Life".

I urge you to look at other biographical articles, like Henry Kissinger, Margaret Sanger, or Louis Armstrong to get a sense of how bios are built up. They tend to be endless variations on the structure: Life, Work, Legacy/Controversy

HTH, -- Viajero 17:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, but did this really warrant a section on the talk page? I'll take this under advisement. Calicocat 20:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An apology

Keetoowah, I am sorry about the "stooping low" thing. First off, I certainly did not mean you. I was thinking of right-wing pundits like that jive-ass turkey O'Reilly on Fox. I have only the highest regard for you, and I'd like to see your views on Churchill's race credentials fairly represented in the Ward Churchill argument.

Viajero cut them into a subarticle, but I'm assuming that's only temporary. He made the suggestion that the info there be summarized and re-incorporated into the main article.

You are new here, and I think we should all be a bit more welcoming. :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory of the Attack Dogs (Have fun).

It seems the right-wing and Indian attack dogs can't be honest about creating an NPOV Wikipedia article on Professor Churchill. The double standards are appalling and relentless which is, I think, part of the whole "big lie" propaganda effort of which this article is but a part. As someone else mentioned, this issue itself should be reflected in this entry, but it seems likely that such an effort would render an endless stream of postings designed to defeat honest scholarship and destroy creation of sound, NPOV, fact-based entry.

The relentless effort to frame Churchill continues and I think the substance of the effort is to make Churchill a symbol for use by right-wing intellectual terrorists and fascists -- that is the true intent here, to create a symbol, an easy shorthand so that anyone can be written off as a "Ward Churchill." The utter lack of sincerity both of the right-wing and Indians are two pillars of this effort, their lies and negative framing standing as tall on the landscape as did once World Trade Center. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this.

I've learned a lot about wikipedia from attempting to work collaboratively on this entry with hope that it would turn into an informative article of honest, sound scholarship, but that seems impossible since the propagandists, the anti-Churhillists just won't allow it. Congratulations on helping to destroy Wikipedia. I've had enough of suffering fools for now. Go on dogs, savage the entry, in doing so you expose yourself for the hate-mongering, anti-intellectuals you are. I'll continue to watch the page as you bask in what will surly end up being a Pyrrhic victory for you.

sorry it cames to this point :-( ~~

Restoration of referenced information

I have restored the following information which was removed by an anonymous editor:

It is not unusual that Americans who have some Native American blood, but whose families live within the mainstream community, know their heritage from family tradition, but encounter difficulty proving it to the satisfaction of administrators of affirmative action programs [3].

It was removed without comment or discussion. This is inappropriate. When I googled this topic I found a number of links discussing this problem. Fred Bauder 15:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was done by an anon. [4] This article requires constant vigilence. -- Viajero 16:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to remove material which is well referenced from Wikipedia articles such at this material you removed without comment from the article on Ward Churchill Fred Bauder 15:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is not unusual that Americans who have some Native American blood, but whose families live within the mainstream community, know their heritage from family tradition, but encounter difficulty proving it to the satisfaction of administrators of affirmative action programs [5].

If you find some problem with material such as this which is referenced please bring it up on the talk page of the article and mention the reason you removed it in your edit summary. Fred Bauder 15:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment about "constant vilgilence." With things so polarzied and controversial about this issue, there is a legitmate reason the article's neutrality is disputed. Sorry about not following the correct protocol--but here's the problem with that particular link--it is not on point to Ward Churchill. It is a general comment that people who have Native American blood sometimes have difficulty proving it. A valid point, but unless there is some connection directly to Ward Churchill on why he has similar difficulty in proving his Native American heritage, then it is a hidden editorial response to the controversy by Wikipedia. Has Ward Churchill ever claimed that he had difficulty proving his Native American geneology? I have not heard Ward Churchill raise the same issues in the affirmative action link (if I am mistaken, then that is the proper link that should be made). There is a difference between linking to a legitimate editorial either pro or con on Ward Churchill (which is perfectly valid and welcomed) vs. plugging in editorial commentary indirectly as that link did.

