Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 7

message: 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
:Good comments Yosemite Indian!  It is good to see another Native reading and commenting on this page.  It has been frustrating to hear only the comments of non-Indian editors who are sympathetic to Churchill simply because he spouts off anti-American rhetoric and because of that sympathy are biased in their edits--attempting to cover up his anti-Indian agenda and his fake Indian status to take jobs, contracts and work from actual more qualified Indians.  What you stated is well researched and well-spoken.  Hope to see more of your editing. P.S. mark your comments for reference!-----Keetoowah 00:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Native Americans see Ward Churchill as a liar and a fake 

message: 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)
thread_title: Any Recent Developments?

message: :The "temp" page is now at Talk:Ward Churchill/temp
===The Lead===
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)
replies: text: The lead does not appear to have any of the problems you claim it does. Could you site a specific complaint?--198.93.113.49 14:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temp page discussion moved here

message: 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)
replies: text: The lead does not appear to have any of the problems you claim it does. Could you site a specific complaint?--198.93.113.49 14:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead

message: 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.
:In the marketplace of Ideas, frauds such as Churchill will get criticism also.  So, if you really believe in Free Speech then you should believe in my right to call Churchill a Fake Indian, if I want to.--Keetoowah 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketplace of Ideas 

message: 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
:Dear K:  You are wrong.  The lead does not fail.  The lead quotes Churchill directly on the topic that made him famous.  His outrageous comments are the only reason for his coverage nationally.  Not to quote them in the lead would be left-wing bias and prejudice.  It is unfortunate that you are advocating such obvious bias and prejudice.  You have allowed your political leanings to dictate your editing work.-----Keetoowah 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  impartiality regarding volatile material? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe someone, somewhere once wrote the quote you wish to insert.  But the currently linked URL to the Keetoowah website contains the statement now included in the article.  On WP, we don't provide unverifiable quotes, nor falsify citations.  Moreover, the actual current Keetoowah statement is much better written than the semi-grammatical statement you wish to insert. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are unbelivable.  I ask you to go to the Keetoowah Web site and direct you to the BOTTOM of the page and work your way through all of the postings by the Tribe and you will see the FIRST and STILL DEFINITIVE statement of the Tribe concerning Ward Churchill.  That statement has been on their Web site since May 2005 and it is still up there today.  It is the official postion of the tribe.  Your additional comments about me personally shows that you are rude and unprofessional person.  You refuse to go to the Keetoowah Web site and read the official statement of the tribe.  You e quoting a supplemental statement of the tribe.  But they have never waivered in their original position which is still on the Web site today.  Instead of doing what I ask of you (go the Web site and review from the BOTTOM working your way up) you choosen to attack me personally.  You don't know me and you don't know anything about me.  The only thing taht I do know about you is that you lying when you say that I am making up bogus quotes of the tribe.  The statement is there right now. Cberlet should be ashamed of his kneejerk defense of you.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I know your goal is do dig up something as derogatory to Churchill as possible, rather than what is actually representative of the United Keetoowah Band's position (which mostly supports Churchill's statement about prior honorary membership, though limits it and provides context).Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the need to attack me personally.  Especially, since you don't know me or really anything about me.  Just do your homework.  Go the Keetoowah Web site, TO THE BOTTOM AND WORK YOUR WAY UP and you will see the tribe's original and continuing statement concerning Ward Churchill.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If I had to make a wild guess, I'd guess that someone associated with the Keetoowah Band did make the hasty and poorly written statement that you are fond of.  Then after some other members had a chance to review it, they realized they should make a more precise, and better written, statement for their website.  That's just my guess though, since anything else violates WP:V.  Heck, you claim on your user page to be Keetoowah (i.e. tribal membership, not just having that username), so maybe you wrote the doggerel yourself, and think it should thereby be official because of your membership. Actually, come to think of it, that is my best wild guess. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you are attacking me personally instead of dealing with the substance of the matter.  You don't know me personally so you are not qualified to judge me, but you in your hubris and egotism have decided to judge me anyway.  I hope your defenders like Cberlet and Karmafist are truly proud of your childish personal attacks.  Why don't you just focus on why you have choosen to defame me by stating that I made up quotes when I didn't.  Why don't just go to the Keetoowah Web site and work your way up from the bottom of the page until you see the original and still continuing position of the tribe.  I would be willing to bet that you have never been to Indian Country.  You should be ashamed of yourself and Cberlet should be ashamed of himself for his kneejerk defense of you before he did his research also.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you finally went to the Web site and you saw that Original Statement of the tribe exists.  It is about time.  Now that means that you claim that was "making up bogus" quotes comment from you was and is a lie.  You need to acknowlege your lies and attempt to apologize for them.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, on to the substance of the issue.  You state above that we must use the second statement.  That is simply your opinion based upon an assumption that you make.  The original statement is still on the Web site.  If the Tribe does not believe in the statement then why does not the tribe just take it down???  They have not taken it down because it is the still the position of the tribe.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the tone of your comments are amusing.  You sound like you are the Wikipedian enforcer and that you are going to go get SlimVirgin and El_C and you are going to come back here and beat me into submission.  By the way, you never answered my questions:  Why do you feel the need to attack me personally?  Does it make you feel like a big man?  Do you like to be the schoolyard bully??  How do you feel qualified to judge me when you really don't know me at all?  Go get SlimVirgin and El_C but that will not answer the questions that I have asked:  If the tribe does not believe the statement on their Web site, then why is it still there???  They could take it down.  They have had plenty of time, since May2005.  But they have choosen not to take it down.  Also, you have never apologized for lying about me when you stated that I made up the quote.  Be a man and apologize or are you too much a schoolyard bully to admit it when you are dead wrong.  I wonder if Cberlet is a big enough man to admit when he is wrong.  How about karmafist?  They jumped on your bogus bandwagon and now they look like they are been fooled by your bragging, overbearing bully routine.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lulu's false and defamatory comments about Keetoowah and Lulu's Ignorance of the topic 

