Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 2

message: Churchill has claimed that he is Cherokee and he has claimed to be Metis and he has claimed to be Creek and he has claimed to be a Keetoowah, but he can't prove any of this.--Keetoowah 17:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill Has Claimed To a Member of Four Different Tribes and All Four Tribes Have Said Wrong! 

message: A recent edit summary said:  Churchill never claimed to of indian descent, heading for entry changed to non-NPOV language
And basically made a wholesale deletion.  Oh well.  This seems clearly wrong to me; he's been documented as having made such claims.  Can we first of all agree an appropriate wording as to what he has claimed about his ancestry?  (Let's separate out the question of their accuracy for the sake of present discussion.)  One report has him saying his mother is 3/8 Indian, and implying, in much vaguer terms, that his father was 'just as much' or something like that.  Has he made other specific (different or otherwise) claims on that?  What precisely has he claimed about tribal membership?  The editting on this page does not make great what's being changed for reasons of accuracy, what for neutrality, and what from personal dislike, so it'd be useful to have a summary of what's in dispute.  Alai 07:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we start by agreeing what Churchill '''''claims'''''? 

message: This article, in its current form, is one of the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It is an appalling mess. 
To deal with it, I think we need to define a basic structure, like this:
* Intro
* Biographical details
* Work (writing and activism)
* 9/11 essay controversy
* Other controversies
* Links, etc.
Can we at least agree on a neutral introduction? This is my proposal:
:Ward L. Churchill (born 2 October 1947) is an American academic and political activist of mixed Native American heritage. He is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). In 2005, Churchill became the subject of intense debate in the United States because of an essay he wrote about September 11, 2001 attacks.
With appropriate links, I think this is starting to head in the right direction.  Keetoowah, can you please try to shorten and focus your comments and get behind creating a lucid, fact-based, NPOV entry?  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for biased opinions which you seem to be determined to make this article into.  There's a lot wanting here in terms of presenting an honest, fact-based article and too much "raw text" still remains as well as one sided links.  The idea should be to create an article worthy of an encyclopedia, not some message board ranting and raving.-- Calicocat 19:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should NOT refer to Churchill in the introduction as "of mixed Native American heritage."  It has not been shown that Churchill is of mixed Native American heritage.  What do you mean by that phrase?  Are you stating that Churchill is part one tribe, Cherokee, and part another tribe, Metis?  Are you stating that Churchill is part Native American and part white?  Let's say that he is 3/16th some kind of tribe (we don't know which one because he changes every day), which isn't clear, and he has not provided the information that is standard in Indian Country to prove such a thing.  However, let's assume that he really is 3/16th (which is fantasy) why are you referring to him as "mixed Native American." And you are NOT referring to his white background which I assume means that he is 13/16th white?  Why?  Are you trying to imply that he is he is mostly Native American?  Because he is NOT by any stretch of the imagination. Or am I to infer that he is mostly Native American and he is part of several tribes.  My response is that is absolutely incorrect because he is NOT mostly Native American and he has not proven that he is a member of any tribe.  Why are you referring to his heritage at all?  If you want to talk about racism, what is more racist than pretending to be a member of a different race than the one you are.  He is white.  Why are you trying to make case that he is "of mixed Native American heritage"?--Keetoowah 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I covered this topic in a much earlier discussion on this Talk page, but since you obviously chosen not to read the comments above then I will go over it again.  You make a blanket statement that someone pretending to be a different race than they are is a "canard."  Nice word.  But you don't give any justification for your conclusion that it is a "canard." Other than expressing your personal opinion.  What is that personal opinion based upon?  Do you have personal experience in Indian Country?  Are you a Native American yourself?  Why do you feel it appropriate to just blow off the valid concerns of 90% of Indian Country that does NOT like white people coming into Indian Country and stealing jobs from qualified (or more qualified) Natives by people like Churchill.  Churchill is stealing jobs, money, attention from actual Indians and it is a damn shame that non-Indians who don't work or live in Indian Country just stand back with a haughty attitude like yours and say, "Well, I think the ethnicity issue is a canard.  Look at me.  It does NOT affect me, therefore, I will just ignore and belittle the complaints of people in Indian Country because it will make me look above the fray and somehow objective."  WRONG!  It is just the opposite.  In my mind it calls into question your motives because in Indian Country this is a damn big deal and yet you are willing to just shrug your shoulders and ignore the complaints of about one million people (the approximate number of people that live in Indian Country).  I know damn well that if someone was pretending (i.e., commiting a fraud) to be something that they were NOT to steal jobs, money, speaking engagements from YOU then you would NOT just stand back with a uncaring attitude and shrug your shoulders and ignore it.  And if this article is changed and there is no fair mention of the real, live controversy in Indian Country about Churchill's fake Indian stories then you are turning Wikepedia into a joke.  It is as if, as I have stated before, someone runs around Nazi Germany, who is a WASP, claiming to be a Jew and commenting on how difficult it is to be persecuted as a Jew in Hitler's Nazi Germany.  And, as I stated before, do NOT even give me a lecture about using the Nazi and Hitler analogies because Churchill uses these types of Nazi analogies all the time.  What brought him to national attention and what does he call anyone that dares question his background as an Indian? Nazi.  Therefore don't waste time trying to shoot down that analogy because Churchill has already gone down that road.  It is difficult enough for many, many people in Indian Country to find good paying jobs.  We don't need a fake Indians coming into Indian Country and stealing jobs from the actual Indians.  And do NOT even give the argument that:  "Ok, may be it is a valid issue.  But it is not as important as. . .blah, blah, blah."  WRONG!  The guy has made a whole career out of pretending to be an Indian and all of his writings refer to Indian Country, etc.  The fact that he CANNOT prove that he is a member of any tribe goes to the heart of who he claims that he is.  He is claiming to be a defender of "his People."  If he isn't an Indian, which he isn't, then he is commiting a huge fraud.  Yes, I know you believe that the "ethnicity issue is canard."  What horse crap.  It speaks to who he claims to be.  I have given many reasons why is it not a canard and you have given absolutely zero reasons other than your broad, sweeping conclusion that it is a canard.  You state it--the word "canard" that is--so easily but you provide absolutely no reasoning or defenses for your vast, sweeping conclusion.--Keetoowah 15:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for reorganizing this article 

