![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Not sure if this is notable enough for the article: Judge refuses to reverse Churchill ruling.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please show me where on WP:RS it says that a press release by a notable organization is not reliable from said organization unless it is picked up by another source? That is absolutely ridiculous. The Press Release is a valid source of information when it pertains to that organization and that organizations stand. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to say that it isn't. It is also a stance that is NOT supported as an appropriate use of a primary source. Furthermore, it is assinine to require a secondary source to take the material and provide spin or misrepresent it when the original source is obtainable. Finding the same material cited in a dozen sources that result from a news release is WEAKER than finding the orignal news release! The original is always better than citing the pages that mimic the original!--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) PS if you want to argue that the text doesn't belong for another reason, I'm open to that... but requiring a press release indicating a notable organization's stance be picked up by somebody else to be a valid stance is idiotic. Let me draw a comparison. My primary area of interest is Poker. If a minor poker tournament makes a press release, and that press release is picked up by half a dozen poker cites/magazines, which is more reliable? The original press release? Or the half a dozen pages that copied said release in full/part? The answer is obvious. Which is more honest for Wikipedia, to cite a page that merely copied a press release or to goto the original source? The answer is obvious, the original source. By insisting on a secondary source, you introduce the possibility that the information contained in a press release is represented as more than just a promotional piece by the organization.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
{outdent}The LA Times does not qualify? Here are the facts:
What part of the above do you disagree with? I mean, good grief, the LA TIMES can state, that AIM said he "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" to build his career. Do you honestly beleive that statement is a more reliable source than linking directly to the Press Release from which the LA Times quoted? Adding a line into the section about native american groups that reads, "The national American Indian Movement has on several occassions claimed that Churchill 'fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.'" and then linking [1] [2] [3] does not constitute a BLP violation as we would be attributing it to a recognized entity. Or should we include the LA Times link that merely cites one of those items? Negative information, even opinions, are not forbidden per BLP if the source is linked and notable, and the position is tied to the source and germaine. The claim that AIM is not a reliable source for AIM positions, however, is ridiculous.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Up for deletion, you are welcome to comment. Okip 05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is in the Denver Post today.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The sentence that asserts that Churchill "referred to the 'technocratic corps' working in the World Trade Center as 'little Eichmanns'" is incorrect. Churchill was referring to ALL people working in the WTC, not some subset he imagined to be a'technocratic corps.' See Parsing Churchill for an examination of his syntax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.95.214 ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
204.184.80.26 ( talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Doubt it. Winston Churchill was not an American Indian, as far as I know. -- CAVincent ( talk) 04:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither is Ward Churchill 99.156.236.128 ( talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How would you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 11:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
While Churchill has written extensively and controversially about "blood quantum" and the Dawes Act as part of his theories on native american genocide, he has also referenced it with regard to his personal situation of establishing his native american lineage. As noted in the cited source in the article; "[LaVelle] also denounced Churchill for using a false interpretation of the Dawes Act to attack tribal governments that would not recognize him as a member." If someone would like to create a separate section about Churchill's blood quantum theories, that's fine, but one cannot hide the fact that Churchill has indeed countered requests for verification of his Indian heritage by attacking the way some Native American tribes use blood percentages in their membership requirements. I've reinserted the content to that effect in the "Ethnic background" section. Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Since when is this a conversation about lineage or blood. It is such a meaningless and wasteful distraction from the real debate which involves Churchill's arguments and words; not the colour of his blood. It is as if to say that if he is not a "legitimate Indian", then his words have no legitimacy. The fact is, Churchill makes strong arguments, whether he is green with purple polka dots, or not, does not determine the truth or reality of his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 16:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has inserted a link to a Publications website, and cites it as proof of something about Ward Churchill. Churchill is not mentioned in any way at the link given, yet the text inserted by the editor makes claims that certain things are "moot" and certain things don't apply to Churchill, etc. These claims are original research on the part of the editor and are inappropriate for a WP:BLP. If a reliable source can be provided that asserts the same thing this editor is personally asserting, that would be great. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a different approach: the whole section "Blood Quantum" is a mix of a) Churchill's own background and b) one of his major points of criticism/activism of U.S.-policy (historic or otherwise). The way these two points are mixed up right now, it reads as if Churchill's only motivation for raising these points ("genocide" etc) is to defend himself. I suggest that the two elements be separated and the quote-boxes-bit be given a separate section as part of his activism (note that he doesn't specifically mention himself in the quote-boxes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty sad when people think a little piece of paper originates one's identity. Do Americans need a status card to understand they are American? Do Canadians need a status card to understand they are Canadian? No. Then let us educate ourselves on what the purpose of a status card is, what membership in a "band" or reservation means; before we decide who can be "native" and who cannot. Ward Churchill is an intelligent speaker and scholar who makes legitimate arguments and when people do not like to hear the truth because it means destroying what they always held firm - to be true - or holding themselves or others they admired, accountable for actions - when what they thought was a democratic, human rights loving government, is in fact not; then that is hard for some people to come to terms with. And so, when it is hard to admit one is wrong, distracting from the true conversation becomes an easy alternative. If Ward Churchill says he is native, I believe him, especially when he is not declaring status; that makes me believe him even more. But to turn the smart reality of what he wants people to understand into a conversation about the colour of his blood is a tragedy and insult to the intelligence of humanity as an intellectual species, robbing people of a holistic debate. Since when did the burden of proof turn to Churchill? Let us ask those many critics to prove he is false. Churchill makes me engaged in the reality of the world and his arguments should do the same for other people. If someone cannot argue with him equally because they cannot handle his extremity of his wit, then educate yourselves... let's stay on topic people. As for tribes making criteria for membership, I think people are not understanding what colonialism is all about. What is the difference between lineage membership and blood quantum - none! The point is membership is the problem in the first place. If you agree with membership then I suggest you decide to set up memberships for what constitutes Americans, if not, then reevaluate your understanding of "native" memberships. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of a "compradore class". Do you really think these "tribal" governments existed before Columbus or the establishment of the US? You should realize that tribal governments and reservations are extensions of the American and Canadian bureaucratic systems (i.e. American and Canadian governments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The blood quantum debate, although a distraction, is much needed. So, I thank Churchill for sparking this much needed questioning of a colonial mechanism - used by North American governments - that pit non-natives against natives and natives against natives. Perhaps these conversations will reveal what tribal membership/blood quantum is really about!
The appeal is back in the news today: Ward Churchill's appeal to win back job to be heard by state high court (Denver Post).-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
now there something to see. So praytell, where's your source that justifies the categories you want to have on this page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has replaced a brief section of text indicating a court decision, and the basis for that decision, with text that indicates only the decision. The editor explains, ((1) This is too complicated for the introduction. I had to read it three times to understand it, and I know what happened. (2) WP gives sources in footnotes, not in body. Discuss in talk.)
I've read that brief text, and had no trouble understanding it, even without having known what happened. As for your objection to sources (in this instance, The Chronicle of Higher Education) in the lede (and yes, sources are indeed routinely given in the body), that can be easily addressed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the recent change in the text of this article, which removed the phrase "what he describes as" from the following:
Genocide is a highly charged term and I don't think it is universally accepted by scholars that it applies to native americans. This article by Guenter Lewy, in Commentary, argues that, while scholars have used the term, it is inappropriate in this case. [6]. The scholarly debate is described at great length in Chapter 3 of this MA thesis. Given that this is a very loaded term, I think that WP:NPOV requires us to attribute it to Churchill. GabrielF ( talk) 02:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Plenty of reliable evidence supports the conclusion that Native Americans were on more than one occasion subjected to racist genocidal campaigns..." page 97, Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill, 9 may 1006. The document can be found here: http://www.nacua.org/documents/WardChurchReport.pdf [E.N.Stanway]
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Ward Churchill on something, but yes, genocide is the appropriate, accepted term for the sustained mass killing of indigenous peoples of the Americas by Europeans and has widely been used by Churchill. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This is a controversial topic but Churchill in his book Since predator came has supported American Indian creationism, he rejects for example that the American Indians have an Asiatic origin and migrated to the Americas in the past, instead he seems to support fringe scientists such as Jeffrey Goodman that the American Indians originated in the Americas. Should we mention these views on his article? GreenUniverse ( talk) 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence is vastly overcited:
There are several issues here: First, when there's a citation every two words, readability takes a nosedive. Secondly, this is original synthesis. There is nothing in the three sources cited in footnote #40 that mentions Ward Churchill, similarly, I don't think that the cited books that discuss historical persecution of native Americans are specifically mentioning the Ward Churchill controversy and the reaction to it by conservatives. You can't take use sources in this way - you can't use a citation that says that there is corporate control of the media in combination with another citation that says conservatives objected to Ward Churchill, to suggest that conservative, corporate media orchestrated a campaign against Churchill. GabrielF ( talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the article would be improved by covering the topic of how the litigation has been funded. His lawyer taking it on a percentage of any legal judgement is possible, but I don't see it supported in the sources in the article. Anyone have a source? – for how the legal defense of Churchill, and also the legal opposition to Churchill, was funded? The trial in District Court and then two appeals to date cannot be cheap. And the Inside Higher Ed source includes a statement by Chruchill's lawyer that they will appeal to the US Supreme Court. N2e ( talk) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've heard David Lane, Churchill's lawyer say that he's doing it pro bono, but I don't have a cite. Lane's an attention whore, so I tend to believe this. Pokey5945 ( talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If anyone could add this to the article, it would be helpful. Kingturtle = ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
While I am not advocating for this individual; for years he was riding high on the idea of Native American heritage. But our heritage is complicated in the U.S., and I would note some important problems in the way Indian heritage has been masked or race misrepresented. One problem is census takers of yesteryear; the notation of race involved self-reporting, (and no one wanted to be an Indian back then) and unfortunately, race and some other notations are not very reliable sources of blood quantum information. The Dawes Act and subsequent 'Rolls' are also problematic. It is accurate to say that there were notations of blood-quantum, but this depended on the note taker or observer. Modern databases with genealogy are also a problem. I have seen notations on Indian blood quantum in the Dawes Rolls, and the same individual is noted as 'white' by the worldwide LDS FamilySearch.org. I have written, bringing this to the attention of staff for the organization, who reply that they use census data whenever possible. At least they understood my concern.
All this considered, there may not be 'proof' that Mssr. Churchill is Native American in heritage, but there are important reasons to doubt some 'primary' sources which provide information on race. As yet another aside, there was a coroner's office in Virginia with a director who changed the death records of many Indian people of mixed heritage, to 'Negro.' I believe this was done to deceased members of the Pamunkey tribe, or a nearby band.
KSRolph 70.36.140.221 ( talk) 07:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Pokey5945 just violated the three reverts rule by repeatedly deleting an 2014 interview [7] originally added by E.N.Stanway. Despite the fact that Pokey claims: "The link explicitly violates several aspects of WP policy on the external link section," he hasn't explained how. There's only four external links, so excessive linking isn't an issue. There are no violations in WP:ELNO. Since the interview with WITH Churchill, there's no violation of WP:ELBLP. The material is much more recent than other links, and the fact that it's linked on Churchill's personal site is irrelevant, since not everyone wants to go to his personal site. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 22:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Pokey5495 is pushing his own narrow point of view, the very offense of which he is accusing others. Upon examination, none of his statements make any sense.
(1) The notion that a source should be referenced only once is comletely bogus. Each of the "external links" is previously referenced in the article. The link to Z Magazine seems to be broken, but it is cited twice in the text. The website www.Colorado.edu is referenced in eleven footnotes: 3(x5), 22(x2), 24, 3(x2), & 60. The site www.WardChurchill.net is cited in two footnotes: 5 & 67. The site www.theRaceToTheBottom.org is cited once, in note 45. The site www.CounterPunch.org is cited in four footnotes: 13(x2), 39 & 55, less than less than the number of references to Colorado University. Is that institution guilty of "POV-pushing"? The notion is further revealed as bogus by the fact that the first two times that the CounterPunch link was reverted, it was not yet "already linked in the article body as a source". [footnote numbers will change as the article is edited]
(2) Churchill's most recent interview is indeed "more notable than the others" precisely because it is the most recent, as indicated by the requests on the talk page for recent information about The Professor. If indeed there are "many interviews", then they should be listed in the main part of the article under the "works" section along with the lists of books and articles. People who want to learn about the subject will like having a quick reference to interviews, in addition to having the most recent interview in the "external links" section.
