Talk:Ward Churchill

message: As present the article says "It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim that the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim has been criticized as a falsification."
This reads like the whole concept of smallpox blankets used to destroy the indians is 1) an idea of Churchill, 2) is considered to be a falsification. 
Yet in reality Churchill was found guilty of inventing an incident that allegedly happened at Fort Clark against the Mandan Indians in 1837. (Near Missouri river in todays North Dakota) and this story was found to be completely fabricated and that led to Churchill's being found guilty of academic misconduct. (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009?rgn=main;view=fulltext). 
There are other cases, proven and documented by contemporary sources, when smallpox blankets were really used to extirpate the indians and neither the use of smallpox, nor the intent to completely annihilate the indians is questioned. (http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html)
Please reword the cited sentence so it states clearly what was questioned and proven false otherwise it is wrong and greatly misleading. (I would do it myself if i felt capable to.)
176.63.176.112 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, i have reworded it, now it is "It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim of an alleged incident in which the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim of this incident has been criticized as a falsification." It points to the particular falsification instead of denying the smallpox blankets (which are proven) altogether. However if anyone can make the text more fluent or clearer, pls dont hesitate.176.63.176.112 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed! 

message: As a long-time WP editor, I'm really put off by this article's excessive tirade about Churchill's heritage. It's not only un-encyclopedic, it's clearly an ad hominem exercise (as is most criticism of Churchill). A brief recap of the decades-long slurring would be adequate ... and leave room for a balanced critical description of the point-of-view he has consistently represented for all that time. Briefly said, it's currently the crappiest bio (of the living or the dead) I've encountered on Wikipedia in 14 years. Twang (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babel, babel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Ward Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922112926/http://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/4218.html to https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/4218.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924200253/http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/44.html to http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/44.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206103859/http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm to http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001015344/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/churchill/indexDay5.shtml to http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/churchill/indexDay5.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223203415/http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2005/may/19/keetoowah-band-says-churchill-is-honorary/ to http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2005/may/19/keetoowah-band-says-churchill-is-honorary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128124106/http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/standingcommittee.html to http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/standingcommittee.html
*Added  tag to https://portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofile?uid=86356
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712044609/http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf to http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629204440/http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html to http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928080322/https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/5704.html to https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/5704.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210803/http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/complaint.pdf to http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/complaint.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130915013857/http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/201015/346/Ward-Churchill-case-headed-to-Colorado-Supreme-Court to http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/201015/346/Ward-Churchill-case-headed-to-Colorado-Supreme-Court
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20010917071505/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec95barsamian.htm to http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec95barsamian.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912073326/http://coloradoaim.org/Wardchurchillspreadthefunaround.htm to http://www.coloradoaim.org/Wardchurchillspreadthefunaround.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206103859/http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm to http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20040829135321/http://www.zmag.org/churchillaudio.html to http://www.zmag.org/churchillaudio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428033206/http://media.yaf.org/latest/03_21_06.cfm to http://media.yaf.org/latest/03_21_06.cfm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130114003815/http://www.zmag.org/zspace/wardchurchill to http://www.zmag.org/zspace/wardchurchill
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, it happened at least once in the 1760s -- see Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst and Henry Bouquet -- but I don't think there's any evidence it was a general or often-recurring practice. AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article reads:  "In 2005, University of Colorado Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct,[37] including three allegations of plagiarism, and four allegations of fabrication or falsification regarding the history of the Dawes Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and statements that smallpox was intentionally spread to Native Americans by John Smith in 1614 and by the United States Army at Fort Clark in 1837 (not to be confused with the well-documented use of smallpox-infected blankets at Fort Pitt in 1764)."
It is worth pointing out in the article that this is not an effective means of spreading smallpox.  Smallpox is spread primarily by face to face contact, sneezing, saliva, etc.--not by sharing articles that have been used by infected people.  Attempts at weaponizing the smallpox disease have failed.  It is not an effective biological agent, not now, and not in the 18th century.107.77.207.110 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, it happened at least once in the 1760s -- see Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst and Henry Bouquet -- but I don't think there's any evidence it was a general or often-recurring practice. AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallpox isn't caused by infected blankets

message: Or perhaps, what is he doing now? Has he retired? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't held an academic post since he was fired from Boulder in 2007. The most recent Google News coverage is here in September 2018, when he spoke at an event in Pittsburgh.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is he now?

message: I have tagged this article for a good article reassessment. This article was listed as a good article back in 2009. Surprising. I just made some changes (reorganizing, adding information on personal life, and condensing the lead) that help, but it still doesn't fit the criteria for a good article. Too much unsourced material/original research. Also, there is little to nothing about Churchill's work or activities following the disposition of his lawsuit, so the article may need an update. I don't believe that it's well-written enough to be a good article, either. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion about good article status, but noting for the record that the initial complainant, IP address 74.67.6.88, was blocked here on 6 Feb as a sock of User:SunCrow. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article reassessment