![]() | This page 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. |
I agree with the person who asks whether this Wikipedia article is an extension of Rocky Mtn. News. This came to mind several times as I was reading the article. I also think that the anti-Churchill bias is quite apparent. Although the man is surrounded by a great deal of controversy no doubt, there are also many who agree with his politics and those people are not represented at all, not to mention the many who likely have balanced opinions on his work, accepting that he makes some intelligent points about world politics while also engaging in questionable academic procedures.
One of the major isuses we Native Americans have with Churchill is from the begining he was a liar and elaborated on his Native background. The majority of Native people see him as a joke or with disdain. In every major American Indian newspaper, Indian forums, Indian conferences Ward Churchill is considered a fraud and phoney. We see him as one who uses Indians for his own ego.
Churchill complained and was against the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which protected Indian artists against fraudulent phoney Indian artists, like himself. Our tribal art is one of ways we American Indians are connected to our culture. A lot of Indians of the Southwest live solely off the sales of their pottery, jewelery and other crafts. The Act was created to protect Indian artists from "phoney Wannabee Indian" art who were flooding the market at the peril real Indian artisans, yet Churchill railed against it. He did so because Churchill was copying peoples artwork and selling it as "American Indian" art.
Churchill also complained about Indian blood degree used by the Indian Nations. Most of those who complain bitterly about that have questionable Indian hertiage. There are some people who have valid complaints, but most who vilify Tribal Nations blood quantum do so because they have very little Indian blood or like Churchill, no Indian blood at all.
For years before he wrote that piece about 9/11 some Native American activists had been trying to address the fact that Ward Churchill was a fake and liar to the University of Colorado. Several well-known Indian activists had written the University, but they never responded to the concerns of the American Indian people. They instead continued to pay this phoney instead of hiring a qualified Indian professor. Ward Churchill knowingly lied on his job application claiming he was an Indian, when in reality he was a 100% white. In fact his ancestors were really Indian killers and slave owners. Yet this is the type of person the University of Colorado has teaching Indian studies. A person whose ancestors embarked on genocide against black and Indian people.
I suggest that the University fire this liar and fake and hire a real Native American person to teach Native studies, not a descendent of slave owners and Indian killers. Yosemite Indian
I didn't know wikipedia was an extension of "rocky mountain news." This is your source? Where do they get their material? They interview a bunch of cranks and opportunists and publish this as "controversy," then you use up 2/3 of the article simply mouthing this crap. Almost all the other links don't even connect with anything. What a joke. 130.63.100.82 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like an explanation for the removal of the following:
On technical and legal grounds, the governor's argument is flawed. The Smith Act, which previously declared it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government, was declared unconstitutional in 1957, protecting the free speech rights of communists, socialists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries.
Am I the only one that's bothered by just repeating the drivel of some governor with no regard to fact? Isn't it a bit disturbing to suggest that people can be accused of treason simply for their beliefs? The above sentence, and the way treason is defined in the constitution, puts the governor's comment in context. I feel that this is being ignored because a certain user or certain users see this article simply as a vehicle to defame Ward Churchill. -- Tothebarricades 00:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Keetoowah has now attacked Tothebarricades within two hours of his first posting here. Taken in conjunction with similar attacks on me, Slimvirgin, Cberlet, Viajero, Fred Bauder, and zen master (in order of recency), this is an unacceptable level of aggression. I have raised a request for arbitration. Please could we all show courtesy and respect for other editors. — Theo (Talk) 12:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Treason" section has to go. Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Even if you hate Ward Churchill, there is simply no way that what he said rises to the level of treason under the US Constitution. Descendall 05:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Gas anything of substance happened relating to this guy of late? Last I heard the University was investigating the allegations. As school is now back from break, have they made a decision? Paul, in Saudi 13:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
They are still investigating, and it could take as long as five months to reach a decision. The process is supposed to be confidential, so we won't get any rel;iable info from CU, just spin from Churchill and his lawyer.
