Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 6

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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 5 Jul 2005 and 5 Aug 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Ward Churchill/archive7. Thank you. Theo (Talk) 17:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

he is a con artist do not delete because this is a valid opinion and this is the correct page if you do not if like where it is placed I will move it to the bottom

Contents

Original research

I'd like to remove the following paragraphs on the grounds that the material constitutes original research, because it appears to be an attempt to build a case, or a mishmash of cases. There are also no sources, and some of the statements are, at least, arguably false. See more below.

Churchill's claim that a majority of Americans ignored the effects of Iraqi sanctions on civilians in the 1990s has been disputed. These sanctions had been described as "genocidal" by UN Assistant Secretary General Dennis Halliday who later resigned over them, followed by Hans Von Sponeck, the UN Humanitarian Aid Co-Ordinator who also resigned over the same issue. The death of 567,000 children from the sanctions by 1996 was acknowledged by Madeleine Albright in an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, however she believed the political price was "worth it".

Despite this, there is considerable controversy over the accuracy of claims that connect the sanctions to any child deaths. Soon after the UNICEF report, upon which the popular figure of “500,000” children came from, was released, it was revised due to methodological errors. In addition, when UNICEF began to warn press agencies that the report they authored was not a study of mortality but of potential mortality. Next the UNICEF report showed that child mortality actually fell in areas of Iraq under sanctions but not under central government control, such as in the north of the country. Finally, some infant mortality that did exist was related to widespread corruption of the Oil for Food program inside of Iraq itself. Many scholars feel that the issue of Churchill’s paper is not academic freedom, but academic integrity, and should not become a liberal or a conservative litmus test.

1) This article isn't about the sanctions or the deaths of the Iraqi children. It's about Ward Churchill and what he said about those issues. Laying out arguments regarding whether he was right or wrong in what he said is an example of editors seeking to build a case, which counts as original research.

2) The first sentence: "Churchill's claim that a majority of Americans ignored the effects of Iraqi sanctions on civilians in the 1990s has been disputed," is followed by three examples of people who did not ignore them, which says nothing about whether the majority of Americans did, or did not.

3) There are no sources, and I wonder whether Madelaine Albright did acknowledge the 567,000 child deaths by 1996, given that this is such a disputed figure. I'd say we need a quote for that, and a link to it.

4) The UNICEF report is entirely irrelevant to this article, as is what was happening in the Kurdish north.

5) This sentence is POV, and yet is stated as though it's an established fact: "Finally, some infant mortality that did exist was related to widespread corruption of the Oil for Food program inside of Iraq itself," and, again, is not about Ward Churchill.

6) The next sentence: "Many scholars feel that the issue of Churchill’s paper is not academic freedom, but academic integrity, and should not become a liberal or a conservative litmus test," has nothing to do with the previous one, which makes the paragraph end on an odd note.

Does anyone mind if I delete these paragraphs? SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

I agree. Get rid of all of it. It is all nonNPOV. But of course there is a whole lot of other nonNPOV material that needs to come right out also.--Keetoowah 6 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
Not me; your points are all valid. On Albright: She has been taken as implicitly acknowledging the count of child deaths due to this exchange, for which many links are available, including the Wikipedia article about her: Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes", 5Dec96: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." However, her comment jusitifying U.S. policy cannot accurately be taken as an acknowledgement of Stahl's statement of the consequences of that policy, and Albright later explicitly denied that she had intended any such acknowledgement. 68.6.40.203 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
The net outcome of the recent edits on this page is to create a biased entry that has been edited to attack Churchill. The comment on the last edit: "(Churchill is known nationally because of his moronic statements about 9/11--nothing else--most of his apologists never heard of him before that.)" should be grounds for questioning the ability of [User:Keetoowah] to edit this page in a fair way.--Cberlet 6 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
The fact that you have dedicated your life to working in a fringe area of journalism--covering fringe characters and political movements completely disqualifies you from editing the topic. There is no possible way that you can be objective. You, sir, you must stand down and excuse yourself. You obviously have some strange love for these types of people--fringe political figures who are walking on the edge of reason and rationality. Good God, for the sake of the children, Cberlet, stop the madnesss. Admit your addiction to strange and fringe political movements and fringe political characters and just let it go. Do it for the children. I beg you.-----Keetoowah 6 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
You refer to the subject of an article as "moronic" and you then have the gaul to talke about "objective"? Do you think everyone else in the world is stupid? Anyone, whatever their position on Churchill, will now be inclined, and I daresay are obligated, to revert any of your edits as vandalism. 68.6.40.203 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
Go ahead and try it 68.6.40.203. Let's see if that works, I doubt it. And yeah IMHO I think that anyone who is a non-Indian and they pretend to be Indian their whole life is a moron. Deal with it. -----Keetoowah 01:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
What pompous nonsense. You make snide comments about the person who is the topic of this page, edit in a non-constructive and POV manner, and then don the mantle of the oracle of ethics? --Cberlet 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
Do you know what sarcasm is?? I guess you don't. I am going to continue to edit this article whether you like it or not. I'm not going to let a non-Indian like yourself whitewash the persona of Churchill just because you sympathy with his crazy political views. You need to back off the article because you are bias.------Keetoowah 6 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

"This led to intense media interest in Churchill, which expanded to corrections include examinations of Churchill's academic qualifications and other writings, ethnic fraud, plagiarism, fabrication, and copyright infringement." Examinations of Churchill's ethnic fraud? His plagiarism? His "fabrication", whatever that's meant to be? His copyright infringement? This sentence alone should have us hanging our heads in shame. There's not even a hint that these are allegations that have been made.

Bull Crap!!! The University of Colorado has charged him with "ethnic fraud" that is the term that UC has used in its indictment. Don't make things up just because you don't like the facts.--Keetoowah 6 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Maybe they don't have the principle of the presumption of innocence on your reservation, Keetoowah, but it would be NPOV for us to recognise its existence at least. -- Grace Note

We had long, long discussions on this opening paragraph, and a hardfought consensus paragraph that was NPOV and fair was agreed. But here's the problem. Unless the editors who did the hard work remain eternally vigilant, a POV pusher need only wait and they can reinsert their rubbish a month later.

