Jump to content

Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Judge upholds ouster

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)

Reliable Sources

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)

We don't use primary source, but rather secondary sources, on Wikipedia. At least where secondary sources are possible; at times we can bend this a little bit for primary sources stating non-controversial facts about themselves, but even there with caution. You might justify using an AIM press release in the American Indian Movement article that way, but certainly not in this article (and frankly, also not the press release in question, which is far from stating a non-controversial fact). Moreover, the more-or-less slanderous rant you are trying to insert just isn't encyclopedic in tone. Even if some non-primary source quoted it, it would add nothing of value to the article. LotLE×talk 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The value of the content is not what the reversion stated. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:RS, when used with care. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. When stating that a specific organization, the one of the major Native American Rights organizations in the country, has taken a specific stance, then it is acceptable as a reliable source. Now whether or not it adds anything, that is a different argument... one which I honestly don't care about. But the claim that we can't use an official press release from a notable organization to cite said organizations stance is bunk. AIM is notable and their press release stands for itself whether or not it is picked up by a secondary source when discussing the stance/position of AIM.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If I post on my website that I think Balloonman cheats at poker, do you think my opinion deserves a prime spot in your biography? In all caps, no less? Sure? How about if none of the media picks up on it, not even the monthly poker mags? How about if you think it's patently absurd, and untrue? My website is a perfectly reliable source as to my opinions, isn't it? How about if I assert that you not only cheat in poker, but you also have an unnatural fondness for sheep. Shouldn't that go in to your biography, too, as long as it is reliably sourced to my website? Perhaps there is a reason none of the press repeated that "press release". For those same reasons, Wikipedia prefers not to publish every fleeting opinion someone (or some organization) has about a living person. My 2 cents, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If you did so, then you are right. But to take your comparison, let's say Full Tilt Poker issued a press release stating that I cheated at Poker, then it is perfectly acceptable to cite that in an article on me, if you attribute it to Full Tilt Poker. Heck, if Phil Helmuth issued a press release, it would become something worth discussing, as both Phil Helmuth and Full Tilt Poker are notable and recognized authorities in the arena of Poker. Now, if we were talking about some non-notable entity or a blog, then I would be in complete accord with you. But here we were dealing one of the largest national organizations for Native Americans in the country. Again, I am not defending the caps (I didn't notice them.) But the claim that the cite is non-notable for reporting on the view of the organization is not valid. Again, the appropriateness/weight of the content is a different argument, but there is ZERO validity that the source is reliable as it pertains to the official position of the American Indian Movement and a definite argument can be made that their stance is worth reporting. Whether it is or not can be debated, but the source is beyond reproach for stating what AIMs stance is, which is what was being cited. Whether citing the stance of AIM constitutes a BLP is another story as well (No, I am not a fan of AIM, I think they go too far, but I can't deny that they are a notable organization.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my attempt at being clever has clouded the issue unnecessarily. The bottom line is, WP:BLP forbids third-party primary sources, like the AIM website, to be used as a source for disparaging information in a living person's article. They require secondary sources with journalistic integrity to publish the content first. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Even as a BLP concern, the criticism may not be valid as AIM is a major notable organization with long ties to Churchill (and Churchill claims membership in the Colorado AIM.) BLP does not prevent negative material or even opinions, only that said opinions have to be material an meaningful and attributable. So the question becomes, is AIM a notable enough of an organization in Native American issues that their position has any clout? If so, then their official stance becomes fair game. Because of the nature of AIM and its relationship with Churchill, I believe it's position does merit mention (even if countered by the Colorado AIM which takes a contrary position.) This particular press release may not have been reproduced, but others stating AIM's official stance have been. Major media outlets have similarly reported on the relationship between the National AIM body and Churchill.