(3) CounterPunch is indeed a "quality source", definitely far more reliable than other sources in the article, such as the Colorado University. CounterPunch has been decreed to be "America's Best Political Newsletter." Check it out: http://www.CounterPunch.org If we are to be strict with the rules, then links to C.U. must definitely be deleted as violating WP:ELNO §4#2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research..."
(4) To suggest that any of The Professor's statements "cannot be verified" would be disingenuous. To state that "most" of his statements "cannot be verified" is an outrageous and shameless lie, and would seem to free others from the normally-appropriate admonition to "assume good faith". Is Pokey5495 prepared to defend that statement? Certainly, the Colorado University failed to do so, as attested by the jurors in the subsequent trial and the researchers with the Colorado AAUP who investigated the matter.
One might question the motives of someone who would bring lies here. What motivation is there for Pokey5495, or Colorado University for that matter, to tell lies? Who is it who profits by these lies? Deep Throat recommended to "follow the money". It would seem that, through support for ACTA and other such "sock-puppets", Dick Cheney and the Koch brothers have a hand in all this. Perhaps Pokey5495 supports the principle that "truth is the first casualty of warfare" because he himself profits from war, or hopes to, and so advocates the present state of continual warfare as a matter of personal advancement. Perhaps he profits from the corporate exploitation of the earth, and uses the notion that "business is business" to justify this lying. Editing for profit seems to be against the rules of wikipedia.
One might hope that people who soil themselves with such lies are at least being compensated well. The alternatives are certainly pitiful. Maybe Pokey5495 is a compulsive liar, a psychopath perhaps, who delights in creating confusion and is unable to control himself. Or perhaps he is not conscious enough to be aware that he is lying, and repeats statements without regard for their validity. The ancient Greeks are said to have had the notion that "an unexamined life is not worth living". Some of the indigenous cultures of North America had similar notions. Some say that each person has a duty to ask "Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here?" Persons who bring lies here have surely never asked those questions, and would probably have difficulty doing so. In attempting to answer those questions, one must confront the indigenous notion that lying is a capital offense (i.e. liars are deemed unworthy of life) and the indigenist notion that the existence of the United States in North America (and even the presence of European peoples) lacks moral validity.
I propose that Pokey5495 either demonstrate an instance where Professor Churchill has engaged in deceit, in which case the implication that The Professor is deceitful can be dealt with in a forthright manner, or else admit to being deceitful and duplicitous himself (and engaging in POV-pushing), in which case he is definitely not qualified to discuss the matters at hand. Meanwhile, any further edits by Mr. Pokey5495 should be considered vandalism, since it would certainly be lunacy to attempt to "negotiate" truth.
E.N.Stanway ( talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Ad hominem indeed. That is exactly what it is to assert that Professor Churchill has been deceitful. So yet again Pokey5495 is hurling accusations against others which more aptly apply to him. And what is the reason that he would bring such deceit here? Apparently, he is attacking the character of Professor Churchill (what is known as character assassination) because he is not able to deal with the underlying issues on their own merits. Regardless of anything which is written or not written here, Ward Churchill is an internationally-recognized scholar who, along with other indigenist scholars such as Dee Brown, Vine Deloria Jr. and others, have dramatically raised the level of intellectual discourse in the United States. The fact that some people are unable to discuss the issues in a rational way, without resorting to deceit and ad hominem attacks, is an indication of the wide gap which yet remains between what constitutes the "dominant narrative" of American history and what is real and true. Let us remember that wikipedia standards of reliability demand that "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Professor Churchill has repeatedly upheld that standard.