Slim, go for your life. Take out the original research (which has no place in this article). Shred the POV. Waste hours of your life making this article something that adorns WP rather than makes mock of it. Keep a copy on your hard drive and it'll be a source of pride to you. Just don't come back and look at what's here in six months. You'll cry buckets. -- Grace Note

People seem to be agreed about those two paragraphs, so I'll delete them, and I may do a copy edit over the next couple of days. I won't be too bold. One thing that struck me about the intro is that it doesn't say why his 9/11 essay led to the criticism, so I'll probably add that it was controversial, and that he appeared to suggest culpability on the part of the WTC victims, though I'll word it carefully; or it might be best simply to quote from the essay. I'd also like to add some sources. Anyone should feel free to revert what I do if they don't agree. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 08:14 (UTC)

The paragraphs are not original research and are direct evidence and foundation for what lead Churchill to author the 9/11 essay, they may need some clean up but out right deletion is not appropriate. Sorry I missed this talk page discussion until now. zen master T 6 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

Zen-master, there seems to be a consensus on this page to remove them, and they certainly are original research, because they're trying to build a case. The issue in this section is only what Churchill said, how others responded, and how Churchill responded in turn. Other people's views on what may or may not have happened in Iraq are not relevant.
Changes to the intro: I've added an image; added the "chickens coming home to roost" quote with a link so that the intro makes clear why the essay was controversial; added that the plagiarism and other issues were allegations; added that he says he also received death threats; and removed the ethnicity issue, as the intro doesn't explain the relevance of it, and it would be inappropriate to do so in the introduction, as that issue isn't central to why he became well known (which is why we're writing about him). SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 10:04 (UTC)
Your position doesn't make sense to me, please explain, what about the UN secretary's statement that the sanctions were "genocidal" and the fact that Madeleine Albright considered the price "worth it"? That is evidence that 1) supports Churchill's allegation and 2) is directly one possible cause for the chickens comming back to roost on the USA. I don't think you've run this change by enough people given the history of this article. zen master T 6 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
We're not here to supply evidence in support of, or against, Churchill's thesis. We report what he said, what others said and did in response, and what he said and did in response to that. That's all. Trying to introduce arguments that he was right about X, but wrong about Y, means others will want to add their POV, and you end up with paragraphs consisting of POV A, rejoinder to POV A; POV B, rejoinder to POV B, and so on, when none of it is, in fact, relevant. Another point is that Churchill didn't write his essay because 500,000 children died in Iraq. He might still have written it if 100,000 had died, or 50,000. His substantive point was that chickens had come home to roost, and the precise numbers are arguably irrelevant to that point.
As for the genocidal statement, and Albright's "worth it" comment - again, these have no bearing on what Churchill wrote. Again, we're not here to argue that chickens did, or did not, come home to roost, but simply that he said they did, and saying it caused him a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 10:28 (UTC)
It just isn't that related to Ward Churchill, which is to say, you fail to establish the connection in a concerete enough way, Z-mT. El_C 6 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
Arguably, they do have bearing on what Churchill wrote -- but only if you turn up a quote that has Churchill explicitly saying so. Otherwise, it's merely an opinion and guesswork on the part of the editor. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant. It's likely he wrote about all these things. El_C 6 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

Responding to Slim, the paragraphs are not arguing "right" or "wrong" about X and Y, they are summarizing the basis, the background, the context and the environment of his 9/11 essay, the controversy and also his other writtings. The entire media controversy against Churchill seems to portray him as a "lone-wolf" critic or someone just randomly insulting 9/11 victims, certainly it would be non neutral of the article to perpetuate that? I still consider it illogical to remove directly relevant context on Churchill's 9/11 essay and other writtings. If precise numbers don't matter why did you remove the paragraphs entirely rather than rephrase into something more general? Some of the paragraphs are historically accurate evidence that forms the basis of Churchill's criticisms, why deny history and the proper context? zen master T 6 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

All the rationalizations you've added are only relevant because YOU claim they are relevant. Again, as SlimVirgin points out, what you're doing is building a case -- fine for an opinion column or rhetoric class, but lousy for an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Your position doesn't make sense to me, is it possible what you think of as "opinion" or "rhetoric" in the paragraphs are in fact perfectly acceptable citations? Would it help if the UN secrtary's resignation and Ms Albright's statement were cited? If the paragraphs are "building a case" as you claim they should be caveatted, not deleted. zen master T 6 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
I want Ward Churchill's opinion on these matters, though. El_C 6 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
ZM, Albright would only be relevant if Churchill had said, for example: "I wrote my essay because I was particularly incensed by Madeleine Albright's comment," or if she had made the comment in response to his essay. But the two are unconnected, except that they were both talking about the same issue, as were hundreds of other writers and politicians. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
Your logic just might bring about a context-less society of zombies, abstractly Churchill is responding to Albright's comment which is not just one of "hundreds of other writers", it's the best succinct summary of the historic reality in which Churchill wrote his essay and in which his criticisms exist. The blase' attitude Ms Albright shows to 500,000 children potentially dying through Iraq sanctions is precisely Churchill's allegation that we should not be surprised when the same degree of violence is also perpetrated upon the USA. Certainly the article has to explain the meaning and context of "chickens comming home to roost"? Your removing the paragraphs diminishes that explaination. zen master T 6 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
At the risk of being labelled a zombie (which, strange to relate, will not be the first time), it remains true that unless Churchill was directly responding to Albright, it has no place here. We are not here to prove whether Churchill was right or wrong, merely to report what he claimed and what others claim about him. There is definitely a need for considered analysis of Churchill's essay. But not in an encyclopaedia. -- Grace Note
Sorry, your logic is just sloppy research, Z-mT. You cannot wave your failure to tie the dots as a pretext to inject your own juxtapositions as a shortcut. Again, I want to learn what W. Churchill has to say on these matters, not what you do. El_C 6 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
I did not write those paragraphs but parts of the first one are perfectly valid historical context for Ward Churchill's essays and more directly they are part of the context for 9/11 according to Churchill. Though I am not implying or interpreting that Churchill is implying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Churchill's allegation is more general and abstract, something like "the US has a history of illegitimate violennce and imperialism generally in the middle east so we should not be surprised when some of that violence is returned". Iraq is just one example of US policies in the middle east. I agree the article/paragraph should not focus on just Churchill's view of Iraq for fear of being presumptively inducing that Iraq was involved in 9/11 but outright deletion is still unwarranted. Parts of the first paragraph are citations and a synopsis of the sanctions against Iraq controversy which is one thing directly relevant to Churchill's writtings or do you disagree (if so what is the logical basis)? If you truly want to learn what W. Churchill has to say on these matters why do you support the removal of info that describes the context for these matters? What does "chickens coming home to roost" mean without context? At the very least the article should have a ton more see alsos to, or WP needs other articles on (or links to if they exist) that describe the full context of the historic sanctions against Iraq and the history of US policies in the middle east (with a contextually relevant synopsis next to the wikilink in this article). zen master T 6 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
Churchill's 911 comments represent a fraction of his published literature. It seems somewhat solicitous give weight to the off-hand comments of an assistant professor when there is plenty of well-edited published literature to expose his viewpoints -- his allegations that the FBI murdered Anna Mae when, after he taught this myth to generations of University of Colorado students, a jury concluded that an AIM member killed her -- his insightful criticism's in Indian's R Us of the white-man's cooptation of indian culture as their own childish mythology. Reading this talk page is informative. I now know to approach this article from the history page, because I have no confidence whatsoever that writers Theo and SlimVirginia contribute factual, non-biased information. What I see on this talk page is them attacking someone who knows something about it, then accusing their victim of abuse for having the courage to stand up to them. WizUp 10:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it still seems too loose. I suggest you attempt to, as you put it, "clean" and "work it out" on the talk page first. El_C 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Death threats