I'll think about what you are saying, but another procedural matter is to sign your writing on the talk page. Use ~~~~. Fred Bauder 19:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

ethnicity in intro

Calicocat, virtually every biography of a Jewish person identifies that they are Jewish in the intro. This is not POV. Moreover in the case of Churchill, his ethnicity is highly topical, since it is also a matter of controversy. Also, in every bio, we identify the individual's nationality. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with other Wikipedia articles before inisisting so relentlessly what is right and wrong. Viajero 20:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Viajero 20:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence on putting a remark about his ethnic background in the first sentence is obviously POV and pedantic references to the wiki style manuals are just subterfuge to help you sustain your obvious POV intent to run not an article, but hatchet job on Churchill. Calicocat 21:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This language is much more NPOV, accurate, subsantiated by factsand it includes your pet issue of ethnicity.

Ward Churchill, an American academic, is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). In some of his published work he characterizes the United States as an imperialist power with a history of genocide. Professor Churchill's specialization has centered on Native American issues, but he has also written on subjects such as the FBI and police states. In 2005, Churchill became the subject of intense right-wing propaganda campaign and debate in the United States because of an essay he wrote in 2001 about September 11, 2001 attacks.

Churchill is a Viet Nam war veteran and is of mixed White and Native American ethnicity.Calicocat 21:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Per wikipedia style manual on a Biography entry.

Opening paragraph The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)) 2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death) 3. Nationality

Not Ethnicity -- over and over it's been pointed out that Churchill is American, that's his nationality, his ethnicity is simply not relevant to the lead and especially not as the first sentence. This false notion of yours might be best addressed by reading the Style Manual yourself. Your insistance on including it over and over is, I fear, but only a reflection of your and others particular obsession with this rather small aspect of this article and of Churchill in general. The harping on it is just another example of the attempt to use this piece not as a good and interesting wikipeida entry but for a particular POV slash and burn of Churchill.Calicocat 22:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. What they did 5. Why they are significant

Page Mediation Needed/Stop the POV insanity.

To All: Continual POV reversion of this page represent an effort not to create an valid, useful, NPOV entry, but to have this article be nothing more than an attack page on Professor Churchill designed to do nothing more than support the particular political and propaganda agenda of those clearly biased against Churchill. I have had reasonable language reverted countless times and almost gave up on the article, but after thinking about it further decided that the article deserved to be made as NPOV and accurate as possible.

It's better than where it started, but it has now turning into a petty reversion contest and this serves neither the letter or spirit of the Style Manual or Policy of Wikipedia. Any voices of rationality and reason on this would be most welcome, but I fear nothing short of mediation or perhaps stronger measures are going to render impossible creation of a fair and useful entry.

The person most responsbile for the irrational behavior in this is user Viajero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viajero, who, oddly, on his user page claims to be one against such practices himself, which based on my experience with this user seem utterly hypocritical. He seems rather good at playing the liar's paradox game and intent on foisting his POV here.

Calicocat 05:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, please hold on Calicocat. First of all, please stop being too aggressive and critical of other povs. Viajero and others have been talking to you in a very fair tone of voice, and it would help that you do just the same.

Now, apart from details in the rest of your last revert, I understand the main part of your conflict is about whether the first sentence should mention or not mention the ethnic origin of Ward or not.

Tell me if I understand well or not, but it seems you think this mention should not be there, as not being relevant.

On the contrary, Viajery considers that it is bringing important information.

What I will notice is that in the rest of the introduction, several points are mentionned, which are in relation with ethnicity, in particular the fact he is a professor in ethnic studies, co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, and that he is very vocal on ethnic discussions.

Hence, definitly a man who has turned his life toward defense of certain ethnies.

I think it is then relevant to mention his own origins, whether controversial or not controversial, because it helps to place a person. Me being a french, I can absolutely say I have never heard of that guy in my life, and even less of the controversies surrounding him. What I know, as a pure reader discovering the guy is that to understand the guy, I feel more informed to know of his origins before reading what he does, rather than after. I approach the information differently, though I might agree that it might twist my understanding a little. Still, sorry, I feel that we first need information which help us to try to understand why a person act in a certain way rather than in another. So, at least, to my opinion, it seems it is more relevant to know the ethnie of the man than not. Similarly, I would feel I am lacking information if you were not giving me the nationality of the person. Finally, an ethnicity is not a pov, it is just a statement in relation of someone origin. It is no more pov than saying someone is young, old, a woman or a man.

If it is a problem to cite it in the first sentence, what about twisting the paragraph to indicate his ethnie at the top, but possibly not exactly in the first line of the text ?

I would recommand avoid the word propaganda, which is quite heavily loaded generally.

I wish that you find a solution rather than reverting each other, which could lead you to be blocked.