E.N.Stanway ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Not sure if this is notable enough for the article: Judge refuses to reverse Churchill ruling.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please show me where on WP:RS it says that a press release by a notable organization is not reliable from said organization unless it is picked up by another source? That is absolutely ridiculous. The Press Release is a valid source of information when it pertains to that organization and that organizations stand. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to say that it isn't. It is also a stance that is NOT supported as an appropriate use of a primary source. Furthermore, it is assinine to require a secondary source to take the material and provide spin or misrepresent it when the original source is obtainable. Finding the same material cited in a dozen sources that result from a news release is WEAKER than finding the orignal news release! The original is always better than citing the pages that mimic the original!--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) PS if you want to argue that the text doesn't belong for another reason, I'm open to that... but requiring a press release indicating a notable organization's stance be picked up by somebody else to be a valid stance is idiotic. Let me draw a comparison. My primary area of interest is Poker. If a minor poker tournament makes a press release, and that press release is picked up by half a dozen poker cites/magazines, which is more reliable? The original press release? Or the half a dozen pages that copied said release in full/part? The answer is obvious. Which is more honest for Wikipedia, to cite a page that merely copied a press release or to goto the original source? The answer is obvious, the original source. By insisting on a secondary source, you introduce the possibility that the information contained in a press release is represented as more than just a promotional piece by the organization.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
{outdent}The LA Times does not qualify? Here are the facts:
What part of the above do you disagree with? I mean, good grief, the LA TIMES can state, that AIM said he "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" to build his career. Do you honestly beleive that statement is a more reliable source than linking directly to the Press Release from which the LA Times quoted? Adding a line into the section about native american groups that reads, "The national American Indian Movement has on several occassions claimed that Churchill 'fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.'" and then linking [1] [2] [3] does not constitute a BLP violation as we would be attributing it to a recognized entity. Or should we include the LA Times link that merely cites one of those items? Negative information, even opinions, are not forbidden per BLP if the source is linked and notable, and the position is tied to the source and germaine. The claim that AIM is not a reliable source for AIM positions, however, is ridiculous.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Up for deletion, you are welcome to comment. Okip 05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is in the Denver Post today.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The sentence that asserts that Churchill "referred to the 'technocratic corps' working in the World Trade Center as 'little Eichmanns'" is incorrect. Churchill was referring to ALL people working in the WTC, not some subset he imagined to be a'technocratic corps.' See Parsing Churchill for an examination of his syntax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.95.214 ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
204.184.80.26 ( talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Doubt it. Winston Churchill was not an American Indian, as far as I know. -- CAVincent ( talk) 04:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither is Ward Churchill 99.156.236.128 ( talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How would you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 11:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
While Churchill has written extensively and controversially about "blood quantum" and the Dawes Act as part of his theories on native american genocide, he has also referenced it with regard to his personal situation of establishing his native american lineage. As noted in the cited source in the article; "[LaVelle] also denounced Churchill for using a false interpretation of the Dawes Act to attack tribal governments that would not recognize him as a member." If someone would like to create a separate section about Churchill's blood quantum theories, that's fine, but one cannot hide the fact that Churchill has indeed countered requests for verification of his Indian heritage by attacking the way some Native American tribes use blood percentages in their membership requirements. I've reinserted the content to that effect in the "Ethnic background" section. Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Since when is this a conversation about lineage or blood. It is such a meaningless and wasteful distraction from the real debate which involves Churchill's arguments and words; not the colour of his blood. It is as if to say that if he is not a "legitimate Indian", then his words have no legitimacy. The fact is, Churchill makes strong arguments, whether he is green with purple polka dots, or not, does not determine the truth or reality of his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 16:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has inserted a link to a Publications website, and cites it as proof of something about Ward Churchill. Churchill is not mentioned in any way at the link given, yet the text inserted by the editor makes claims that certain things are "moot" and certain things don't apply to Churchill, etc. These claims are original research on the part of the editor and are inappropriate for a WP:BLP. If a reliable source can be provided that asserts the same thing this editor is personally asserting, that would be great. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a different approach: the whole section "Blood Quantum" is a mix of a) Churchill's own background and b) one of his major points of criticism/activism of U.S.-policy (historic or otherwise). The way these two points are mixed up right now, it reads as if Churchill's only motivation for raising these points ("genocide" etc) is to defend himself. I suggest that the two elements be separated and the quote-boxes-bit be given a separate section as part of his activism (note that he doesn't specifically mention himself in the quote-boxes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty sad when people think a little piece of paper originates one's identity. Do Americans need a status card to understand they are American? Do Canadians need a status card to understand they are Canadian? No. Then let us educate ourselves on what the purpose of a status card is, what membership in a "band" or reservation means; before we decide who can be "native" and who cannot. Ward Churchill is an intelligent speaker and scholar who makes legitimate arguments and when people do not like to hear the truth because it means destroying what they always held firm - to be true - or holding themselves or others they admired, accountable for actions - when what they thought was a democratic, human rights loving government, is in fact not; then that is hard for some people to come to terms with. And so, when it is hard to admit one is wrong, distracting from the true conversation becomes an easy alternative. If Ward Churchill says he is native, I believe him, especially when he is not declaring status; that makes me believe him even more. But to turn the smart reality of what he wants people to understand into a conversation about the colour of his blood is a tragedy and insult to the intelligence of humanity as an intellectual species, robbing people of a holistic debate. Since when did the burden of proof turn to Churchill? Let us ask those many critics to prove he is false. Churchill makes me engaged in the reality of the world and his arguments should do the same for other people. If someone cannot argue with him equally because they cannot handle his extremity of his wit, then educate yourselves... let's stay on topic people. As for tribes making criteria for membership, I think people are not understanding what colonialism is all about. What is the difference between lineage membership and blood quantum - none! The point is membership is the problem in the first place. If you agree with membership then I suggest you decide to set up memberships for what constitutes Americans, if not, then reevaluate your understanding of "native" memberships. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of a "compradore class". Do you really think these "tribal" governments existed before Columbus or the establishment of the US? You should realize that tribal governments and reservations are extensions of the American and Canadian bureaucratic systems (i.e. American and Canadian governments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 ( talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The blood quantum debate, although a distraction, is much needed. So, I thank Churchill for sparking this much needed questioning of a colonial mechanism - used by North American governments - that pit non-natives against natives and natives against natives. Perhaps these conversations will reveal what tribal membership/blood quantum is really about!
The appeal is back in the news today: Ward Churchill's appeal to win back job to be heard by state high court (Denver Post).-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
now there something to see. So praytell, where's your source that justifies the categories you want to have on this page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has replaced a brief section of text indicating a court decision, and the basis for that decision, with text that indicates only the decision. The editor explains, ((1) This is too complicated for the introduction. I had to read it three times to understand it, and I know what happened. (2) WP gives sources in footnotes, not in body. Discuss in talk.)
I've read that brief text, and had no trouble understanding it, even without having known what happened. As for your objection to sources (in this instance, The Chronicle of Higher Education) in the lede (and yes, sources are indeed routinely given in the body), that can be easily addressed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the recent change in the text of this article, which removed the phrase "what he describes as" from the following:
Genocide is a highly charged term and I don't think it is universally accepted by scholars that it applies to native americans. This article by Guenter Lewy, in Commentary, argues that, while scholars have used the term, it is inappropriate in this case. [6]. The scholarly debate is described at great length in Chapter 3 of this MA thesis. Given that this is a very loaded term, I think that WP:NPOV requires us to attribute it to Churchill. GabrielF ( talk) 02:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Plenty of reliable evidence supports the conclusion that Native Americans were on more than one occasion subjected to racist genocidal campaigns..." page 97, Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill, 9 may 1006. The document can be found here: http://www.nacua.org/documents/WardChurchReport.pdf [E.N.Stanway]
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Ward Churchill on something, but yes, genocide is the appropriate, accepted term for the sustained mass killing of indigenous peoples of the Americas by Europeans and has widely been used by Churchill. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This is a controversial topic but Churchill in his book Since predator came has supported American Indian creationism, he rejects for example that the American Indians have an Asiatic origin and migrated to the Americas in the past, instead he seems to support fringe scientists such as Jeffrey Goodman that the American Indians originated in the Americas. Should we mention these views on his article? GreenUniverse ( talk) 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence is vastly overcited:
There are several issues here: First, when there's a citation every two words, readability takes a nosedive. Secondly, this is original synthesis. There is nothing in the three sources cited in footnote #40 that mentions Ward Churchill, similarly, I don't think that the cited books that discuss historical persecution of native Americans are specifically mentioning the Ward Churchill controversy and the reaction to it by conservatives. You can't take use sources in this way - you can't use a citation that says that there is corporate control of the media in combination with another citation that says conservatives objected to Ward Churchill, to suggest that conservative, corporate media orchestrated a campaign against Churchill. GabrielF ( talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the article would be improved by covering the topic of how the litigation has been funded. His lawyer taking it on a percentage of any legal judgement is possible, but I don't see it supported in the sources in the article. Anyone have a source? – for how the legal defense of Churchill, and also the legal opposition to Churchill, was funded? The trial in District Court and then two appeals to date cannot be cheap. And the Inside Higher Ed source includes a statement by Chruchill's lawyer that they will appeal to the US Supreme Court. N2e ( talk) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've heard David Lane, Churchill's lawyer say that he's doing it pro bono, but I don't have a cite. Lane's an attention whore, so I tend to believe this. Pokey5945 ( talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If anyone could add this to the article, it would be helpful. Kingturtle = ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
While I am not advocating for this individual; for years he was riding high on the idea of Native American heritage. But our heritage is complicated in the U.S., and I would note some important problems in the way Indian heritage has been masked or race misrepresented. One problem is census takers of yesteryear; the notation of race involved self-reporting, (and no one wanted to be an Indian back then) and unfortunately, race and some other notations are not very reliable sources of blood quantum information. The Dawes Act and subsequent 'Rolls' are also problematic. It is accurate to say that there were notations of blood-quantum, but this depended on the note taker or observer. Modern databases with genealogy are also a problem. I have seen notations on Indian blood quantum in the Dawes Rolls, and the same individual is noted as 'white' by the worldwide LDS FamilySearch.org. I have written, bringing this to the attention of staff for the organization, who reply that they use census data whenever possible. At least they understood my concern.
All this considered, there may not be 'proof' that Mssr. Churchill is Native American in heritage, but there are important reasons to doubt some 'primary' sources which provide information on race. As yet another aside, there was a coroner's office in Virginia with a director who changed the death records of many Indian people of mixed heritage, to 'Negro.' I believe this was done to deceased members of the Pamunkey tribe, or a nearby band.
KSRolph 70.36.140.221 ( talk) 07:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Pokey5945 just violated the three reverts rule by repeatedly deleting an 2014 interview [7] originally added by E.N.Stanway. Despite the fact that Pokey claims: "The link explicitly violates several aspects of WP policy on the external link section," he hasn't explained how. There's only four external links, so excessive linking isn't an issue. There are no violations in WP:ELNO. Since the interview with WITH Churchill, there's no violation of WP:ELBLP. The material is much more recent than other links, and the fact that it's linked on Churchill's personal site is irrelevant, since not everyone wants to go to his personal site. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 22:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Pokey5495 is pushing his own narrow point of view, the very offense of which he is accusing others. Upon examination, none of his statements make any sense.
(1) The notion that a source should be referenced only once is comletely bogus. Each of the "external links" is previously referenced in the article. The link to Z Magazine seems to be broken, but it is cited twice in the text. The website www.Colorado.edu is referenced in eleven footnotes: 3(x5), 22(x2), 24, 3(x2), & 60. The site www.WardChurchill.net is cited in two footnotes: 5 & 67. The site www.theRaceToTheBottom.org is cited once, in note 45. The site www.CounterPunch.org is cited in four footnotes: 13(x2), 39 & 55, less than less than the number of references to Colorado University. Is that institution guilty of "POV-pushing"? The notion is further revealed as bogus by the fact that the first two times that the CounterPunch link was reverted, it was not yet "already linked in the article body as a source". [footnote numbers will change as the article is edited]
(2) Churchill's most recent interview is indeed "more notable than the others" precisely because it is the most recent, as indicated by the requests on the talk page for recent information about The Professor. If indeed there are "many interviews", then they should be listed in the main part of the article under the "works" section along with the lists of books and articles. People who want to learn about the subject will like having a quick reference to interviews, in addition to having the most recent interview in the "external links" section.
