Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 13

Some? of the people killed in the WTC attack

Lulu, I thought we discussed this previously: the 2001 essay does not say "some of the people", it says "the people in the WTC". Kanguole (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion at least a half-dozen times in the archived talk. I cited the actual text of the article, that had that dependent clause about "those technocrats of empire" (or whatever the exact phrase, I don't have the book in front of me). The editor who recently put in "some of" is much more accurately capturing the Churchill essay itself (admittedly, I had let that wrong insinuation stay given all the other nonsense being inserted; but the edit recently made by Ianmacm is definitely an improvement on the prior text). LotLE×talk 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here[1] is the edit where you removed a similar word the last time we discussed this, and that edit was well-founded (albeit cautious). The paragraph in question is quoted in On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which also has an External Link to the whole essay (though the darknight site seems to have gone).

The essay does not contain anything that corresponds to "some of". There is no dependent clause; the text plainly equates those killed in the WTC with the "technocratic corps". Sure, that may have been a rhetorical trick, as noticing non-technocrat dead would have weakened his argument, but that's what he wrote, and the subject here is circulation of the essay. The article should faithfully describe the text of the essay. Replacing it with a sanitized interpretation will not help readers understand the subject. Kanguole (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that misrepresenting the obvious intent of Churchill in writing the essay really helps readers understand the subject either. Of course this article isn't the first such (deliberate) misrepresentation of what Churchill actually wrote: almost everyone who knows about it knows the misrepresented version. Which I confess makes the right tone tricky; there's what the essay said, and there's what it was imagined to say, both of which have a slightly different relevance. If you can find a nuanced phrase that allows both... that would be great. LotLE×talk 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...he said that people killed in the WTC..."Verklempt (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried edits in two places that I think bridge the gap. If I'm wrong, someone please be bold and revert me. I thought I had a flash of nuanced solution. If it was, rather, a flash of late-night indigestion, so be it. I won't be hurt. David in DC (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of this issue is the following question: did Ward Churchill intend to say in the Roosting Chickens essay that all of the people who died in the WTC attacks, including the cleaners and caterers, deserve to die because they provoked the attacks? I don't profess to have a perfect answer to this question. Churchill has said that he did not intend this meaning, although he has refused to apologise unreservedly for the essay. Churchill's supporters have argued that the media has twisted his words, but saying "The financial workers deserved to die but the cleaners and caterers did not" would still be offensive in the eyes of many people. What is needed in the article is a form of wording that reflects all of this and avoids oversimplification, which has been a feature of some of the media coverage of the Churchill case. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He has more than once clarified that he was talking about the bond traders and suchlike. See the pacifism as pathology talk/cd (AKPRESS) etc. Why is this still under debate? ----maxrspct ping me 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article ought to discuss what he actually wrote, the way it was used by his critics and what he and his supporters said he really meant. But it is a complicated story, and there's not room for it in the lead. I think the wording "people" (introduced by Lulu last year and now reinstated by David) is a reasonable compromise between "the people", which accurately reports the text but requires a mention of his later explanations, and "some of the people", which is not what he wrote and would also require more explanation. Over the history of this article, people add small positive or negative points to the lead, the other side responds by adding balancing points, which are seen as requiring further balancing additions by the party of the first part, and so on until the lead is a rambling mess. Let's not do that again; there's plenty of room in the body of the article. Kanguole (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I recall a rumor on a FOX news segment 3 or 4 years ago about Ward Churchhill wasn't born in the United States, but in Egypt as his American parents were archaeologists based there. His self-claimed Native American (Cherokee, Choctaw or Creek?) ancestry is dubious if he can't officially proven it to the US census, the Cherokee Nation officials or the University of Colorado he supposedly got affirmative action points for. This is a controversial figure whose past is sketchy, but I don't wanna comment any further. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no truth to that rumor. Churchill's childhood is well-documented. He's from Elmwood, IL. His birth father was a high school teacher and his mother a housewife.Verklempt (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy aspects