Anthere 06:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Student demonstrations and statements pro and con seem evenly divided. this issue could be fixed by citing a source perhaps ? Anthere

Calicocat, I find it difficult to see the argument that Viajero's edit (and reverts) are POV, and yours are a model of NPOV. This article was one almighty mess, between horribly editted POV either way, until he recently cleaned it up, and he is, for all my money, to be nothing but commended for it. There's been significant discussion of WC's ethnicity in the news media, it seems to me, so the argument that this doesn't belong in the article is absurd. And given that it is in the article. what possible justification is there for not having it in the lead? Now, if you feel that the reason for the attention to his ethnicity is because of a right-wing hatchet job, and can reference that with respect to notable third-party commentators, go for it. A lead section that characterised him as a mild-mannered workaday professor and vet, which you seem to insist on working your way back to, is completely inappropriate as it misrepresents a) the article, and b) the reason for his notability in the first place. Alai 06:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody! </dr nick>

I've edited the intro to try and include the controversy, as it's important information - at least at present-, but without putting over any particular point of view. I hope this will help settle the dispute ongoing, and we can get this article looking great. Yours with WikiLove, nsh 18:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I've reviewed this article at User:Calicocat's request and don't see that it's all that strongly NPOV at this point. I think it could do with more discussion of the purported right-wing "hatchet job" against him (if such can be done in a neutral way). The only section I felt pushed the NPOV envelope too far was the seemingly irrelevant comment about proving ethnicity to affirmative action departments. This smacks of sniping at (or about) political correctness and affirmative action, topics which are otherwise not discussed in any significant way in this article. If someone can actually tie this content back to the rest of the article, then perhaps it belongs. As it stood, it had no place in the article, and so I removed it. Kelly Martin 02:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to thank Fred Bauder for rewriting the material I had previously deleted so as to make it relevant to the rest of the article. Kelly Martin 23:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not a biography, but could it be an "in the news" article?

As this article has developed it has become increasingly clear that what we have here is not and should not be classified as a "Biography" of Professor Churchill. As was suggested to me, I've looked at many Biographical articles on Wikipedia and the entry on Biography itself and I just don't see how this article falls into that category.

True, this article, as it stands, contains some biographic information about Professor Churchill but the substantive portion, and its primary foci, center on the recent controversy over a single essay he wrote and the questions and controversies that have arisen subsequently, namely -- his ethnicity, academic freedom, freedom of speech and perhaps what might be characterized as media manipulation by Bill O'Reilly. Given the huge volume of Professor Churchill's work, this one issue, the single essay, seems a completely unsound and, I think, unfair basis for classification of the article as an authoritative biography, especially when contrasted with standards evident in other Wikipedia biographic entries, e.g., Igor Stravinsky, Mickey Mantle, Benjamin Franklin.

However, -- and I don't know how this works being still rather newbie at all this -- I think it could be an excellent candidate for an "in the news section" that I see posted on the front section of the English Wikipedia.