As it stands (April 17, 2005 version) the lead is a POV editorial against Churchill and cearly violates the concept of brilliant prose and the inverted pyramid found in many of the better leads in Wikipedia. Editors who make this into an attack piece on Churchill or who misstate the facts should save those opinions for their various blogs, web sites and talk pages. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place to bandwagon your ideas, it's an encyclopedia which has a nonnegotiable policy that articles be written with a neutral point of view. When anyone, especially an American citizen, thinks about Churchill's essay, he would do well to ponder the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The quote was mentioned in Hamilton College's statement regarding cancellation of Churchill's appearance after Bill O'Reilly initiated a campaign against Churchill, resulting in threats against the professor's life and threats of violence directed toward the private university. Calicocat 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely, esp with OWH and the Voltaire who inspired him. The Hausaud version is bad, very bad in places. The Viajero/Zenmaster version is not as bad, but it seems to obviously want to cut out anything that reveals the controversies involving Ward. Such controversial subjects need pro/con treatment I think and that's what we can achieve I hope. TonyMarvin 10:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Prof. Churchill has a right to attack the current policy in Iraq. The tradition of academic aid to foreign enemies is decades old and should be upheld. Why should Prof. Churchill be singled out? Almost every academician, from Noah Chmpsky to Harold Hochberger, has given comfort to terrorists and Prof. Churchill is no exception.
I would sugest that the current piece is biased, and that wikipedia is impugning what little legitimacy it has be presenting it as such.... for revision i would suggest that the following sections from the introduction be moved to another section
"Churchill received national attention in January 2005 for an essay he wrote following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he described the attacks as "chickens coming home to roost," and some of the people working in the World Trade Center as a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" and as "little Eichmanns." [1]
The subsequent controversy and intense media coverage led to an examination of Churchill's academic qualifications, allegations that he had violated scholarly and journalistic standards in his writing, and claims that he has mischaracterized or lied about his ethnic background (either in order to receive his honorary Ph.D. or his current position with the University of Colorado, or both)."
This section may or may not be legitimate, but as a lead it fails.... perhaps something more neutral, such as an analyses of his theories? with some refutations if the right-wingers can't stomach such a representation.
anyways, consider my point, if you wish... K
Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?-- Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?-- Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lulu: You are absolutely wrong when you state that I am vandalizing the page and that I am putting bogus quotes on the page. This is perfect example of how you and Cberlet do not know what you talking about. Please review the coments above of mine. Please review the previous discussion of this issue on the Churchill talk page (in the archives ) and Please review the Keetoowah's Web site at the bottom of the Web site. You are clearly mistaken and this out and out lies that you making about me and what I did shows your bias and your lack of understanding of the topic. Please do your research before you make wholesale changes to the article. Unfortunately, for you and for Cberlet you both have shown your ignorance of the topic and your bias. Please correct your mistakes immediately.-- Keetoowah 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
UKB Statement Regarding Ward Churchill
Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) that Ward Churchill continues to promote himself as a Keetoowah member in order to substantiate his claims of Indian ancestry. The UKB is also aware of the apparent lack of understanding that the larger society has regarding Native America's enrollment policies.
The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990's because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry. However, the associate rolls were discontinued shortly after Churchill received one: "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.
Any records of past affiliations with the UKB are non-existent, and Churchill does not appear anywhere on our membership rolls.
Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.
The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree."
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.
The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill's assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.
Hmmm... tracing through it since I suspect we're going to need to take some action. It appears User:Keetoowah engaged in an edit war over putting in the wrong quote at: [1], [2], [3], etc.
Our respected admins SlimVirgin and El_C were among those trying to fix the vandalism before (several times each). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Here [4] and anon editor tried the overly verbose (but good faith) attempt to give both the preliminary and final statements. But User:Keetoowah again removed the official statement at [5] (2005 Aug 2). His edit comment was: OOOPS! 69.14.233.98 does not know what they are talking about--summarily reversed.. Which is rude, but actually not as bad as a lot of other edit comments by this editor. For example, earlier: Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu and Cberlet need to do their research before they make wholesale changes to the article.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu needs to immediately stand down and apologize from his defamatory comment above where he stated that I made up bogus quotes for the Keetoowah Tribe.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu and Cberlet need to go to the bottom of the Web site for the Keetoowah band (the very bottom) and work their way up the page until they get to the first comment by the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Now, in hindsight, it is clear that what I quoted is actually on the Keetoowah Web site and Lulu admits that it is, his comment is clearly a defamatory, damnable lie. It is schoolyard bully tactics and it indicates the type of person that is attempting to make wholesale changes to the document. He has not apologized for his defamatory, damnable lie and I don't expect him to since, obviously, his perferred line of attack is to attack personally.-- Keetoowah 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
After a review of that page and how their comments were about me and my edits were lies, then they need to take my chnges with a some respect and try to listen to a different perspective on Churchill.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Immediately and without hesitation put back in the correct quote of the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill. -- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I agree with the person who asks whether this Wikipedia article is an extension of Rocky Mtn. News. This came to mind several times as I was reading the article. I also think that the anti-Churchill bias is quite apparent. Although the man is surrounded by a great deal of controversy no doubt, there are also many who agree with his politics and those people are not represented at all, not to mention the many who likely have balanced opinions on his work, accepting that he makes some intelligent points about world politics while also engaging in questionable academic procedures.