message: 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: , , , 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)
thread_title:  Stuff on past editing behavior 

message: Lulu and Cberlet need to do their research before they make wholesale changes to the article.--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not edited the article since July.  Your "proposal" about research is thus ironic at best.--Cberlet 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER TWO 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was not involved in this edit in any way.--Cberlet 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: So, you finally went to the Web site and you saw that Original Statement of the tribe exists.  It is about time.  Now that means that you claim that was "making up bogus" quotes comment from you was and is a lie.  You need to acknowlege your lies and attempt to apologize for them.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, on to the substance of the issue.  You state above that we must use the second statement.  That is simply your opinion based upon an assumption that you make.  The original statement is still on the Web site.  If the Tribe does not believe in the statement then why does not the tribe just take it down???  They have not taken it down because it is the still the position of the tribe.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, the tone of your comments are amusing.  You sound like you are the Wikipedian enforcer and that you are going to go get SlimVirgin and El_C and you are going to come back here and beat me into submission.  By the way, you never answered my questions:  Why do you feel the need to attack me personally?  Does it make you feel like a big man?  Do you like to be the schoolyard bully??  How do you feel qualified to judge me when you really don't know me at all?  Go get SlimVirgin and El_C but that will not answer the questions that I have asked:  If the tribe does not believe the statement on their Web site, then why is it still there???  They could take it down.  They have had plenty of time, since May2005.  But they have choosen not to take it down.  Also, you have never apologized for lying about me when you stated that I made up the quote.  Be a man and apologize or are you too much a schoolyard bully to admit it when you are dead wrong.  I wonder if Cberlet is a big enough man to admit when he is wrong.  How about karmafist?  They jumped on your bogus bandwagon and now they look like they are been fooled by your bragging, overbearing bully routine.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keetoowah has a point. There are two quotes on the page that is cited. You are not looking far enough down on the page, but Keetoowah’s quote most certainly exists on the page he cited. TDC 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE 

message: 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)
replies: text: So, you finally went to the Web site and you saw that Original Statement of the tribe exists.  It is about time.  Now that means that you claim that was "making up bogus" quotes comment from you was and is a lie.  You need to acknowlege your lies and attempt to apologize for them.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, on to the substance of the issue.  You state above that we must use the second statement.  That is simply your opinion based upon an assumption that you make.  The original statement is still on the Web site.  If the Tribe does not believe in the statement then why does not the tribe just take it down???  They have not taken it down because it is the still the position of the tribe.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, the tone of your comments are amusing.  You sound like you are the Wikipedian enforcer and that you are going to go get SlimVirgin and El_C and you are going to come back here and beat me into submission.  By the way, you never answered my questions:  Why do you feel the need to attack me personally?  Does it make you feel like a big man?  Do you like to be the schoolyard bully??  How do you feel qualified to judge me when you really don't know me at all?  Go get SlimVirgin and El_C but that will not answer the questions that I have asked:  If the tribe does not believe the statement on their Web site, then why is it still there???  They could take it down.  They have had plenty of time, since May2005.  But they have choosen not to take it down.  Also, you have never apologized for lying about me when you stated that I made up the quote.  Be a man and apologize or are you too much a schoolyard bully to admit it when you are dead wrong.  I wonder if Cberlet is a big enough man to admit when he is wrong.  How about karmafist?  They jumped on your bogus bandwagon and now they look like they are been fooled by your bragging, overbearing bully routine.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keetoowah has a point. There are two quotes on the page that is cited. You are not looking far enough down on the page, but Keetoowah’s quote most certainly exists on the page he cited. TDC 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lulu's ludicrous and Untrue claim that there was Improper quoting United Keetoowah Band 

message: Immediately and without hesitation put back in the correct quote of the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill.
--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER FIVE