As always, comments and assistance are most appreciated. Calicocat 18:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with this addition you made: "This article's focus is primarily on this debate the key issues of center on freedom of speech, academic freedom and Churchill's own ethnicity." We could have an article like that, but this article is rather like the article on the United States Air Force Academy which for some time contained little else but reports of rape (this is probably due to the limited traction Wikipedia finds amoung Air Force Academy graduates). It contains little else but the contemporary controversies. A decent article on Ward Churchill should contain some information regarding the controversy, but most of it should consist of biographical details and reports of his published work and other activities. This is what has happened with the Angela Davis article which contains only a brief mention of the criminal charges which resulted in nationwide focus on her. So I think creation of a new article regarding the current bruhaha is appropriate while the Ward Churchill article itself should contain only a brief summary of the current uproar. Fred Bauder 22:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I find myself concurring with Fred Bauder about the most recent edit. In addition to introducing non-neutral language (the use of terms like "leading scholar" and "many books" without quantifying either of these assertions is arguably non-neutral, and in any case inappropriate), it also introduces a grammatical error and removes relevant information from the article. I will not get into a revert war, so I would instead encourage Calicocat to address the shortcomings of his most recent edit with further edits. Kelly Martin 00:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The introductory statment about the primary focus of this article is simply a statment of what follows within. Is this not an article focused paimarily on the Essay Controversy and related?
The terms "many books" is not my language, however, it's certainly accurate which anyone interested can find here. This is an external link to a commercial site which I'm not sure is in keeping with Wiki policy, in addition, under "Published Works" within the article a reader will find more of his titles.
No information from previous edits was removed. If one is going to point out a grammatical error, why not just correct it in the spirit of effective collaboration? As far as Churchill being a leading scholar in his field, that seems rather self-evident given his long years of teaching at a respected university and his large body of published works. The language I liked better was that his "area of specialization" is Native American issues, which was removed by another editor. I felt that was more NPOV, however, a newspaper story, mostly critical of churchill mentions that one of the few things everyone agrees on about him is that he is in fact a national expert on Native American Indians.
However, none of these comments speak to the question here regarding this page not being a biography, but being one more appropriate for "in the news" or in some other location within the encyclopedia. Calicocat 00:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the "in the news" suggestion is an interesting one because Churchill's "scholarship" on Native American topics is questionable. The best that he could be called is an "activist." He is NOT a scholar. Calling him a scholar is like calling Michael Moore a scholar. Michael Moore has a predetermined goal and he makes films to work toward that goal. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not scholarship. A scholar takes no position, gathers the facts, and then draws a conclusion and the conclusion might change based upon new facts. That is not what Churchill is doing. Churchill operates more like Moore in that he reaches a conclusion and then gathers facts that support his predetermined conclusion. But he is not a scholar. There are many, many great scholars of Native American studies, but Churchill is NOT one of them. Churchill is not even in their league. Please read one of his published books. You will see that he does not put in the hard research required to get published in peer reviewed journals or in scholarship-focused publishing houses. Churchill's publisher is NOT a scholarly-focused house, it is a change-oriented, alternative viewpoint house--which, once again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is NOT scholarship. He writes to meet an agenda--which by the way is NOT necessarily the agenda of helping Native American people. If you just take a look at his work you will see that Churchill's work does NOT qualify Churchill for his own Biography, that these people deserve: Igor Stravinsky, Mickey Mantle, Benjamin Franklin. To argue that Churchill's accomplishments are on the level of these folks is laughable. Everyone admits that NO ONE, other than me, who writes on this page, knew who Churchill was until the 911 comment. He is NOT a Native American scholar, he is a Native American activist that happened to get his 15 minutes of fame by making an outlandish comment about the victims of 911. In many ways, all of the media attention that he received for his outlandish has helped his career, which on its own was NOT outstanding and on its own would NOT have qualified for a biography entry in Wikipedia.-----Keetoowah 15:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit I never heard of him and would be quite happy had that pleasant state of affairs continued. Fred Bauder 15:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I had heard of him, read the essay when first published and still maintain this entry is not a biography. I've just edited/reverted the intro to make it more squarly focued on the controversy and more NPOV (removing the language about him being a leading scholar on Native American issues).
This is what I proposed and have edited into the article. All statments are supported and sourced and NPOV:
Ward L. Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is a tenured professor and former department chairman of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and of partial Native American descent; in addition, he is co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). Author of many books and articles, he is particularly outspoken on Native American issues as well as the FBI and police states. Some of his published work characterizes the United States as an imperialist power with a history of genocide.
In 2001 Churchill wrote an essay in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2005, following a broadcast on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Churchill became the subject -- some argue target -- of intense media scrutiny and an ongoing public debate. This article focuses primarily on this debate and the issues it has brought up including -- Churchill's own ethnicity, freedom of speech, academic freedom and more.
Comments? Calicocat 16:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. The intro must state that he is American. This is an encyclopedia used by INTERNATIONAL readers. Whether you particularly agree with this policy or not is irrelvant. This is our practice as sanctified in the MoS, as I already pointed out to you several times.
  2. Inline external URLs are ugly and should be avoided, they confuse readers. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (Again, whether you happen to agree or not with this policy is irrelevant.) In any case, this one is certainly not required here. We don't need a citation to assert that he has written many books.
Another editor, Kelly Martin, suggested that it was significant, so adding it was based on that. If there's a better way to format this, then please do so but without simply reverting back to older versions that have not withstood the test of the collaborative editing process. Thank you for the reference regarding inline links. However, Churchill is the author of dozens of books and the "published works section" relects but a very small sampling. Calicocat 22:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. if you don't think the article is biographical enough add more biographical information, like what he did between going to graduate school and joining UC in 1990. -- Viajero 16:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it's not that it's not "biographical" enough, its simply not a biography, but rather an issue oriented piece which centers on a single essay Churchill wrote in 2001 and it's recent controversy after it was made much of by Bill O'Reilly. Earlier in this discussion section I mention a few biographic articles, I'd suggest you see those. Calicocat 22:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User Viajero: please check your facts before you write