It would be really nice if everything I changed weren't almost instantly undone. Keetowah, I feel the death-threats claim does belong in the intro, the point of which is to provide an overview of the most pressing issues, and to tell the reader why they should read on. That he says he received death threats in response to a piece of writing in America, land of the free, is notable. It also clearly and succinctly illustrates the depth of feeling his essay generated, and that in turn gives the reader an idea of the atmosphere within which the other allegations were made against him. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 19:28 (UTC)

I agree that there is a clear depth of response to him. And I understand your point, however, the opening lead paragraph is not the place for the death threat allegation. In all due respect, has that death threat allegation been completely and totally verified by a dispassionate, third party? I did not see anywhere in your link that is true. I'm sure that it hasn't been. I'm sure that Churchill has gotten some heat from his comments, but it is not the focus of the article or why there is an article about him anyway. For example, Hank Aaron received thousands upon thousands of verified death threats in the run up his breaking of Babe Ruth's record--is that fact in the opening section of Hammering Hank's article? No. Nor should it be. That applies to Jackie Robinson, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. This applies to literally hundreds of the people who have Wiki articles about them. I can't agree with that format--especially since there has been one and it has not be verified by the FBI, etc. when Aaron, et. al. called the authorities and had theirs verified. It should be mentioned in the article, but not at the beginning or we are going to have to go back and fix all of them.--Keetoowah 6 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
Yes, good points. I accept what you're saying. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Query

Does anyone know what this means, and who the unnamed academics are? "However, some academics from the fields of sociology and anthropology, while supporting Churchill's politics in general, are concerned about the quality of scholarship shown in his work and the casual way in which ethnic studies departments handle issues of academic integrity." SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 22:41 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it means; what matters is that it's unsourced, and directedly violates WP policies concerning the use of "some say" to encode POV. 68.6.40.203 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Photograph

I do not understand how the use of the photographic portrait can be "fair use". It would be fair use if the article was about the photographer or about the photograph. In my opinion, using it to illustrate an article about its subject compromises the photographer's ability to exploit his/her work. — Theo (Talk) 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

It does if the photograph is worth any money, which I doubt. I'm intending to find out who the copyright holder is just to check on the status of it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The section called Ethnicity seems too long and detailed. There appears to be no allegation that he obtained his job through an affirmative-action program. The band's statement makes clear that he does not have a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, which he would need to take a position under an affirmative-action program. The university is investigating whether his claim to be a Native American may have made his scholarship "more widely accepted," whatever that means, so we're right to include some discussion of it, but it's a fairly mild allegation, and I'm not sure it justifies several paragraphs of who-said-what-when. The amount of space we devote to what is no more than a little local difficulty lends a whiff of racism to the article, in my view. Does anyone else have views on this? SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments without my permission please. By all means redact them but removing them is unacceptable If he didn't get his job through an affirmative action programme, he's done no more than many academics in claiming more familiarity with a subject than he really has -- if even that, really. It doesn't merit a huge portion of his article as such -- although it has been a source of controversy regarding him and shouldn't be disregarded -- and it wouldn't be remiss to remove it altogether from the intro. Expanding it will simply blow it out of all proportion. Frankly, if you are not a member of this ethnicity, it seems a bit quaint: the guy wants to be an Indian, how cute. Well, so did Adam Ant. -- Grace Note