I edited a number of sloppy aspects to this entry, namely the citation of an Opinion column from a Colorado newspaper (hardly a legit resource) and several statements that were misleading at best, intentionally biased at worse. Whether one likes Churchill is irrelevant to need for being accurate when representing his position and the nature of said 'controversy' regarding his dismissal from UC. Furthermore, there are a number of references to the same set of newspaper writers in Colorado...a number of whom have been accused to falsifying evidence and exaggerating claims made against Churchill for political purposes. Whether this is indeed true is, again, irrelevant---it is important to at least mention this at some point in the entry Finally, I deleted reference to the 'so-called' blood quantum laws instituted by the US government. 'So-called' is a term used when the terminology or concept is under dispute, not when it is a matter of US policy that is thoroughly documented. Similarly, I think there was a reference to the 'so-called' genocide of Native Americans in the United States. This is hardly disputable and one would have to turn the (sic) 'scholarship' of White Nationalist hate groups to find an argument stating otherwise. Whoever wrote this sh-t needs to do their homework and stop trying to make subtle political points with their shoddy entries. You don't have to agree with people in order to write about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckdog (talk • contribs)

Re the Jodi Rave opinion piece, she is citing a non-opinion piece. Instead of deleting this, the logical improvement is to track down the original and cite that instead.Verklempt (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me putting this in a new section, because I think you're starting a new topic.)

On one of the points you've made above, it certainly is relevant whether it's true (or verifiable) that the DP and RMN reporters have been falsifying evidence and exaggerating claims regarding Churchill. Just saying that they've been accused of it (by whom?) is not sufficient justification for removing citations of their articles. Kanguole (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of the "so-called" is that even many mainstream sources that would readily admit that many Native Americans were murdered during US expansion would still not use the term "genocide" for that. Personally, I quite strongly think the word fits. However, reputable enough scholars (e.g. Lewy) disagree. LotLE×talk 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re "so-called", I agree that it has a pejorative and POV connotation. I propose that we replace it with "alleged", which sounds more neutral.Verklempt (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the term "so-called" definitively has a negative connotation. However, I agree with Lulu's point that the term "genocide" could be too strong for some. As to the claim that RMN and DP reporters are biased, I would have to see who is stating these claims and what evidence that provide for their claims--just stating that they are biased, etc. is not enough basis to change the article at all. Moreover, the Bill Clinton reference I find to be quite enlightening. Clinton is clearly not a native, but yet he received honorary membership. This is based, in the article, on a reliable source and it is relevant and notable. I also believe that it has been debated by the editors several times and its removal at this time would clearly be violating the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InaMaka (talk • contribs)

Hi InaMake, could you please discuss this in the new section I have created at bottom relative to the edit disagreement today? FWIW, I would note that consensus can change]; I'm not saying it has changed, but there may be different arguments or different editors than those that led to mentioning Clinton six months or a year ago. Let's discuss it to see. LotLE×talk 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's edit warring

A change was proposed today in relation to Churchill's Keetoowah membership. The initial change was made in good faith, as was the first reversion. After that point, everyone should have come to this talk page to discuss the matter, rather than flipping the text back and forth repeatedly.

There seem to be two issues in the change:

1. ...was awarded an honorary associate membership in 1994, as were Bill Clinton and others -> was awarded an honorary associate membership in 1994
2. honorary membership is not an indication of ethnicity. -> that is a recognition of native status from within the native community itself, extraneous of the blood quantum laws created by the U.S. government.

Now first thing, whatever we agree about a change or lack of change to make, let's discuss it here first. LotLE×talk 02:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Lulu's opinion: It is worthwhile to let readers know that the honorary membership was not a unique thing given to Churchill. On the other hand, it seems like mentioning Clinton here is meant to insinuate something "inauthentic" about them. I would propose an intermediate phrase like: "...was among honorees given associate membership in 1994."