== User Keetoowah: please justify deletion == Could you please justify your removal earlier today of a long section on Churchill's books? [6] If you don't consider Churchill a "scholar" that is your opinion. There is no reason why this article should not review his written work. -- Viajero 17:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Viajero: Please explain to me what exactly your problem is. I did NOT make the changes that you accuse me of making. What changes that I made are a matter of record. This project keeps a record of who makes what changes when. If you would take the time to look up who deleted the summarizes of the fake Indian non-scholarly books you will see that it was NOT me. Do your research before you jump wild, inaccurate conclusions. It is clear that you have an axe to grind and your future comments will be judged in that light.--- --Keetoowah 20:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I missread the Page History this afternoon. It appears that it was Calicocat who removed the text [7]. My apologies. -- Viajero 20:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro section, redux

I do not much care for Calicocat's proposed introductory section. I've only read a few thousand Wikipedia articles, but I think that as long as this article is titled Ward Churchill it should focus on Ward Churchill and not on some other topic, no matter how related. If Calicocat wishes this article not to focus so much on the controversy surrounding some of Churchill's recent writings, he should expand the other sections of this biographical article to discuss them as well. In other words, cure the defect, rather than entrenching it. I also prefer Viajero's rendition of what is essentially the same facts, and believe that it is more NPOV than Calicocat's.

The imputes for writing this was article was inarguably the ongoing, narrowly focused controversy surrounding Professor Churchill. The current situation with Churchill began on or about January 28, 2005 when media personality Bill O'Reilly encouraged viewers to attack Churchill on the basis of one the Professor's essays, one written years before the broadcast. If not for that broadcast I suspect this article would never have been created and, as it stands -- with the exception of Viajero's deeply flawed, inadequate introduction, it is in fact mearly an attempt to present to the reader a picture of ongoing controvery.
I maintain the language of my preferred introduction is neutral (NPOV ) and focuses readers' attention on what this article is actually about. The purpose of an introduction is to introduce; my language does that in a perfectly neutral way, the other is incomplete and I think missing the mark and does not serve the reader.
To my thinking, it is intellectually dishonest, a disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia project not to include a proper introduction. Not mentioning the current controversy right up front is I think clearly POV. Objectively, a reader of this article would benefit most from delving into the deeper questions this ongoing controversy involves, including -- freedom of speech, academic freedom, press manipulation, propaganda -- all things my preferred language addresses with a perfectly neutral, moderate tone, e.g., I metion Bill O'Reilly but don't call him a "radical, dirt-bag ultra-right wing fascist propagandist"
When Igor Stravinsky published Le Sacre Du Printemps (The Rite of Spring) he was met with the harshest of criticism in newspapers and magazines and attacked on political, moral and social grounds in his own country. However, if you read his biography, do you see numerous articles from minor publications -- analogous to, in this case, small newspapers in Colorado or Tribal newsletters and web sites? You do not, such would be inappropriate for a biography.
The recent interest in Churchill -- and any neutral party would be compelled to agree -- is narrowly focused on this one ongoing controversy. What you have called "my" intro, is better in that it servers the reader best.
As far as I can tell, Ward Churchill is not particularily interesting except for the current controversy. In any case, a biographical article about him is going to include this controversy, which is by far the most interesting thing about him at this point. It should probably include more than that, but I think the article would be better served by including the missing content instead of by begging off not doing so. The solution to this problem is not to rewrite the introduction (at least not as you have proposed), but to add the missing content.
As to focusing the reader's attention on what "this article is actually about": Any reader approaching this article will realize that it is about Ward Churchill from the title of the article. If you feel that this article is not about Ward Churchill, but instead about something else, then you should rename it appropriately, and create a new Ward Churchill article that is actually about Ward Churchill. (I would not recommend doing this, as the remaindered Ward Churchill article would necessarily be a stub, unless someone can actually come up with more information about Churchill that doesn't relate to the brouhaha over his questionable ancestry and interesting political opinions.)
Personally, I think your efforts would be better spent researching Professor Churchill's background. Perhaps you could find out what he did between Vietnam and when he joined UC. The solution to your complaints about the "nonbiographical nature" of this article is for you to add such additional information as to make it "biographical" (whatever that means). It most emphatically does not mean that you should remove factually correct information simply because you feel it makes the article "nonbiographical". Kelly Martin 21:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
From these comments it seems you didn't really read what I said above. I just don't see how these comments related to my previous remarks or address my concerns with the scope and direction of this article. Calicocat 23:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think I understand your concerns. I merely think your recommendation -- which amounts to inserting a disclaimer -- is not a good solution. If Ward Churchill is interesting for reasons other than this controversy, then put them in the article. If he's not, then the article will naturally focus on the controversy because that's why he's interesting. If your goal is to minimize the impact of the controversy, rehabilitate his image, or lead readers to believe that there's more to Ward Churchill than the instant controversy without telling them what that is, then you're inappropriately trying to push a point of view. Kelly Martin 23:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to see a revert war get started over this issue. It's quite obvious from reading the talk page and edit notes that emotions are running high about this article. I would suggest that the more engaged parties should step back for a bit. Kelly Martin 01:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