I agree it shouldn't be expanded. Maybe a more neutral word than "misrepresented" can be found. SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
I agree there is a more than a whiff of racism involved. As a enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, I resent the fact that Churchill runs around and claims that he is member of my tribe when he isn't. Yeah, when non-Indians come along and say, basically, that is not big deal that he is flat out lying about his race. Of course there is a whiff of racism involved in that. It is not a big deal to you, a non-Indian, but it is a big deal in Indian Country and I'm tired of hearing this argument. Every Churchill apologist comes along and says, "Well, I don't care that he lies about being an Indian." And: "Its no big deal that he lies about being an Indian, they are just Indians, it doesn't matter what the hell they think." Do you really think you could get away with your flippant attitudes about him lying about his race if he was pretending to be a black person????" Hell no. And your one comment above is just flat out wrong. You stated: "There appears to be no allegation that he obtained his job through an affirmative-action program. The band's statement makes clear that he does not have a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, which he would need to take a position under an affirmative-action program." Have you read the charges in the UC document? I would argue that you have not even read them. This particular topic takes up one third of the document. Also, you have the issue flat out wrong. It is not about affirmative action, it about him lying about who he is. But as I pointed out before, his lying does not concern you. That is NOT your decision to make. Questions about his ancestry have been around in Indian Country for over 20 years and it is NOT for one non-Indian to simply decide that it is not an important issue. Yeah, there is more than a whiff of racism and it is coming from a paternalistic, "we know better than the Indians" attitude that I hear on this talk page. Sure, as a Churchill apologist you want to bury the issue because it it is black mark on your hero and you have a point of view to push but facts are facts and he has been parading around as Fake Indian for twenty years and now you want to sweep it under the rug because you agree with his crazy politics.--Keetoowah 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
What you're enrolled in and what you resent is irrelevant in the context of WP articles. 68.6.40.203 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
Yes, but what you're simply not understanding is that it's a question of what is of interest more broadly. Personally, I really care when my neighbour's stereo is loud, but an article about Grace Note's neighbour's stereo is loud would not be encyclopaedic, however strongly I feel it should be more widely broadcast. -- Grace Note
Well, one comment as I just clarified this in the intro, I think we need to make a distinction between two or more possibilities, allegations that Churchill "misrepresented" his ethnicity and allegations he simply failed to prove his ethnicity with sufficiently acceptable proof under Colorado or other laws (whatever that means). zen master T 7 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
The thing about expanding this issue in the intro is that readers outside North America may not understand why this is an issue. You added: "and allegations that he misrepresented or did not adequately prove his claim of partial Native American ethnicity." We ought to say who he needed to prove it to, why he needed to prove it, whether he did in fact try to prove it (and there's no evidence it was ever an issue with the university). So I'd say it's best avoided in the intro, or at least left as short as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
Dear SlimVirgin: These comments prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't know what you talking about. You state that: "and there's no evidence it was ever an issue with the university" That is flat out wrong. You have not read the charges against him filed by the UC. The allegations are named in the document and are entitled, "Ethnic Fraud" You have NOT read the document. At all. This shows the short-comings of the Wiki process. SlimVirgin is coming in and making wholesale changes to the document and he does not even know the facts of the situation. But the facts are unimportant to SlimVirgin because he has already made up his mind that Churchill lying about his ancestry is perfectly acceptable because why in SlimVirgin's mind, Churchill is only pretending to be a Indian anyway!!! Back off the article if you aren't even going to learn the facts. I'm not talking about opinion or spin I'm talking about facts. The Ethnic Fraud allegation takes up one third of the pages in the big University document and SlimVirgin does not even know that and he refers to it on the talk page like he know what he is talking about!!!! Amazing.------Keetoowah 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
I am not against succinct or shorter clarity generally but I think the word "misrepresented" conveys too much negativity as there are many different nuanced allegations and interpretations concerning his claim of ethnicity, at the very least it needs some sort of caveat. zen master T 7 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
What hogwah! That ain't gonna happen. No sir. The UC has used the term, Ethnic Fraud and that is fact, not an opinion, not spin.-------Keetoowah 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
Eewwww!! Too much negativity about my hero, give it a break zen-man.------Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
Could you supply a source for that, Keetoowah? It would make more sense to quote them, rather than use our own words. Also, please discuss this here rather than reverting. All I did was make the passage invisible until we decide how to word it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 03:39 (UTC)
Of course, I can supply a source for that. The Silver & Gold, the faculty newspaper of the Universityof Colorado faculty uses the term "ethnic fraud" over and over again. See for example[1]-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
Regarding your comments above, please tone down the aggression. Churchill is not a hero of mine. I know very little about him, as you've pointed out at some length, which frankly I feel might be an advantage in editing this page.
Ignorance of your subject is never an advantage.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
The principles of the American jury system argue to the contrary. The advantage comes from absence of prejudice. 68.6.40.203 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
I take your point about what's regarded as important in what you call Indian country, but this is not Indian country. Our readers come from all over the world, and we write for them, not for any particular community.
So, what you are saying then is if someone lives in the Ivory Coast and Churchill lies about his ethnic background, wait I mean he lies about being an Indian then the reader in the Ivory Coast does not care. And you are saying that you know that reader in the Ivory Coast does not care and you can make that decision for him or her. It is so smug of you to decide what information you feel you need to cover up for the Fake Indian and what information you should leave in about the Fake Indian.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
Also, I damn right called it Indian Country. And for your edification the proper spelling is with two caps: Indian Country, not Indian country. Yeah, you are showing your ignorance of your topic again. How can you be so damn sure of your position and opinion on a topic that it is clear that you know nothing about??? You don't even know what Indian Country is, much less that there are Fake Indians running around in Indian Country stealing jobs and grants from real Indians. You don't know that REAL Indians call these Fake Indians "Wannabees" as in the "Wannabee Tribe." You don't know that your hero, Churchill, is known in Indian Country and has been for 20 years as the Chief of the Wannabee Tribe. The head Fake Indian. You are the now the Head Fake Indian Apologist. Congratulations.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
If the university document makes a big deal out of his alleged misrepresentation, and if he secured an academic position by misrepresenting anything about himself (whether his ethnicity or anything else), then of course it should be included in the intro, so long as it is worded carefully and succinctly. But I'm not aware that he did obtain anything by it.
Of course you aren't sure that he has gain anything because it is not important to you anyway because you are so impressed with his political view that the U.S. had it coming that you are more than willing to cover up and hide the fact that he is lying about his own race. You want to hide and cover up the fact that he is ashamed of being a white person. Also, you aren't sure that he has gained anything because you have the first clue what the charges are against him at the Univ of Colorado and you haven't made any attempt to find out because you are, based upon the comments here, clearly proud of your ignorance of the charges against Churchill because once again it is not important to you personally and therefore in your line of thinking Churchill's Fake Indian act is not important to people around the world. You are capable of deciding what is important and what is not important and as such you have decided that you are superior to all of the Indians that find his Fake Indian act stomach turning. How paternalistic of you.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
We're here to write a disinterested, encyclopedic article, not one that makes him look good or bad. It's often difficult for editors with very strong feelings about an issue to do that. SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 03:47 (UTC)
Based upon the fact that you want to completely eliminate the biggest line of BS in Churchill's life, his Fake Indian act, then I can't believe for one minute that you are even attempting to be disinterested. Also, I agree with you concerning that comment about editors with strong feelings having a difficult time being fair. All I can see is that over and over and over again, the apologists for Churchill have a very difficult time being fair with their handinling of the Fake Indian act. For example, you are an apologist for Churchill and you want to eliminate all reference to Churchill Fake Indian act. Yes, I can see where strong feelings lead to bad editing. You are a prime example. Another good example is Cberlet: that guy has dedicated his life to writing glowing, non-critical articles about fringe nutjobs such as Churchill. Cberlet is like Patty Hearst in the SLA, at least you aren't that far gone--yet.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling other editors "apologists," Keetoowah, and please refrain from an agressive, tense overtones. It makes for an unpleasent editing enviorment. Thanks. El_C 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, which does indeed use the words "ethnic fraud" and "misrepresented," though it also says: "The claim that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity to gain credibility and an audience for his scholarship was among the allegations that were referred to the committee this spring ..." There is no allegation that he gained employment because of his ethnicity, as several editors have argued. SlimVirgin