The ethnicity point is stickier, because it is given different meanings by different persons. Some see it as a pure genetic determinant, while others see it as a broader cultural identification; for example, this dispute comes up in the Cherokee freedmen controversy. I do think the clause in the addition going into "blood quantum" laws is a bit preachy for this mention. However, I also do not think we should simply endorse the "genetics are destiny" position either. I guess I would propose a compromise like: "that recognizes status within the native community, but not necessarily indian ancestry".

Thoughts? LotLE×talk 02:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This part of the text specifically discusses Churchill's claim to be an enrolled Keetoowah. The general identity issue is touched on in the last para of the section. That would be the place to add the Seattle Times piece, if at all. I think your edit is pretty close, except that Keetoowah representatives have claimed that promised assistance never materialized. The Bill Clinton reference is problematic; some sources suggest that associate and honorary memberships were two different things, that Clinton was offered honorary membership on the strength of a report that he was 1/16 Cherokee, and that he never responded to the offer. Kanguole (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times piece does not mention Churchill. To extrapolate from this piece to Churchill would violate WP:OR.Verklempt (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt is right, specifically WP:SYNTH prevents us from putting together information from multiple sources, even where it is "obvious" that they discuss the same topic. I'm happy to leave in the Clinton mention if editors are happy with the current version (in which I try to integrate a characterization of the quote I give in my below comment that starts "Oh, silly me"). While Clinton seems slightly too particularistic, it isn't a terrible example of "and other people". LotLE×talk 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt's Opinion: (1) The edit that I have a big problem with is: "that recognizes status within the native community, but not necessarily indian ancestry". The cited source (Seattle Times) doesn't support this interpretation. Furthermore, the tribal spokeswoman specifically states that the associate card does *not* prove ancestry (in the Daily Camera cite). This edit does not accurately reflect the tribe's own conception of what honorary membership means. This article should not engage in OR about ethnic identity. The tribe's own view is what is significant here.(2) I do not have strong feelings about the Clinton reference per se. However, it does demonstrate that the tribe was handing out these honorary memberships to non-Indians in order to build relationships with people they wanted help from. If we take out the Clinton ref, then we'd need to restore the tribal statements about why they offered the honorary membership to Churchill. In fact, I think that would be an improvement.Verklempt (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What specific text would you propose adding in regard to "why they offered the honorary memberships"? LotLE×talk 04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see this text: "Churchill [...] was only given an honorary 'associate membership' [...] because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry." However, that by itself is not very illuminating, since obviously not everyone who "could not prove any Cherokee ancestry" was given the honorary membership. The affirmative reason why Churchill was honored despite this negative does not seem to be presented there. LotLE×talk 04:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, silly me, the other cite is more germane: ""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,". I think a paraphrase is better than direct quote, but that seems like a useful explanation. LotLE×talk 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

InaMaka's opinion: I'm fine with commenting below. I believe that you and I were both writing at about the same time therefore I did not see your comments before I posted mine. Consensus is a two-edged sword. It has been used against me several times as a argument NOT to change an article. Other times it has been used against me to make the argument that an article should change. At any rate, I still believe that the Bill Clinton reference makes a valid point. So far I have not heard any argument on why it should change. All that has been offered so far is that it should be removed, but no substantive reason for that removal has been given. Once again, Clinton is clearly NOT a member of any tribe, yet he was given an honorary membership. This fact points to two outcomes: (1) a non-tribal member with NO tribal ancestry could get an honorary membership from the Keetowah's tribe, and (2) honorary membership is NOT an indicator of native ancestry in anyway. Until I hear a reason it should be moved other than the circular argument that it should be removed because it should be removed then I believe that Clinton reference should stay. Feel free to respond to me down below.--InaMaka (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this edit was not handled well, and I share a concern that the IP address restoring it may be the same new account that already edit warred over it. I would also like to hear a more specific argument for removing Clinton's name, not just a repeated edit. I guess in my mind, I wonder how widely these honorary memberships were given, and to what types of people. Prominent politicians are often in a somewhat different category than other individuals for these types of honors (e.g. Obama being given a Crow name); in the case of the honorees of high prominence, a think it may be given more to help the reputation of the bestowing group than in specific recognition of the honoree (for example, universities that give honorary degrees that mix people with academic achievements and those who are simply prominent in other ways). LotLE×talk 03:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ogitchidaag's edits

"The schism arose when Means, Churchill, Glenn Morris and others openly supported the Miskito Indian group Misurasata that was fighting witht the CIA backed Contras."