message: ===Paraphrasing===
Full-texts belong at Wikisource.  Paraphrase when you can, make direct quotes (with ellipses, if called for) when you can't.  This article is getting far too long.
===Style===
You may be right, but nobody's ever going to be convinced if your attempt to prove it is entirely unreadable.  Grammar, spelling and overall readability are important.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can instantly correct your own mistakes and deficiencies.
--69.245.192.52 19:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stylistic Concerns

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

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

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

message: :Ward L. Churchill (born October 2, 1947, Peoria, Illinois)is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM).
Some articles have over-flabby lead sections, but this one is just anorexic.  The first paragraph -- or three! -- clearly needs to allude to the substantiative issues addressed in the articles, especially:  his ancestry, and the disputes thereof;  and his writings and statements about 9/11.  Those are, after all, why he has an article here -- not for the reasons in the heavily redacted current text.  We need to establish some consensus as to structure here, not just indulge ourselves with large unilateral edits -- especially ones that duplicate large amounts of text for no evident reason.  Alai 08:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimalism in action? 

message: The issue of the painting is potentially a serious one and one that should be watched and treated carefully in an NPOV way.  If you have any doubt about that just look into copyright law and cases.  This is not the same as bringing up things like a late payment on a phone bill or if someone drinks milk directly from the carton. Calicocat 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Wilbertoki:  Please sign your comments like the one that you posted above.  As to substance, it does NOT comment on any specific aspect of the WC article, it is only a rant about how you believe that the right-wing is "purg[ing]" academia.  According to policy, Talk pages are NOT supposed to be about your personal rants, but about discussions about improving the article.  That is not what you are doing here.  I'm not interested in your paranoid rantings.  What I'm interested in making sure that the WC article clearly indicates that many, many people dispute highly the claim by Churchill that he is an Indian because 90% of the people in Indian Country that have had personal exposure to the guy know that he has NOT proven that he is a member of any Indian tribe and that he constantly changes what tribes he claims to belong to, etc.  Your generalized paranoid rantings are not helpful or welcome.-----Keetoowah 15:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keetoowah, it is clear by your own admission you have an axe to grind here and your contributions and comments will be viewed in that light. May I point out to you that Ward Churchill is famous for his scholarship on Native America and infamous, some might say, for the 9/11 essay? May I also point out to you that there are also non-Jewish scholars of Hebraica, non-Italian scholars of Italy, non-Arab scholars of Islam, and scholars of the classical world who are not dead Romans? He is not famous for being a "fake Indian". I presume that he is not the only individual whose "Indian-ness" can be questioned, but none of rest would be worthy of an article in Wikipedia solely on those grounds. Sure, ok, we mention it is a controversy, but it can NOT dominate the article. The issue of whether he is or is not a "true-blooded" Indian has no bearing at all on his writing. The matter is, as I said above, a canard. -- Viajero 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never, ever stated that someone has to be an Indian to be a scholar of Native American issues.  There are many great scholars of the Native American culture who are NOT Indian, Ward Churchill just does NOT happen to be one of them. The fact that you are talking about which I never, ever stated--e.g., non-Jews being experts on Jewish studies--is a canard. See I can use pedantic phrases also.  Ward Churchill is a fake Indian and you want to defend him because you are sympathetic to his rants concerning America and 911.  However, just because you are sympathetic to his rants does not mean that he speaks for all Indians or that he is an Indian at all.  Also, I never, ever stated that the Indian heritage issue should dominate the article, I've only stated that it should be treated fairly and he should get a pass as a fake Indian because he is spouting off comments with which you are sympathetic.  And finally, don't make such definitive statements about how the article is going to be, like this: "but it can NOT dominate the article."  You aren't the final arbitor of how the article is going to look.  Don't think you are.