Dear SlimVirgin: Wrong again. Yes, there have been allegations in the past that he lied about his race to get favorable treatment in his employment. Once again, in the Silver & Gold, UC faculty paper:
Three CU-Boulder administrators have determined that while a controversial essay by Professor Ward Churchill of ethnic studies is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution, other allegations related to plagiarism, fabrication and his ethnicity warrant a review by the UCB Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. . ."We in academe are held to high standards of integrity, competence and accuracy, at the same time that we freely engage in spirited, unimpeded discourse in the `marketplace of ideas,' " DiStefano said at the press conference. He announced that after reviewing about 100 of Churchill's works, the three administrators determined that "the content and rhetoric of Professor Churchill's writings on [Sept. 11, 2001], no matter how repugnant I find them, are protected by the First Amendment." DiStefano also said an allegation that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to gain employment was reviewed by the UCB administration in 1994, and no action was warranted. However, DiStefano said the claim of "misrepresentation of ethnicity to gain credibility and an audience for scholarship ... may constitute research misconduct and failure to meet standards of professional integrity." In addition to the ethnicity-related claim, DiStefano said, the research misconduct committee is being asked to review allegations of "plagiarism, misuse of others' work and fabrication."-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

So what we have here is an example of how you are ignorant of your topic, dear SlimVirgin, and you simply do not like what is being stated by UC administrators, etc. and in response you just make things up.----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Your rhetoric notwithstanding, this article will be written in accordance with our policies, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, which you may want to read, and it is aimed, as is the whole of Wikipedia, at the world, not at any particular community. Our readers on the Ivory Coast may indeed care about his ethnic background, but they're unlikely to want to read the interminable detail we have provided, which looks small-minded, provincial, and at times vicious. What it does is add to the impression that a lynch mob is pursuing an academic because of a controversial political view he expressed. We report the actions of lynch mobs; we don't become part of them. SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

You are right, dear SlimVirgin, the article will be written according to Wiki standards regardless of your completel lack of knowledge and your complete and total bias toward the topic. Unfortunately, you have sympathy for Churchill'ls radical politics and therefore you want to cover up his 20 years of being a Fake Indian. Basically, what you stateing here is that so? Churchill is a Fake Indian. He is an academic and therefore we must ignore his Fake Indian act because well he is an academic. It is a ludicrious argument. As long as what is in there is true and it can be sourced then it is going to stay in there. The burden is on you to prove that the statements in there are untrue. You need to find other sources that refute what is written in the Ethnicity section. So far, you have done a lousy job getting the facts straight much less refuting anything that is written in the article.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
Contrary to some claims, I am seeking a reasonable compromise on the lead section. We cannot simply ignore the claims about Churchill and his ethnicity, but we cannot load up the lead section with hyperbolic attack words either. So "mischaracterised his ethnicity" seems fair. Also, since I have worked for and with a number of groups and individuals in "Indian Country," I can confirm that is a very common term within that culture; however it is a term used primarily within that specific ethnic culture by members, and is problematic when used by others.--Cberlet 7 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
The Fake Indian thing must be listed in the intro. I'm fine with Cberlet's version.-----Keetoowah 7 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Band statement

That's way too long, Keetowah. The ethnicity issue is just one among many, and not the central one. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quote the Keetoowah Tribe Properly

It is damnable lie to state that the quote that SlimVirgin keeps attempting to place in the article as the statement of the Keetoowah Tribe. Slim needs to explain himself. -----Keetoowah 02:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so aggressive, KTW. It's not the end of the world. ;-) I took their statement from here [2] - scroll down to "Final Statement from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Regarding Ward Churchill," May 19, 2005. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Why not respond to what Keetoowah writes, SlimVirgin rather than how it is said? What does it matter how Keetoowah writes, as long as Keetoowah writes coherently. I understand Keetoowah's interest, and I suspect you can too. You will find it is much easier to control your reactions than it is to control what Keetoowah writes. WizUp 10:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Scroll further down that same page and you will see the original statement of the Tribe and it is very clear in its denial of membership. That is what I'm quoting and it should be the proper quote of the Tribe. -----Keetoowah 02:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
A quote that I left out was very damn clear:
All of Churchill's past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so. ------Keetoowah 02:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Also: Why shouldn't I be aggressive?? You reverted me without even attempting to talk about it. Just anorther do-good liberal paternalistic action--because you know better than me.-----Keetoowah 02:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, KTW, I think you reverted first. Regardless, it's better to use their most recent statement in my view. Whichever we choose, that section shouldn't be aggressive and argumentative, or too long. This isn't the main issue with Churchill. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
You haven't given a reason why the second quote is somehow better--other than it is the second quote..-----Keetoowah 03:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The tribal membership of a person who presents as a leading spokesperson for native causes is not the "main issue with Churchill". Who here decides what is the "main issue" with any particular person? I would think if Churchill claimed to be a member of my tribe and wasn't his claim would be a "main issue" with me. WizUp 10:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