The Miskitos were fighting against the Sandinista government, and were allegedly aligned with the Contras. This is no secret, nor is it any secret that this was a proximate cause of the AIM schism. These are uncontroversial allegations, and may well belong in the article. However, they need to be sourced properly per WP:RS.

The Creek tribe's denial of Churchill's ancestry claim also requires sourcing.Verklempt (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Contra claim, the cited source[2] has only: "(see Ministry for Information on Glen Morris and Russell Means, the CIA/Contra Connection)". The AIM press release referred to seems to be [3], but the only mention of Churchill is

In 1985, [Means] again resigned from Yellow Thunder Camp in the Black Hills stating, quote, "I'm tired babysitting Yellow Thunder Camp," and that he was going to go on to other interests. Those interests was to align himself with Ward Churchill, Glen Morris, and Brooklyn Rivera of the CIA-sponsored Miskito Indian faction of the contras, as well, Elliot Abrams, and the Reagan Administration's war against the Nicaraguan people of which the Miskito Indian people, and all Nicaraguans are the principal victims.

It includes a copy of an NYT story, which names Russell Means, Glen Morris and Hank Adams (but not Churchill).

The Creek claim is "The Creek Nation in 1993 also declared that he was not a member of that tribe according to Peggy Powell of the Citizenship Board of the Muscogee Creek Nation." The source[4] says he's not on the Creek rolls, but he never claimed he was: he claimed Creek and Keetoowah descent, and Keetoowah enrollment. It's pointless to introduce evidence against claims he didn't make. Kanguole (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Creek thing doesn't need to be in here. The AIM schism should definitely be in the AIM article, and it's not addressed very well over there. I don't think Churchill's status in AIM was high enough in 1984 for him to have been a player in the schism at that time, and thus it may not warrant mention in this article, but that is a judgment call and difficult to document. Certainly by the early 90s Churchill's role in the schism was significant, and deserves mention here.Verklempt (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

.Ogithidaag In my opinion and in the opinion of many inm Indian Country the fact that Churchill cited his Creek ancestry in his resume when obtaining his job at CU is definitely significant. The tribal document was requested because at the time He was claiming to bbe a member of the tribe. He never mentions his Creek ancestry after getting the Associate Ketoowah card. This was a big issue until the mid 90's.

Churchill is issued a letter by the International Indian Treaty Council (the International Wing of AIM) in 1986 demanding he cease and desist all connection with IITC and AIM as a result of his support for the Contras. I have him on videotape admitting it. He followed Russell all over the country while Russell gave his lectures on the subject. He has never denied it. He was not part of the schism because he was never a member of AIM. He was part of encourganing the schism by helping Russ Means after he left to build autonomous AIM. The Miskito Contra issue is central to the earliest division between the Means Camp and the American Indian Movement.

The Creek membership edit warring is becoming tiresome. It does not seem to relate directly to Churchill's career, and any attempt to reintroduce it should be linked to reliable sourcing showing that he cited it in a job application or similar context. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So killing Bond Traders is OK?

The discussion of whether Churchill meant some or all seems to imply so. I regard either as reprehensible. Presumably if Hitler had only wanted to kill some Jews that would be all right?