----Keetoowah 20:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Keetoowah, I would like to point out that while AIM is against WC, the Colorado chapter are supporters and have started a petition for him. I would like to know more from you on why you do not like Ward so much. Is it only because he claims to be an Indian and you feel he is not? Or is it that you feel he reflects poorly on Indians?  Scott Richard Lyons wrote this article at http://counterpunch.org/lyons02192005.html. He writes: If Churchill is in fact 100 percent white - which no one will ever know for certain - then what exactly would that make him? Seems to me he would then occupy that time-honored position of a colonizer going Native; that is, taking on the habits and perspectives - not to mention the politics - of the colonized. He would be what racial theorists call a race traitor; one who denies and decries white privilege by refusing to participate in whiteness as a system of privilege. How exactly would that harm Indian people? I know real Indians who do a lot worse.
I feel the same way as Scott, but I am not an Indian so perhaps I do not understand. But it seems to me if someone is publicly advancing the Indian movement and Ward was doing as party of the Colorado Indian Movement why are you so opposed to him. Is he harming the cause? I would like to understand your views on that. 
I believe one of the real tragedies of the Ward Churchill case is how vulnerable he is to attack because the people who should be supporting him are too busy infighting. If Churchill is fired it will be a blow to Ethnic Studies at all universities, a field which is not thought of highly by the people trying to get him removed. --Wilbertoki 04:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Alai, Wilbertoki, Argon:  Thank you for asking questions.  I really appreciate that.  It seems that a lot of these wild comments start when folks assume things that are not true.  Any way, the problem that most folks in Indian Country have with WC is that he is making outlandish comments that gives him a huge amount of publicity--which in and of itself is not a problem.  The problem becomes when WC represents himself as an Indian.  Why is that a problem?  Well first of all, if he isn't an Indian then is fraudulent.  But more important there is only so many times that national media focus on Indian issues in a year.  If the national media allocates its small amount of let's call it "Indian time" on WC then the issues that important to vast majority of Indian people are getting ignored.  Let's assume that WC IS Indian, which he isn't, under what authority is he given the right to speak for ALL Indians?  Has he been elected to a tribal office?  Is he the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation? No.  Is he the Deputy Chief of the Cherokee Nation?  No.  Has been elected to the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council? No.  Under what authority is speaking?  The Cherokee people, of which I am one, elect leaders who represent us.  We place in their hands the right to speak for us as a tribe.  Our leaders do NOT speak for other tribes such as the Navajo or the various Sioux tribes.  Thoses tribes have elected their own leaders.  Our tribal leaders speak for us as a nation after long and difficult discussion groups, where we go over all of our concerns.  How can WC who can't even prove that he belongs to our tribe, even though he claims to be a member, speak for our tribe?  He can't.  He does not attend the discussion groups.  He does not attend the pow-wows.  He does not work in the Cherokee Nation institutions, etc.  He is just making things up and then he states that he is speaking for ALL Native Americans.  How insulting is that?  We in the Cherokee Nation have our leaders and WC is NOT one of them. How can he speak for the Navajo?  He is not a member of their tribe.  He does not attend their meetings.  He does NOT live in Navajoland.  Who is he to speak for them.  He is a member of the Colorado AIM which is a very small group of Indians that live in Boulder and they do whatever they want to do.  WC is using that small group to steal jobs and speaking engagements from real Indian people.  He is making things and setting the national agenda for Indian issues.  Most Indian people don't agree with the things that he says.  He has a right to say them.  Just don't claim that you are Indian, when you aren't and don't say that most Indian people agree with you when they don't.  It is not true.  Look:  I know that you sympathetic to the things that he has been saying about 911, etc. but that does not make him an Indian and he should not be telling people that he is one.  Also, why is everyone assuming that because I am criticizing his fake Indian stand that I am somehow a "right-winger" and that it is just a "canard" or "red herring"?  What I believe is the source of all of those accusations is that the folks that are making them are blindly defending WC based upon on 911 comments and believe that he is getting a unfair deal in the media for those 911 comments.  May be he is getting an unfair treatment in the media for the 911 comments, but the 911 comments have nothing to do with whether he is an Indian or not.----Keetoowah 20:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement issue/Disputed Artwork 