We're going to run out of page in a minute. My reasoning is only that it's the most recent one and it's less aggressive. However, if you're wedded to the earlier one, I won't revert you again. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia reports facts -- it doesn't select the less aggressive behavior and report only that. If the tribal council released an aggressive statement, an accurate encyclopedia will report it. If for some reason the council later toned down their statement, it might be encyclopedic to report why. WizUp 10:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion (and I trust that this will not be dismissed because of my age, race, nationality, religion, politics, social class, economic class or occupation) that it is preferrable to use a revised statement by any party because to do otherwise fails to respect a (legal or natural) person's willingness to change their opinions as facts emerge. In this case, the Tribe appear to have moderated their public statement, and I believe that we should repect that intention. —Theo (Talk) 08:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect that is complete and total BS. The other statement is still on the Web because that is still the opinion of the Tribe. If we did not believe it we would have taken it down. The second statement is merely an addition to the earlier statement and NOT a moderation or correction of the first statement--regardless of your attempts to read into that statement what you want to see into that statement. You have choosen to completely ignore the first statement as if it does not exist and as if it is not on the Keetoowah Tribe Web site. That is bias whether you want to admit it or not. Also, placing the comments made on this talk page in perspective, it is even more clear the bias exhibited. SlimVirgin has alleged that I "hate" Churchill. That is an attempt to characterize my attempts to have the Tribe's position stated clearly in a radical context. SlimVirgin has attempted to belittle my position and the position of the Tribe to defend the person who is clearly engaging in "hate" speech, i.e., Churchill (he is the one who believes that the people in WTC deserved to die, not me). Isn't that an example of blaming the victim??? Of course it is. You, dear TheoClarke, have choosen to ignore the first statement, even though it is still the position of the Tribe and it still appears on their Web site and nothing in the second statement contradicts or repudiates anything in the first statement. It is merely an addition to the first statement. How is the second statement a repudiation of anything in the first statement??? You and SlimVirgin just don't like the Tribe forcefully and clearly denying that Churchill is member of their Tribe. You simply don't like that and it has clouded your opion. Where in the second statement does the Tribe state that Churchill IS a member of the Tribe??? It does NOT. Where is this so-called "willingness to change their opinions" that you dreaming about TheoClarke???? I don't see it.-----Keetoowah 13:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah: Several things flow from this:
  1. When you state that the only respect that I am due is to have my opinion dismissed as "complete and total BS", I feel that you are according me with almost no respect at all. I would appreciate it if you could be more civil to me.
  2. I apologise for appearing to "completely ignore the first statement". I meant no disrespect. I understood the second statement to supplant rather than complement the first. It is not bias; it is ignorance. I feel that you do not recognise the good faith in which I act.
  3. We come from very different cultures. In my milieu, the phrase "dear TheoClarke" is either affectionate or condescending. I see no evidence of the former in the rest of your message and, if I am as stupid as the latter suggests that you believe, a more courteous form of address would seem appropriate. If the phrase has some other sense in your culture, I would like to know it, because as things stand I am uncomfortable with my perception of your attitude toward me.
  4. I am not surprised that SlimVirgin has concluded that you hate Churchill. You have repeatedly denigrated the man as much as his behaviour. One example of this is your repeated use of the appelation "the FAKE indian" [the use of uppercase is yours].
  5. You are completely and utterly mistaken in your assumption that I "just don't like the Tribe forcefully and clearly denying that Churchill is member of their Tribe". I really do not care what position the Tribe takes. All I wish is that the position is reported accurately.
  6. Your use of the phrase "that you dreaming about" appears to imply that I am deluded. I am willing to accept that I am mistaken, but I find the suggestion that I am deluded to be offensive.
  7. Finally, should you reread my message, you may see that I phrased it carefully so as not to pretend to knowledge that I lacked. At risk of condescending to you in turn, I feel that a more constructive and courteous response by you might have read: You appear to have mistakenly taken the second statement as a revision rather than the addition that was intended. In my opinion, using the second statement alone is a misleading dilution of the Tribe's position. I can assure you that I would have got the message and I would not now feel the offence that I have articulated above. —Theo (Talk) 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Response To TheoClarke

Dear TheoClarke: I have never made any pretense to be non-biased. I clearly am biased and I have never, ever claimed to be objective. And that is the difference between myself and most of the Wikipedians that have beeen editing the Churchill article. All of the other Wikipedians either attempt to be objective or they claim that they are objective and they are truly biased. However the problem with this situation is that no one can maintain complete and total objectivity (no matter how hard they try) or they are just faking being objective while they bend some article to the right or the left. I however am being honest and straightforward in with my bias however I try to edit with my personal experience in my mind while I work on the material. In my personal experience I know that he is FAKE Indian and I am going to edit the article with that personal experience in mind. While you on the other hand do not have personal experience with man and you are attempting to maintain what you believe to be objectivity--which may seem admirable--however for someone who has first hand knowledge of the person and has been involved in Indian politics and Indian Country for 30 years I find your attempts to "clean up" the the man's arrogance, smugness, hatred of those who disagree with him to be just another well-meaning but ultimately hurtful actions of the do-gooder liberal paternalism. You find it objective and professional but I find it degrating to the all of the real Indians that are working in the worlds of academics, law, medicine, etc. that deserve the kind of attention that Churchill steals from real, hard-working Indians. You and SlimVirgin's attempts to pretty up the criticism of Churchill makes him look like the date-stamped, pre-approved liberal Indian that the Amy Goodman's of the world want to be believe that all Indians are like--when in truth Churchill is far from the normal Indian. Why? Because he is not an Indian at all but a radical (not even liberal) white guy pretending to be an Indian--his fake Indian-ness provides him with a platform to criticize America and the Left applauds him as if he has some kind of insight into the Native world, which he doesn't. Let's face it. You don't have respect for my opinion. You never have. You and SlimVirgin and the others who have been attempting to take the FAKE Indian issue completely out of the article do not believe the issue should even be mentioned because it puts a dark cloud over the myth that you want to believe that Churchill is: The mighty Indian warrior fighting America, fighting the conservatives, fighting Bush, etc. You and SlimVirgin have more respect for the words of Churchill and his nasty comments that the people in the WTC deserved to die, comparing them to Eichmann, etc than you do with the perspective that quite possibly your mythical Indian just might be a FAKE Indian. Don't lecture me. Of course you and SlimVirgin are biased. I just have the honesty to admit it.-----Keetoowah 20:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