The article -- which I didn't start -- is about the current, ongoing controversy, is it not? Therefore, edits to reflect that should not be seen as part of some "editing war" but rather an honest attempt to create an accurate entry based on what this thing is about: the current controversey. Calicocat 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calicocat wrote:

When Igor Stravinsky published Le Sacre Du Printemps (The Rite of Spring) he was met with the harshest of criticism in newspapers and magazines and attacked on political, moral and social grounds in his own country. However, if you read his biography, do you see numerous articles from minor publications -- analogous to, in this case, small newspapers in Colorado or Tribal newsletters and web sites? You do not, such would be inappropriate for a biography.

The analogy is lame. The controversy around The Rite of Spring happened more than ninety years ago. Not many people care about it these days. That the article on Stravinsky says nothing about the controversy is nonetheless a shortcoming (the Rite article does at least mention it). I have read comments by critics at the time and it would be most appropriate to include a sampling of them, and I would be happy to do so myself if I had the material at my fingertips. Alas, "high culture" is not well covered in Wikipedia. Among the Internet audience that it attracts, potential editors are more interested in other things, like technology and current affairs. Ward Churchill is currently a major news item, and that's why the article looks the way it does. It is safe to say that over ninety years it will look much differently. -- Viajero 21:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If, as you suggest, most readers of Wikipedia are interested in technology and current events, we would seem to agree that the previous introduction -- which is all an average reader might even bother with -- which focued squarely on the ongoing controvery was, in fact, the stronger, the more informative and the more neutral. I don't understand your insistance on repeatedly removing -- without any prior discussion -- focus and facts from the previous collaboratively drafted introduction which served the reader by explaining the nature and scope of the ongoing controvery?
In addition, you missed the point of the example and calling it "lame" strikes me as a personal attack and is unwelcome, please refrain from further such, and please see Wikipedia Policy on ["No Personal Attacks"] Thank you. Calicocat 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a little over-sensitive. Perhaps mildly uncivil, but not worse than "deeply flawed, inadequate introduction", say. (In neither case is the other person the (direct) target, note.) Alai 03:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity: bounding the controversy?

I have some sympathy with Keetoowah on the "unqualifying" of "part Native American descent". His ethnicity clear is controversial, especially as regards tribal membership qualification, claims thereof, degree of Indianness, etc. But is there doubt about him having any NA blood? (One of the links in the article seemed to be implying as much.) If there is such doubt, the statement ought to be qualified in some way. In any case, I'd favour some allusion to the general controversy, given that it's so prominent in the article. (As it stands, one can imagine a casual reader doing a bit of a double-take when they reach the "Ethnicity" section.) Alai 03:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. Care to suggest neutral formulation for it? -- Viajero 12:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is doubt that he has any Indian blood at all. It is even possible for him to not know it himself as White people were frequently adopted into tribes, especially in the Northeast. Those people I would count Native American but some would not. Fred Bauder 15:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think the best we may be able to do is the "claim" forumula, then. Alai 18:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The solution Kelly came up with looks good to me. -- Viajero 18:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Issues