(3) CounterPunch is indeed a "quality source", definitely far more reliable than other sources in the article, such as the Colorado University. CounterPunch has been decreed to be "America's Best Political Newsletter." Check it out: http://www.CounterPunch.org If we are to be strict with the rules, then links to C.U. must definitely be deleted as violating WP:ELNO §4#2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research..."
(4) To suggest that any of The Professor's statements "cannot be verified" would be disingenuous. To state that "most" of his statements "cannot be verified" is an outrageous and shameless lie, and would seem to free others from the normally-appropriate admonition to "assume good faith". Is Pokey5495 prepared to defend that statement? Certainly, the Colorado University failed to do so, as attested by the jurors in the subsequent trial and the researchers with the Colorado AAUP who investigated the matter.
One might question the motives of someone who would bring lies here. What motivation is there for Pokey5495, or Colorado University for that matter, to tell lies? Who is it who profits by these lies? Deep Throat recommended to "follow the money". It would seem that, through support for ACTA and other such "sock-puppets", Dick Cheney and the Koch brothers have a hand in all this. Perhaps Pokey5495 supports the principle that "truth is the first casualty of warfare" because he himself profits from war, or hopes to, and so advocates the present state of continual warfare as a matter of personal advancement. Perhaps he profits from the corporate exploitation of the earth, and uses the notion that "business is business" to justify this lying. Editing for profit seems to be against the rules of wikipedia.
One might hope that people who soil themselves with such lies are at least being compensated well. The alternatives are certainly pitiful. Maybe Pokey5495 is a compulsive liar, a psychopath perhaps, who delights in creating confusion and is unable to control himself. Or perhaps he is not conscious enough to be aware that he is lying, and repeats statements without regard for their validity. The ancient Greeks are said to have had the notion that "an unexamined life is not worth living". Some of the indigenous cultures of North America had similar notions. Some say that each person has a duty to ask "Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here?" Persons who bring lies here have surely never asked those questions, and would probably have difficulty doing so. In attempting to answer those questions, one must confront the indigenous notion that lying is a capital offense (i.e. liars are deemed unworthy of life) and the indigenist notion that the existence of the United States in North America (and even the presence of European peoples) lacks moral validity.
I propose that Pokey5495 either demonstrate an instance where Professor Churchill has engaged in deceit, in which case the implication that The Professor is deceitful can be dealt with in a forthright manner, or else admit to being deceitful and duplicitous himself (and engaging in POV-pushing), in which case he is definitely not qualified to discuss the matters at hand. Meanwhile, any further edits by Mr. Pokey5495 should be considered vandalism, since it would certainly be lunacy to attempt to "negotiate" truth.
E.N.Stanway ( talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Ad hominem indeed. That is exactly what it is to assert that Professor Churchill has been deceitful. So yet again Pokey5495 is hurling accusations against others which more aptly apply to him. And what is the reason that he would bring such deceit here? Apparently, he is attacking the character of Professor Churchill (what is known as character assassination) because he is not able to deal with the underlying issues on their own merits. Regardless of anything which is written or not written here, Ward Churchill is an internationally-recognized scholar who, along with other indigenist scholars such as Dee Brown, Vine Deloria Jr. and others, have dramatically raised the level of intellectual discourse in the United States. The fact that some people are unable to discuss the issues in a rational way, without resorting to deceit and ad hominem attacks, is an indication of the wide gap which yet remains between what constitutes the "dominant narrative" of American history and what is real and true. Let us remember that wikipedia standards of reliability demand that "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Professor Churchill has repeatedly upheld that standard.
E.N.Stanway ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)