One of the major isuses we Native Americans have with Churchill is from the begining he was a liar and elaborated on his Native background. The majority of Native people see him as a joke or with disdain. In every major American Indian newspaper, Indian forums, Indian conferences Ward Churchill is considered a fraud and phoney. We see him as one who uses Indians for his own ego.
Churchill complained and was against the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which protected Indian artists against fraudulent phoney Indian artists, like himself. Our tribal art is one of ways we American Indians are connected to our culture. A lot of Indians of the Southwest live solely off the sales of their pottery, jewelery and other crafts. The Act was created to protect Indian artists from "phoney Wannabee Indian" art who were flooding the market at the peril real Indian artisans, yet Churchill railed against it. He did so because Churchill was copying peoples artwork and selling it as "American Indian" art.
Churchill also complained about Indian blood degree used by the Indian Nations. Most of those who complain bitterly about that have questionable Indian hertiage. There are some people who have valid complaints, but most who vilify Tribal Nations blood quantum do so because they have very little Indian blood or like Churchill, no Indian blood at all.
For years before he wrote that piece about 9/11 some Native American activists had been trying to address the fact that Ward Churchill was a fake and liar to the University of Colorado. Several well-known Indian activists had written the University, but they never responded to the concerns of the American Indian people. They instead continued to pay this phoney instead of hiring a qualified Indian professor. Ward Churchill knowingly lied on his job application claiming he was an Indian, when in reality he was a 100% white. In fact his ancestors were really Indian killers and slave owners. Yet this is the type of person the University of Colorado has teaching Indian studies. A person whose ancestors embarked on genocide against black and Indian people.
I suggest that the University fire this liar and fake and hire a real Native American person to teach Native studies, not a descendent of slave owners and Indian killers. Yosemite Indian
I didn't know wikipedia was an extension of "rocky mountain news." This is your source? Where do they get their material? They interview a bunch of cranks and opportunists and publish this as "controversy," then you use up 2/3 of the article simply mouthing this crap. Almost all the other links don't even connect with anything. What a joke. 130.63.100.82 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like an explanation for the removal of the following:
On technical and legal grounds, the governor's argument is flawed. The Smith Act, which previously declared it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government, was declared unconstitutional in 1957, protecting the free speech rights of communists, socialists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries.
Am I the only one that's bothered by just repeating the drivel of some governor with no regard to fact? Isn't it a bit disturbing to suggest that people can be accused of treason simply for their beliefs? The above sentence, and the way treason is defined in the constitution, puts the governor's comment in context. I feel that this is being ignored because a certain user or certain users see this article simply as a vehicle to defame Ward Churchill. -- Tothebarricades 00:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Keetoowah has now attacked Tothebarricades within two hours of his first posting here. Taken in conjunction with similar attacks on me, Slimvirgin, Cberlet, Viajero, Fred Bauder, and zen master (in order of recency), this is an unacceptable level of aggression. I have raised a request for arbitration. Please could we all show courtesy and respect for other editors. — Theo (Talk) 12:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Treason" section has to go. Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Even if you hate Ward Churchill, there is simply no way that what he said rises to the level of treason under the US Constitution. Descendall 05:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Gas anything of substance happened relating to this guy of late? Last I heard the University was investigating the allegations. As school is now back from break, have they made a decision? Paul, in Saudi 13:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
They are still investigating, and it could take as long as five months to reach a decision. The process is supposed to be confidential, so we won't get any rel;iable info from CU, just spin from Churchill and his lawyer.