So the fact that AIM considers Churchill a fraud is not at all difficult to substantiate, and as such, going to original sources is perfectly acceptable. Consider this: Person X makes a speach conemning Y. A news magazine reports on the speach or even quotes a portion thereof. Person X posts his speach online. Your position says that you can't use Person X's posting of the speach because it is first person, that you have to use the secondary source which didn't quote Person X in whole, because the secondary source somehow gives credence to the original source? That's ridiculous. If the speaker is notable enough that their position has weight, said position has been reported, then using original sources is more than adequate when presenting the views of the speaker.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: WP:BLP does NOT forbid the use of primary sources...
Incorrect. To quote WP:BLP: "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." Also note, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below)." - I doubt that AIM website was published by Churchill. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The key that you are missing is that this isn't about Ward Churchill per se, it is about AIM's official stance towards Churchill. Thus, the material is not from a "third-party primary source" but rather a first-party primary source that is directly related to a relationship AIM/Churchill have. It would be a third party-primary source if we were using it to say, "Churchill is a fraud." The fact that the insertition is to the effect of "AIM's stance towards Churchill is that he is a fraud" it is a different story. There is a key difference is Wikipedia calling him a fraud or is Wikipedia reporting that arguably the best known Indian Movement in the country has called him a fraud? This is not third person primary, it is first person primary because we are citing AIM's position on the subject, so your first quotation is does not apply. As arguably the best known Indian movement, AIM's position, is worth reporting. The second one also does not apply, because again, we are talking about the relationship between AIM and Churchill. This would be more parallel to, Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")' We are attributing the notion directly to AIM, which is a recognized entity/authority on the subject.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The WP:BLP policies are quite clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it is, but we are not talking about a third party primary source, we are talking first party of a recognized body, whose perspective has value---but has to be introduced as such. And there is nothing in them that says that a notable organization which is recognized in the field as an authority, that is relevent to the subject due to the subjects own history/involvement, can't be cited.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing, except WP:BLP. Churchill is the "first party", the subject of this article. If you want to use AIM's words about AIM (making them a primary, first-party source), fine, but that should go into the AIM article. Once you use AIM's words about Churchill, AIM is no longer the first party and the BLP restrictions apply. Why not just find a reliable secondary source? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
in fact, what you've asked for is what BLP describes as a "feedback loop." The fact that a secondary source picks up a primary source does not lend credence to the primary source, although using the secondary source rather than the original source misrepresents that. Here, however, AIM's contention taht Churchill is a fraud is well known and easily documentable via secondary sources. AIM is a major mover and shaker in the realm of Indian Rights. We are not talking about some non-notable entity whose view on the subject is meaningless.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is appropriate for this article, then you will find it in a reliable secondary or tertiary source. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So your honest belief is that it is more reliable to quote an editorial in the Australian, which reads "Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement and … has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband" or The History News Network has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" or the LA Times article saying he "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" to build his career or this highly descriptive article citing accusations by American Indian groups that Churchill "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian"or some American Indian groups have said Churchill "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" are more reliable than the original press release? Again, we are not talking about whether or not Churchill is in fact a fraud, but rather what a notable oraganization on the subject says about Churchill. That is a KEY difference. AIM is an authority on what AIM believes.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No beliefs involved here. If it is appropriate for this article, then you will find it in a reliable secondary or tertiary source - several of which you listed above do not qualify. We are not talking about whether or not Churchill is a fraud, or what various organizations have stated. We are talking WP:BLP policy. What content, exactly, did you wish to add, and to what is it cited? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}The LA Times does not qualify? Here are the facts:

    • Ward Churchill belonged to AIM.
    • AIM is arguably the best known Indian Rights organizations in the country. (Note: I am not saying they are the best or more respected, I am only stating that they are probably the best known.)
    • AIM and Churchill parted ways with Churchill taking a leadership role in AIM Colorado which is not affiliated with the national organization.
    • AIM does not consider Churchill to be an American Indian and considers him to be a fraud.
    • AIM has repeatedly called Churchill a fraud.
    • AIM's view of Churchill is well documented and known.
    • When AIM makes a statement, it does so as authority on Native Americans (whether you agree or disagree with their stance, they are still authorities.)
    • As arguably the best known native American organization, their position is relevant---but it has to be couched in terms that makes the speaker clear. This is no different than other critics of other major figures.
    • Citing a source that is two or more redactions away from the original source is never as good as citing the original source, when said source is reliable on its own. In this case, an official AIM statement on AIMs position would be a reliable source.

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)

  • NOTE: I've asked for other people from WP:BLP for their input on this subject07:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)]]
What part of the above do I disagree with? I didn't read it closely - if I wish to learn more about AIM or Churchill, I will go to more appropriate sources. I am addressing just the editing issue involving Wikipedia's reliable source policy. And no, I did not say the LA Times did not qualify as a reliable source. I did, however, ask "What content, exactly, did you wish to add, and to what is it cited?" Adding a sentence that says, "The American Indian Movement has claimed that Churchill 'fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.'", (cited to LATimes) appears to satisfy the reliable sourcing required by WP:BLP. I see you have now moved on to discussing WP:NPOV ramifications of adding it to the article, below. The article presently already addresses the matter, if only peripherally: "In 1994, then CU-Boulder Chancellor James Corbridge refused to take action on allegations that Churchill was fraudulently claiming to be an Indian...". I'll watch the ensuing discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
satisfy the reliable sourcing required actually, the only two sources I think are necessary are the two press releases---citing other sources give more validity to the claim. Those press releases are reliable sources for the position of AIM in relationship to what AIM's view on the subject amounts to... which has been my contention from the beginning.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
...and your contention has been incorrect. "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." Stick to reliable secondary sources as required by WP:BLP. Primary sources are nice, but reliable secondary sources (as defined at WP:RS) offer everything a primary source offers, plus journalistic oversight, integrity, analysis and temperment (presumably, anyway). Wikipedia doesn't want crap in its BLPs, and the reliable secondary source rule is designed to support that concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a third party primary source. A third pary primary source would be your blog talking about AIM's views or my website talking about AIM's views... or more accurately, a third party primary source would be one that claims to have knowledge about AIM's position but isn't an official pronouncement or from AIM itself. AIM's press releases about AIM's view is not third party, it is a first party primary source from a notable organization citing the organizations views. You honestly think that the LA TIMES article saying, that AIM thinks Churchill is a Fraud and quotes a press release is more reliable than the original press release? It isn't. People can misrepresent press releases. Linking directly to the original press release from a notable organization is much more valid as you can then see what the group said. (You also get the sense from reading the press release that AIM might have an ax to grind or be a little more fringe than you do if simply read the secondary source that quotes the press release.) This boils down to the simple fact that this is NOT a third party primary source, thus your citing this is wrong.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about first-party claims by Churchill about Churchill. Claims by AIM about Churchill are not first-party. AIM's claims about AIM would be. Stick to reliable secondary sources as required by WP:BLP. Primary sources are nice, but reliable secondary sources (as defined at WP:RS) offer everything a primary source offers, plus journalistic oversight, integrity, analysis and temperment (presumably, anyway). Wikipedia doesn't want crap in its BLPs, and the reliable secondary source rule is designed to support that concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree... but I'll include the LA Times article as well, even though it adds little. The allegation is a significant allegation that has been cited on numerous places and for Wikipedia not to mention the allegation is not NPOV. We don't comment on the validity thereof, but we do need to include it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Including the content was never at issue. Citing it to primary sources against WP:BLP policy was the issue. Glad we cleared that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before on the talk page, see the archive. When people describe Ward Churchill as an "ethnic fraud" etc, what they mean is that it is hard to find any written evidence of Native American ancestry in his immediate family background. This does not mean that there is none, but it has led to controversy when he claimed affirmative action points on some of his job applications. The need to ensure WP:NPOV is best served by avoiding the use of words like "fraud", although it is important for the article to look at the controversy caused by Churchill's claims to Native American ancestry. It should also be pointed out (and has been already) that Churchill and AIM are currently at daggers drawn.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100%. But that does not negate the fact that the best known American Indian Movement group in the country, with whom Churchill has a long history (thus the relationship is relevant) has made the accusation explicitly that he has (according to them) falsely claimed to be an Indian to bolster his credentials. That accusation is, in itself, notable/meaningful. It isn't should it be included, but how should it be included. Failure to mention it, when it comes from AIM based upon their relationship, is hiding a key piece of information/criticism.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A while back [4], someone turned up on the talk page with a set of AIM documents about Ward Churchill that can be found online: [5] These claim to be declassified documents from the FBI and CIA. There is too much to mention here, but it chronicles Churchill's increasingly poor relationship with AIM and his longstanding feud with Bill Means, eg here. There is an element of original research in all of this, but it reveals little that is not already known. Churchill was effectively banned from involvement with Native American organizations after the Roosting Chickens essay, although his activities had led to criticism long before this happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying to mention the more radical views, but don't you think the article is overlooking a key piece of the controversy by failing to mention the allegations? Heck, my comment above would probably be more accurate to say, "Churchill has been accused, namely by the American Indian Movement, of having 'fraudulently represented himself as an Indian' to booster his credentials". The only reference in the article to this charge stems from 1994 where the CU president refused to look into it, not that it is an ongoing issue or has been raised by a major organization such as AIM. Failing to raise this is presenting a POV.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns

Up for deletion, you are welcome to comment. Okip 05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal against dismissal

This is in the Denver Post today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your syntax

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)