message: Calicocat, I restored some of the changes you did to the intro and the first section partly to bring them in line with the way we customarily organize biographical articles. 
First, and this goes for all articles, the intro should be one paragraph of three to five sentences which sum up all the noteworthy facts about the subject so the reader can decide whether to continue. Normally, in the case of bios, this does not include place of birth or place of death, since that is usually not signifcant (assassinations, etc., excepted). It is also important to mention nationality, since this is international reference work.
Second, the "Early years" section which I restored is usually called "Life" on other biographical pages (or indeed "Early years" if the material warrants). Here, I am using "Early years" because that is all we know at the moment. We do not know what he did between leaving the army in 1969 and getting appointed to UC, the date of which we are likewise ignorant. This section needs to be fleshed out and turned into "Life".
I urge you to look at other biographical articles, like Henry Kissinger, Margaret Sanger, or Louis Armstrong to get a sense of how bios are built up. They tend to be endless variations on the structure: Life, Work, Legacy/Controversy
HTH, -- Viajero 17:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment to Calicocat 

message: I have restored the following information which was removed by an anonymous editor:
It is not unusual that Americans who have some Native American blood, but whose families live within the mainstream community, know their heritage from family tradition, but encounter difficulty proving it to the satisfaction of administrators of affirmative action programs .
It was removed without comment or discussion. This is inappropriate. When I googled this topic I found a number of links discussing this problem. Fred Bauder 15:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
:It was done by an anon.  This article requires constant vigilence. -- Viajero 16:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of referenced information

message: Calicocat, virtually every biography of a Jewish person identifies that they are Jewish in the intro. This is not POV. Moreover in the case of Churchill, his ethnicity is highly topical, since it is also a matter of controversy. Also, in every bio, we identify the individual's nationality. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with other Wikipedia articles before inisisting so relentlessly what is right and wrong. Viajero 20:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Viajero 20:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity in intro 

message: To All: Continual POV reversion of this page represent an effort not to create an valid, useful, NPOV entry, but to have this article be nothing more than an attack page on Professor Churchill designed to do nothing more than support the particular political and propaganda agenda of those clearly biased against Churchill.  I have had reasonable language reverted countless times and almost gave up on the article, but after thinking about it further decided that the article deserved to be made as NPOV and accurate as possible.
It's better than where it started, but it has now turning into a petty reversion contest and this serves neither the letter or spirit of the Style Manual or Policy of Wikipedia.  Any voices of rationality and reason on this would be most welcome, but I fear nothing short of mediation or perhaps stronger measures are going to render impossible creation of a fair and useful entry. 
The person most responsbile for the irrational behavior in this is user Viajero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viajero, who, oddly, on his user page claims to be one against such practices himself, which based on my experience with this user seem utterly hypocritical.  He seems rather good at playing the liar's paradox game and intent on foisting his POV here.
Calicocat 05:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Mediation Needed/Stop the POV insanity. 

message: == User Keetoowah: please justify deletion ==
Could you please justify your removal earlier today of a long section on Churchill's books? 
If you don't consider Churchill a "scholar" that is your opinion. There is no reason why this article should not review his written work. -- Viajero 17:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Viajero:  Please explain to me what exactly your problem is.  I did NOT make the changes that you accuse me of making.  What changes that I made are a matter of record.  This project keeps a record of who makes what changes when.  If you would take the time to look up who deleted the summarizes of the fake Indian non-scholarly books you will see that it was NOT me.  Do your research before you jump wild, inaccurate conclusions.  It is clear that you have an axe to grind and your future comments will be judged in that light.--- --Keetoowah 20:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I missread the Page History this afternoon. It appears that it was Calicocat who removed the text . My apologies. -- Viajero 20:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Viajero: please check your facts before you write 

message: I have some sympathy with Keetoowah on the "unqualifying" of "part Native American descent".  His ethnicity clear is controversial, especially as regards tribal membership qualification, claims thereof, degree of Indianness, etc.  But is there doubt about him having any NA blood?  (One of the links in the article seemed to be implying as much.)  If there is such doubt, the statement ought to be qualified in some way.  In any case, I'd favour some allusion to the general controversy, given that it's so prominent in the article.  (As it stands, one can imagine a casual reader doing a bit of a double-take when they reach the "Ethnicity" section.)  Alai 03:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right. Care to suggest neutral formulation for it? -- Viajero 12:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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