As it stands (April 17, 2005 version) the lead is a POV editorial against Churchill and cearly violates the concept of brilliant prose and the inverted pyramid found in many of the better leads in Wikipedia. Editors who make this into an attack piece on Churchill or who misstate the facts should save those opinions for their various blogs, web sites and talk pages. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place to bandwagon your ideas, it's an encyclopedia which has a nonnegotiable policy that articles be written with a neutral point of view. When anyone, especially an American citizen, thinks about Churchill's essay, he would do well to ponder the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The quote was mentioned in Hamilton College's statement regarding cancellation of Churchill's appearance after Bill O'Reilly initiated a campaign against Churchill, resulting in threats against the professor's life and threats of violence directed toward the private university. Calicocat 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely, esp with OWH and the Voltaire who inspired him. The Hausaud version is bad, very bad in places. The Viajero/Zenmaster version is not as bad, but it seems to obviously want to cut out anything that reveals the controversies involving Ward. Such controversial subjects need pro/con treatment I think and that's what we can achieve I hope. TonyMarvin 10:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Prof. Churchill has a right to attack the current policy in Iraq. The tradition of academic aid to foreign enemies is decades old and should be upheld. Why should Prof. Churchill be singled out? Almost every academician, from Noah Chmpsky to Harold Hochberger, has given comfort to terrorists and Prof. Churchill is no exception.
I would sugest that the current piece is biased, and that wikipedia is impugning what little legitimacy it has be presenting it as such.... for revision i would suggest that the following sections from the introduction be moved to another section
"Churchill received national attention in January 2005 for an essay he wrote following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he described the attacks as "chickens coming home to roost," and some of the people working in the World Trade Center as a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" and as "little Eichmanns." [1]
The subsequent controversy and intense media coverage led to an examination of Churchill's academic qualifications, allegations that he had violated scholarly and journalistic standards in his writing, and claims that he has mischaracterized or lied about his ethnic background (either in order to receive his honorary Ph.D. or his current position with the University of Colorado, or both)."
This section may or may not be legitimate, but as a lead it fails.... perhaps something more neutral, such as an analyses of his theories? with some refutations if the right-wingers can't stomach such a representation.
anyways, consider my point, if you wish... K
Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?-- Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?-- Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lulu: You are absolutely wrong when you state that I am vandalizing the page and that I am putting bogus quotes on the page. This is perfect example of how you and Cberlet do not know what you talking about. Please review the coments above of mine. Please review the previous discussion of this issue on the Churchill talk page (in the archives ) and Please review the Keetoowah's Web site at the bottom of the Web site. You are clearly mistaken and this out and out lies that you making about me and what I did shows your bias and your lack of understanding of the topic. Please do your research before you make wholesale changes to the article. Unfortunately, for you and for Cberlet you both have shown your ignorance of the topic and your bias. Please correct your mistakes immediately.-- Keetoowah 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
UKB Statement Regarding Ward Churchill
Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) that Ward Churchill continues to promote himself as a Keetoowah member in order to substantiate his claims of Indian ancestry. The UKB is also aware of the apparent lack of understanding that the larger society has regarding Native America's enrollment policies.
The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990's because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry. However, the associate rolls were discontinued shortly after Churchill received one: "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.
Any records of past affiliations with the UKB are non-existent, and Churchill does not appear anywhere on our membership rolls.
Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.
The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree."
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.
The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill's assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.
Hmmm... tracing through it since I suspect we're going to need to take some action. It appears User:Keetoowah engaged in an edit war over putting in the wrong quote at: [1], [2], [3], etc.
Our respected admins SlimVirgin and El_C were among those trying to fix the vandalism before (several times each). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Here [4] and anon editor tried the overly verbose (but good faith) attempt to give both the preliminary and final statements. But User:Keetoowah again removed the official statement at [5] (2005 Aug 2). His edit comment was: OOOPS! 69.14.233.98 does not know what they are talking about--summarily reversed.. Which is rude, but actually not as bad as a lot of other edit comments by this editor. For example, earlier: Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu and Cberlet need to do their research before they make wholesale changes to the article.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu needs to immediately stand down and apologize from his defamatory comment above where he stated that I made up bogus quotes for the Keetoowah Tribe.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Lulu and Cberlet need to go to the bottom of the Web site for the Keetoowah band (the very bottom) and work their way up the page until they get to the first comment by the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Now, in hindsight, it is clear that what I quoted is actually on the Keetoowah Web site and Lulu admits that it is, his comment is clearly a defamatory, damnable lie. It is schoolyard bully tactics and it indicates the type of person that is attempting to make wholesale changes to the document. He has not apologized for his defamatory, damnable lie and I don't expect him to since, obviously, his perferred line of attack is to attack personally.-- Keetoowah 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
After a review of that page and how their comments were about me and my edits were lies, then they need to take my chnges with a some respect and try to listen to a different perspective on Churchill.-- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Immediately and without hesitation put back in the correct quote of the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill. -- Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)