#I am not surprised that SlimVirgin has concluded that you hate Churchill. You have repeatedly denigrated the man as much as his behaviour. One example of this is your repeated use of the appelation "the FAKE indian" [the use of uppercase is yours]. TheoClarke

Since you feel compelled to fight the fight of SlimVirgin, let me response to this nonsense that you have put forward. First of all there is a difference between the words that I have used in the actual article and the words that I have used on this Talk Page. I have never, ever attempted to put into the article the phrase, "Churchill is a FAKE Indian" even though I want to see it in the actual article, but I know that it will never be accepted and is clearly over the top. What we have here, my friend, is an example of a Red herring argument or, if you will, a Straw man argument. You are diverting attention to the comments that I have made on the Talk Page to attempt to censor the writing in the actual article. If we go back to the original issue that brought on this discussion it was about the proper quotation of the Tribe. I never, ever wrote any hateful speech in the article about Churchill I was just attempting to make sure that the article quoted the Tribe properly. If you review the changes [3] [4] it is abundantly clear that I was merely quoting directly from the Tribes's official Web site and I did NOT add my own commentary at all. It is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin repeatedly reversed me even though I was not violating any Wikipedian rules--I was NOT engaging in non-NPOV commentary, I was not engaging in original research or commentary and I was being completely factual, professional, and I was providing a citation for the changes that I was attempting to make. And finally it is abundantly clear that SlimVirgin did not attempt to explain the wholesale reversals and it is clear to me that SlimVirgin, and SlimVirgin admits as much, that SlimVirgin simply liked the sound of the second statement of the Tribe better, not that it was the definitive point of view of the Triber but it sounded less mean--taken out of context of the first statement. Is that the proper way to decide how to quote the Tribe? Being accurate or what SlimVirgin finds subjectively less mean sounding??? That is a non-objective way to decide. It is clearly subjective and bias. It is based upon the standard--if I can loosely use that word--what does SlimVirgin feels today? What mood is SlimVirgin in today??

Quite a good mood until I read this.  ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

That is biased and it is NOT objective like your and SlimVirgin like to claim. It was NOT even my comments, but the comments of the Tribe of which Churchill claims to be a member. I want to know where you see in the article or in the changes to the article where I was engaging in "hate speech" Where??? Show me when and where I did this. Also, ask SlimVirgin when and where I was engaging in this behavior--since you have decided to defend SlimVirgin also. The only hate speech that is in the article is the hate speech of Churchill towards the people that were trapped in the WTC on 9-11-2001.-----Keetoowah 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, we all bring our prejudices to bear on any issue. In some ways, the fact that your opinions on this issue are extreme does make it easier to identify your useful contribution to NPOV. I have no problem with that. My key concern is with your incivility, which I see as unconstructive. I note that you have expressed no regret for the offence that I felt. Your suggestion that others are being dishonest in the face of your honesty only exacerbates my discomfort. Your apparent belief in the absolute accuracy of your position is a stance with which I find it difficult to interact effectively. Despite my best endeavours to see it otherwise, I keep feeling that your attitude can be characterised as "User:Keetwoowah is always right. Any disagreement is always wrong". Perhaps you do feel that way, although I find it hard to accept that you truly believe yourself to be utterly infallible; I prefer to think that you are a more reasonable person who presents an intransigent attitude as a rhetorical technique.

I was not aware that I was trying to "clean up" Churchill's behaviour. I am trying to find a way to represent his position fairly. To me, my opinion on the validity of his claim to Indian ancestry seems no more relevant than yours. I believe that we should state his claims, state those informed sources (such as the Keetoowah Tribe) that refute these, and state those informed sources (none, of which I am aware) that support them. I would be gobsmacked if you truly know my opinion of Churchill. I have already apologised for my error in misunderstanding the relationship between the two statements by the Tribe. Your continued beration of me after this apology feels as if you are dissatisfied with tearing off my arm and need to beat me with the bloody stump.

I am offended to the point of anger by your assertion that I "don't have respect for [your] opinion" and that I "never have". I do not see any of my contributions to this discussion that merit such a calumny. I have not tried to hide the issue of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry in the face of denial by some of the tribes with which he claims association. I did not mean to lecture you. I attempted to express the distress that I felt over the accusations that you levelled at me without assuming those accusations to be malicious. I continue to afford you that unacknowledged respect although I begin to wonder if you might be too angry to understand my position.

I recognise that you have used more temperate language in the article than you have on the talk page. I have not knowingly claimed otherwise. I attempted to explain why I thought that SlimVirgin might think that you hate Churchill. I did not attempt to "censor the writing in actual article". Indeed, I so fail to see how I might be doing this that I wonder if "censor" has different connotations in your English than in mine. Where I come from, "censor" means "prohibit the distribution of". I have advocated no prohibition. I suggested that, where somebody had made a revised statement, we should use the revised statement. In this context, as I previously explained, I misunderstood the relationship between the two Tribal statements. For the avoidance of doubt, which part of my unconditional apology for that misunderstanding was unclear?

I note that you defend yourself vociferously against accusations that I never made while making no acknowledgement of my articulation of my distress. I do not understand this behaviour. Why should I cite examples of hate speech by you when I never accused you of doing that? You appear to be inviting me to kick you when I have expressed no hostility toward you. I feel that I must be misunderstnding you but I do not even know where the confusion starts. Once again, I feel confused and rather stupid.