I honestly don't see what this section's adding that's on topic. This isn't supposed to be an essay, but an encyclopaedia article, on matters specifically relating to Ward Churchill. Non-specific musings on the First Amendment and academic freedom would be better at those articles. Alai 18:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also question the merits of this section, for much the same reasons expressed by Alai. You can safely assume that your reader is cognizant of the basic concepts of academic freedom and the First Amendment; if they're not, they'll follow the appropriate links to become aware of them. Kelly Martin 18:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
On what basis do you make that assumption? At the very heart of the current controvery are the stated issues? Shouldn't an encyclopedia article seek to inform and be complete? I think it essential these issues be included with in this article. Calicocat 21:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First you complain that this article isn't "biographical" enough. Now you take off on a completely different tangent. As both Alai and Kelly have correctly observed, this new material doesn't belong in the article, least of all in separate section. Take it elsewhere please. I am completely mystified as to what you are trying to accomplish here. -- Viajero 22:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I too am not clear at what is being discussed. There is clearly no need to define academic freedom or freedom of speech here; there are perfectly good articles on both of these topics elsewhere (specifically, at academic freedom and freedom of speech). This section, if it deserves to exist at all, should only pertain to how academic freedom and/or freedom of speech pertain (in an interesting way) to Churchill. Kelly Martin 23:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
As it pertains to Churchill, yes. Generalised lectures on the 1st Amd. and the lamentable state of knowledge of same do not strike me as pertinent. If they're appropriate to WP, they'd clearly be more appropriate to articles other than this one. Alai 22:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whereas the substantial portion of this article deals with controversy of the 9/11 essay issue, the subjects of academic freedom and freedom of speech as they relate to Churchill are central questions a reader of this article might find useful and cogent references and their inclusion is in keeping with the spirit of Wikipeida. These issues also seem highly significant to and central issues for -- Hamilton College, CU, the President of Duke University, Churchill himself and a host of journalists across the broad political spectrum. Removal of this section would be a disservice readers' understanding of key issues and signficantly weaken the overall quality of the Article itself. In addition, see -- [Style manual]on free links: "The purpose of free links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles." It says "their" curiosity, not that of we the people actively editing this thing. So, the stated issues are hightly significant to the current events which I'm told are very important to Wiki readers and highly central to Churchill's life. Calicocat 00:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but you also keep adding material that has nothing to do with WC -- like quoting the whole 1st A, citing awareness surveys. I said nothing about it relating to his 9/11 essay. The section as it stand does have some relevance, I'm not disputing that. (It doesn't read especially well, but that's another issue.) Alai 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I should add that links to external pages are not "free links". Free links are links to other Wikipedia articles. The style guide specifically says that external links should be avoided (as they are ugly). I am slightly bothered by the fact that you rewrote content to move external links that appeared at the end of sentences, as footnotes, where they are far less ugly, to inline external links, which maximizes ugliness. Please do not do that again; it is ugly and contrary to style. I believe that you've actually reduced the number of free links with your recent edits, and your rewrites are inserting multiple grammatical errors as well, which suggests to me that you are editing in haste, rather than with consideration and care. Kelly Martin 01:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
To expand upon what Kelly has said, "inline external links" are considered undesirable because they are confusing to readers. As a rule, external links are grouped together, in a separate section, at the bottom of the article. This is all clearly stated in the MoS. -- Viajero 02:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted this afternoon's edits to this section by CalicoCat. The Hamilton College quote lacks specific relevance. I know it's from an article about Churchill, but the quote does not mention Churchill in any way, so the quote itself lacks relevance to this article. The petition I removed for bias: Churchill controls the American Indian Movement of Colorado; citing to that petition without mentioning that is dishonest and quite clearly not NPOV. Reverting was the easiest way to remove this inappropriate content and repair the grammar errors and stylistic issues introduced by CalicoCat's edits. Kelly Martin 02:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved some bits from this section to the 9/11 essay section, other bits to Academic freedom, and deleted the rest. Further editorializing on the principles of freedom of speech is out of place, as various of us have already noted above. Calicocat: please give this article a rest. It may be far from ideal, but it seems to have reached a certain equilibrium. -- Viajero 13:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Reader Feedback

I just stumbled on this page, having never seen it before, and was immediately struck by the negative tone of the opening sentence, which totally put me off of reading the article. To be of interest to someone like myself the article needs to offer a balanced biographical approach. The first thing I want to know about him is how does he define himself and how does he identify himself. This article appears to be mired in the problem of representation to the exclusion of a basic and credible biographical account of this man's life and work. The article also seems to confuse his credibility as an academic with his identity, in short turning the entry into a rant about identity politics. My suggestion: take the emphasis off of identity and put it back on the subject matter at hand. What has he written, what does he care about, and then include a section on who his critics are and how he has responded to them. Let readers draw their own conclusions about his identity and integrity. [[Piezo 19:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