The all/some of the people in the WTC debate occurs frequently in the talk page archive, eg at Talk:Ward_Churchill/archive13#Some.3F_of_the_people_killed_in_the_WTC_attack. The wording of the essay itself is unclear. Pirateballerina.com is a blogging site with a famously low opinion of Churchill, so it is not really a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 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)

Recent edits re:Blood Quantum

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)

Sorry you miss the point. Of course Churchill wrote about blood quantum, but the quoted material was not written in response to request for him to prove his supposed American Indian heritage. When we put the two together--presenting his attack on U.S. government policy as if it is a response to requests for proof of his heritage--then we are engaging in original research and we are making a inference that the quoted materials flat out not doing. I've removed the sentence because we cannot make that inference--Churchill was attacking U.S. policy in general and he was not defending his refusal to prove Indian heritage.--InaMaka (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. '"We"' are not putting the two together; the cited source is. It specifically indicates that Churchill has been criticized for using his long-held understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Dawes Act to attack those that question his lineage. I quoted part of it in my paragraph above. There is no original research here, but perhaps the wording could be clearer. I'll take a crack at it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 2 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)

Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission

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)

The Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission publication mentions the tribal enrollment criteria for the two tribes mentioned, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Cherokee Nation, which are both listed as requiring "lineal descent" as opposed to a minimum blood quantum. The section is about blood quantum and features two quotes from Churchill equating blood quantum with genocide; however, my statement demonstrates that not all tribes use blood quantum for membership. Tribes enrolling based on lineal descent increase in numbers each generation as opposed to decreasing. The section also implies that the US government creates the criteria for tribal membership, when in fact the tribes do (I can make this more explicit). As per the talk section you've edited, "Recent edits re:Blood Quantum," the quotes do seem to imply the Churchill was discussing his own unenrolled status; however, my sentences that you keep deleting demonstrate that blood quantum is irrelevant to Churchill's inability to enroll in a tribe, since the two largest federally recognized tribes representing the two indigenous ethnic groups Churchill claims, Muscogee and Cherokee, do not require a minimum blood quantum
You've reverted my statement three times now, simply repeating verbatim "no mention of Churchill in cited source" each time. This is not a requirement for source on Wikipedia, and neither Appendix C — Best Practices". Campus Diversity Plan: A Blueprint for Action. University of Colorado at Boulder. July 1999. http://www.colorado.edu/cu-diversity/blueprint/appendix_c.html or U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, A Study of Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based on the 1970 Census, Vol. 3: American Indians (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) pp. 74, 78. mention Churchill by name. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It sounds as though you take issue with some assertions made by Churchill. That's fine, but to add that as content in a BLP, we need a reliable source to convey that content. If Churchill's statement(s) is/are incorrect, then it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a RS that conveys that. You are incorrect that Wikipedia does not require you to provide reliable sourcing for your statements -- even if you believe them to be self-evident or common sense. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The OIAC booklet is a government publication and not original research. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
No one said it was. However, the "statements" you made concerning Churchill, while citing the above sources, is indeed original research. Please find a reliable source that specifically states, "In the case of Churchill's own status, tribal blood quantum laws are moot. Blood quantum laws are not preventing Churchill from yada yada yada..." Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, by the way, on the UofC Blueprint. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 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!

Appeal again

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)

Recent edits

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)

From our article:
In an abrupt change of tone two days later, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians removed its critical statement regarding Churchill and replaced it with one that acknowledged his "alleged ancestry" of being Cherokee. "Because Mr. Churchill had genealogical information regarding his alleged ancestry, and his willingness to assist the UKB in promoting the tribe and its causes, he was awarded an 'Associate Membership' as an honor," the tribe's website now said. "However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee."
Churchill claims "some" native american heritage. That much is in reliable sources. There also is no proof that he does not have native american heritage (although there are sources that state he has not provided proof of certain required amounts with certain tribes and factions). What is it, exactly, you are trying to accomplish with your edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point: the categories you are adding are for enrolled tribal members. As such, you need to provide a source that proves he is an enrolled member. Feel free to add Category:American people of Native American descent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't add any categories; I reverted some deletions. I was unaware that one needed to be enrolled in, for example, the Native American Writers Tribe. Is there somewhere I could verify these requirements before I revert the deletions of certain categories? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@ the wikiproject. The categories were recently pruned; it must be in the talkpage-archives somewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will point them out to me if it becomes an issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Court decision

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)

genocide should be attributed

I'm concerned about the recent change in the text of this article, which removed the phrase "what he describes as" from the following:

Churchill has written on American Indian history and culture, and speaks about what he describes as the genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of North America by European settlers and the repression of native peoples that continues to this day.