Ultimately, I feel that we are "divided by a common language" and by wildly different conversational styles. I reiterate my earlier position: I made a mistake; I thought that the second Tribal statement revised the first; I agree that I was wrong; I apologise for my misunderstanding; I think that you see me acting in bad faith and I feel hurt by this perception. I do hope that this is clear enough for us to start communicating. —Theo (Talk) 00:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Distress?? Over what? I have been attempting to get the proper quotation from the Tribe in the article for months and every so often someone like SlimVirgin comes out of nowhere, does NOT know the issues or the topic and completely rewrites the article and always minimizes the comments of ONE of the tribes that Churchill claims that he belongs to (the two other tribes do not claim him either!!!!). And the SlimVirgin's of the world always have a one or two, sometimes three, bandwagon buddies that jump to the new person's (the SlimVirgin for example) defense. That's the pattern that I have seen over and over again. SlimVirgin reverted the exact quote of the Tribe and she did not even know that the ethnicity issue was an issue in front of the university for many, many years. and SlimVirgin did not know that ethnicity issue was a current issue. Ok, you did not know that the first statment was still on the Web site. I accept that. And you did not know that the second statement only adds and extends information that is in complete and total compatibility with the first statement. I accept that. If you are offended, then all I can state is that I'm not in control of your emotions. Only you can control those, not me. I feel distress in that it is frustrating to see the kind of wholesale changes that SlimVirgin made and it is by someone who does not know the topic. But I don't hold either you or SlimVirgin responsible for my frustration. That frustration is my doing, no one eles.-----Keetoowah 01:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least that's one thing in the world that's not my fault. It's a start! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Keetoowah, when Theo apologized above, would it not have been more courteous and constructive to offer thanks rather than launching into another attack that dismisses the distress being described?--Cberlet 03:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Look, as far as I can tell you and your partners in crime have merely focused on me and not on the article.. I guess that points out the weakness of your arguments concerning the article.--Keetoowah 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It is becoming difficult for me to tell whether you, Keetoowah, are clumsy or deliberately offensive. Given the extensive explanation that I have given of the phrases that have occasioned offence, I now incline to the latter. I take responsibility for my own emotions and part of that responsibility involves telling you the things that you do that elict responses that I do not expect to arise from civil behaviour. I used the word "distress" to encapsulate all the various discomforts that I had described earlier. I agree that you are not in control of the emotions of others. You are, however, in complete control of your choice of language: choices that appear aggressive, belittling, bombastic, disrespectful, and insensitive. Put like this, this looks like a harsh description of your behaviour, but I stand by all of it, separately and together. The reason that your behaviour has become a focus is because it is so unpleasant that it distracts us from the core issues that you claim to be your main concern. I suggest that you make strenuous efforts to avoid offensive phrasing in these discussions. This does not mean that you should excise your passion, which I admire. I imagine that all the participants in this would prefer to see us return to a civil discussion of the article contents. I propose that we now do that. —Theo (Talk) 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


I hope you have got it off your chest. You haven't changed my personality or my opinions one iota. And of course what you left out of your little diatribe that you just posted is that the manner in which you and SlimVirgin made wholesale changes to the articles, on a topic that neither of you really know much about appears "aggressive, belittling, bombastic, disrespectful, and insensitive." And of course I stand behind that also. I really do hope that your little tirade as given you closure on whatever issues that must be causing you grief, but I not going to apologize for being right and I'm not going to take responsibility for your emotions. You got as good as you gave. Maybe next time SlimVirgin and you will think twice before you decide to edit an article so that it is sympathetic to a man that has praised the murder of innocent people in the WTC on 9-11-01. You slanted toward sympathy for him and I just slanted it right back. I'm not going to apologize for that. You and SlimVirgin attempted to mischaracterize the view of the Tribe of which he claims to be a member. You are right. I don't know what the motivation of you and SlimVirgin were, but whatever the motivation was it was not right and I put a stop to it. I tried to put a stop to it the day that SlimVirgin originally mischaracterized the views of the tribe, but on that day SlimVirgin had cohorts swarming around defending whatever changes that SlimVirgin made. You can focus on my behavior all you want. It is a waste of time because I haven't done a thing that I need to apologize for and I am NOT going to change who I am. I'm going to focus on the changes to the article and I'm going to stop any attempts by POV warriors like SlimVirgin who want to distort the views of the Tribe. Since you have made a few suggestions I have a few suggestions for you. Have a better understanding of your topic before you start making wholesale changes to any article and get control of your emotions and quit blaming others for the way that you feel. -----Keetoowah 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making your aggression and incivility completely clear. Your repeated distortions of the material that I do know well (the statements made upon this talk page) lead me to doubt your judgement in areas where I thought you to be the more knowledgable of us. I regret that—I do not blame you for this; nor did I blame you for the other emotions that this correspondence has aroused. You misunderstood me there as you appear to have done at almost every turn. —Theo (Talk) 14:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't get it out of your system. You must have a bottomless pit of anger inside your system. Anyway, there is no way that you, a subject of the British crown has the personal insight into this topic that I have. So get over yourself.-----Keetoowah 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Let me strongly reccomend that all participants here read Wikipedia:No_Personal_Attacks, Wikipedia:No_original_research. Thanks! Hipocrite 21:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling out to the Internet Oracle

Oh, high grace and superflus seer of the future allow me to humbly request that you answer my two questions:

On January 31, 2005, Churchill resigned as chairman of the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado, but remains a tenured professor.

Your grace, i removed that phrase from the article, because today, it's sunday, july 31st 2005. What says you, Greatest of all Great Oracles: keep out or keep in?

Second question: How much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Awaiting your honorific answer, your eminence.

Project2501a 20:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And in response, thus spake the Oracle: Keep one in. Chuck two out. —Theo (Talk) 22:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there some sort of 6 month rule for facts? Remover should explain his/her reasoning in more detail. zen master T 03:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Wow. Apologies, guys. I read that as December 31s 2005. *D-OH* Stupid me. that's why i went wtf... i apologise, again. i'll go ahead an re-insert it. Project2501a 01:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)