The problem with Churchill is that there really isn't that much interesting about him aside from the controversy related to the 9/11 essay and the issues surrounding his ethnic identity. So it's hard to say much. Kelly Martin 19:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Subhead 'editorializing'

There used to be subsections for the "Other controversies" section. They used to be "Academic fraud" and "Treason" and the like, which was totally biased and misleading because all of those things were allegations, not proven. So I put words in them to clearly indicate that they were accusations, allegations, etc., and this was removed completely with the explanation that we shouldn;t editorialize in the subheads... Excuse me, what? Putting "Treason" there is editorializing, clarifying that they are accusations is not, that's strictly being factual. I can only hope that this was a misstatement of what was intended. DreamGuy 19:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation rules

I am to understand it that's it's being argued that WP:MOS#Punctuation is to be completely ignored as "not policy", but WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English is to be strictly adhered to in the case of all American topics -- including biographies, which people have objected to being treated as country-specific topics per se -- despite that fact that it says nothing at all about punctuation? I'm going to change this back; please explain your rationale further, anyone that's unhappy with this. Alai 22:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no way a style guide that tries to claim British punctuation rules should be used on US articles but that US spelling should be used on the same ones makes any sense at all. That document is not policy, and with any luck we'll have that document changed to reflect common sense soon anyway. Doing it their way means that every US-based topic is going to have major errors for both US and International English readers (US readers see bad punctuation, International readers see wonky spelling). A style decision that makes an article never correct for anyone is just silly.
And I can't see how anyone can object to a US-based person with US-based controversies being written with US-based punctuation rules and spelling. What's there to object to, other than a claim that the British way of doing things is superior and the Americans don;t know what they are doing, which is highly biased and unuseful. DreamGuy 22:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I note that WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says "Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia". Punctuation is not on that list; the "national varieties of English" policy does not, on its own terms, apply to punctuation. The MOS is clear, here, let's put this issue to rest, ok? If you disagree with the policy, DreamGuy, take it up over at Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style; please don't make this article your battleground. Kelly Martin 22:56, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
The manual of style is NOT policy, that point is made very clear in it, thus telling me that Iif I disagree with policy I should get it changed is a useless argument. Punctuation is certainly inclusive to the rules of grammar, so trying to claim that it is excluded from those rules because it is not explicitly mentioned is a bad, and I might say thoughtless, argument. DreamGuy 23:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, good luck with getting that changed... In the mean time, I don't see how it can be argued that one part of it is binding, and another isn't. The manual of style as a whole has the status of "guidelines", as I understand it, which I suppose means that if a straw poll in the article space decides there's a consensus for ignoring it, then it can be so ignored. Or something -- "policy on the hoof" seems to be something of a WP tradition. Such issues are frankly bound to arise in any multi-national project that doesn't simply mandate one national style over another. It cuts both ways even with punctuation though -- "International topics" are stuck with the serial comma, for example (which as a rightpondian, looks much "wonkier" to me than do -our and -ize endings).
What's to object to is it's not what the guidelines say to do. (And note that I'm neither objecting to nor changing any of the spelling.) If you wish to meta-object to the guidelines, that's another matter. (For reference, the converse case I had in mind was an article on a British philosopher -- with a knighthood, to boot -- being written with US spelling, and a followup discussion as to whether "people from country [X]" were "[X]ish topics" per se.) Alai 23:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not arguing that part of it is binding and the rest isn't. None of it is binding. But this is a US article about a US individual with US controversy, so it should definitely use US rules of spelling and punctuation. This has been the standard on every article I have worked on here, and all editors have agreed to it in the months I have been here, so it's bizarre to suddenly run into people following illogical contrary rules. DreamGuy 23:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that none of it is binding per se, but it's nonetheless the status of the rule you appealed to earlier. Your counter-argument is based on personal preference, and on unstated anecdotal experience; I certainly don't see that that has any greater standing than the MoS, to put it mildly. I also personally find "people following illogical contrary rules" to be rather low on the civility front -- even though they're not my rules, by any means. If there's an editorial consensus for this article to ignore the MoS and use DreamGuy's style preference, I shall defer, however. Not, as Kelly Martin says, this is really the appropriate place to be having such debates. Otherwise, I shall use my 2.5th revert for the day (the first actually being a manual re-edit) and retire from the field for the time being. Alai 01:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)