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)

I agree. Rmhermen (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:55, 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]

The disagreement isn't whether the term "genocide" applies; the disagreement is over the very definition of the term itself. Some feel the term should apply only and uniquely to the Holocaust, while others feel the term should apply to circumstances that meet specifically defined attributes; not just the Holocaust. As other editors have pointed out, reliable sources do describe genocide on Native Americans. Also pointed out is that there is debate about the comparitive degree of genocide, and the level of intent behind the genocide, but no serious disagreement as to whether genocide happened with regard to Native Americans. (Note: non-reviewed opinion pieces by serial genocide-denier Lewy published in opinion magazines not withstanding.)
While WP:NPOV directs us to attribute opinions, it also directs us to not convey factual assertions as opinions. That being said, the sentence being discussed could be reworded less pointedly as:
Churchill has written on American Indian history and culture, and speaks on the topics of genocide by European settlers and present day repression of indigenous people of North America.
Note that speaking "on the topic of genocide by European settlers" is exactly what is occurring, even by those denying that it happened. But, personally, I am fine with and even prefer the present wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the concerns expressed by GabrielF. There are two problems, one is that genocide is a loaded and POV word, and the other is that it has a range of definitions. Not all historians would agree with the genocide claim (eg when the Romans ruled Britain they killed many of the natives, but this is not usually seen as genocide) so there is a need for attribution rather than blindly accepting Churchill's use of the word genocide.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
But it isn't "Churchill's use of the word genocide" in that sentence. He speaks about what has been described by scholars as the genocide of Native Americans by European settlers. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Creationism

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)

A large portion of the world's people support (or claim to believe in; or pretend to adhere to) various forms of creationism; have these views of Churchill's been scrutinized, reviewed and reported on in a manner that would make them particularily notable? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree that if the topic is to be covered, it needs RS from secondary sources, not quotes from Churchill's book. Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

overcitation

The following sentence is vastly overcited:

In the view of supporters of Professor Churchill, the media interest[36] in his ancestry[37] is an intentional distraction,[38] orchestrated by conservative[39] corporate media,[40] in order to divert attention from the issues of the historical genocide[41] against, and ongoing oppression[42] of, indigenous nations.[43]

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)

"2 sentences of supporter POV in appropriate" - No POV is appropriate for an encyclopedia. There is no shortage of online venues to promote viewpoints and opinions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Funding the litigation

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)

What is he doing today?

If anyone could add this to the article, it would be helpful. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Today Churchill lives in Atlanta, and appears to be "professionally" (I hesitate to apply that word to what Churchill does)inactive.Pokey5945 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to say something about this, but he seems to have fallen off the Google News map recently. There is little or no sourcing on what he is doing today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at his web page. He's asking the United Nations to give him his job at CU back because he's a victim of human rights abuses. Or something like that.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On Blood Quantum issues

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)

"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

Before this thread gets headed down the wrong path, I think it important to note that Pokey5945 hasn't actually violated the 3RR rule, as he did not exceed three reverts within any given 24 hour period. However, he has reverted the addition of the link four times in the past 48 hours, as seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Two editors (E.N. Standway and Uyvsdi) feel that the link should be added. Pokey5945, would you please elaborate here on the Talk Page as to why you feel the link "explicitly violates several aspects of WP policy on the external link section"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Several reasons: (1) The interview is already linked in the article body as a source, and it is thus redundant to give it a second link on WP. To do so smacks of POV-pushing. (2) There are many interviews with Churchill. This one is not particularly notable, or no more notable than the others. "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum." (3) The link is to a non-RS. "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." (4) The interview is mostly about Churchill's complaints about the research misconduct process and subsequent legal wrangling, most of which are contentious or cannot be verified. "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views."Pokey5945 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Wow. Ad hominem city. So much for assuming good faith and trying for NPOV. WRT to the request for examples of Churchill's deceit, note his claim in the interview that there are no scholarly publications that refute him or accuse him of research misconduct(paraphrase). I can think of three examples of such just off the top of my head. I'm fine with including the interview so long as it is balanced by opposing viewpoints on the research misconduct question. I'm not okay with only pro-Churchill perspectives on the research misconduct issue on the list. For now I will leave the interview, but I will be adding balancing links to the list in a few days when I have time, unless you can articulate a reason not to.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:13, 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)

You might want to look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary. It might also be productive to review the WP policies on good faith negotiation and NPOV.Pokey5945 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill/Archive_14&oldid=1136389378"