All right with whom? Some extremists admire Churchill, but most people think he's a wack job. The encyclopedia article is supposed to avoid taking sides.Verklempt (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Roosting Chickens essay was De mortuis nil nisi bonum. It was clumsily worded and Ward Churchill should have apologised. By refusing to apologise, he dug himself into a deeper hole. The article tries to give an accurate summary of what Churchill said and meant, although it has been debated in the past. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Clumsily worded, yes, but clumsily conceived also, like most of what Churchill has ever written.Verklempt (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill's Creek ancestry

Can I add my two cents' worth on the relevance or otherwise of this issue? Firstly, it is not disputed that in the past, Churchill has claimed some Creek ancestry. Formal membership of the Creek Nation is another matter, although whether Churchill has or does not have this is not a big issue as far as the article is concerned. However, the comparison with the Knights of Saint Columba is not strictly accurate, partly because the organisation was founded in Scotland, and partly because claiming Native American ancestry may lead to favourable treatment in affirmative action schemes. This is why the issue keeps resurfacing in the article, since there have been endless arguments about whether Ward Churchill advanced his career by ticking the right boxes on affirmative action forms. Affirmative action forms allow people to "self-identify" (ie, it is up to them to declare how they would like their racial identity to be seen). Ward Churchill's claims of Native American ancestry have been questioned, and phrases like "fake Indian" and "ethnic fraud" have been used. What is meant by these non-NPOV phrases is that other researchers were unable to find clear evidence of Native American ancestry in Churchill's immediate family background. Does this matter? No, since the quality of a person's academic work is not linked to issues like race, creed or colour. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The article ought to do a better job of explaining the relevance of this issue, which I think is twofold: the affirmative action question, and the fact that he presents himself in his writings and public addresses as speaking as a Native American, and even on behalf of Native Americans. As one of the UC preliminary review put it, "He has used an 'Indian voice', speaking of 'my people' and 'we'." The University decided not to investigate this, but it's not just an research matter. It is of course problematic for Native Americans (and others) who hold different views.

But the Creek membership quote is a different issue: it's only relevant if he claimed Creek membership (rather than descent), and no-one has presented evidence that he did. Kanguole (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanguole is exactly right here. The Creek saying Churchill does not have membership means nothing (other than that he pissed off some people on the Creek council, so they wanted to go out of their way to disclaim him). It adds no evidence whatsoever on whether WC has more distant Creek ancestors. The genealogies the newspapers ran may be relevant to this, and no one is proposing taking those mentions out. Of course, the claim that WC actually benefited in some AA sense from claims of ancestry are pretty implausible in any case, as much as some pundits like to advance it to try to discredit WC. I mention KoC because they are another group that WC has certainly pissed off relative to the parade; it's not such a wild hypothetical to imagine they would have disclaimed him in a similar manner to the Creek (I have no idea if WC has or ever claimed to have Italian ancestor; the analogy was a passing thing in any case since it's indeed hypothetical). LotLE×talk 09:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The main point that I was trying to make was that claiming membership of the Knights of Saint Columba would not lead to an advantage in a job application. The University of Colorado made clear that during the 1990s, one of its policies was to enhance the diversity of its faculty members, and this would be controversial if Ward Churchill's claim to Native American ancestry was not particularly strong. Having a Native American great grandfather (or whatever) is hardly a requirement for the job, so the policy itself could be questioned. One of the reasons for the Creek council denial of membership could be that Churchill "pissed off some people", but it could also be seen as a straightforward factual statement. Although on balance I believe that the Creek membership issue is not notable enough for the article, its mention in the footnotes section did not seem excessive or irrelevant. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a straightforward factual statement, but it's no more relevant to Churchill's claims, character, alleged misdeeds, etc, than any number of other facts. The "Sitting Bull" quote is equally irrelevant, though. Kanguole (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Sitting Bull quote is nice. It speaks to the ethnicity section, but at the same time gives a sense of WC's manner and style (gruff, confrontational, etc) without needing to either WP:OR characterize it, nor cite grossly partisan opponents characterizing him. It's nice when sentences can "do double duty". LotLE×talk 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lulu stated: Kanguole is right on the non-relevance of this footnote; non-membership in Creek says nothing about ancestry... if Knights of Columbus declared Churchill non-Italian because they didn't like him?) There are a number of serious problems with this comment, but let's deal with the most glaring: The assumption behind the comment is same kind of disrespect and ignorance of Indian Tribal sovereignty that underlies almost all of the writings of Ward Churchill. The assumption is that an Indian tribe can and will either remove someone from their tribal rolls because "they didn't like him" or that they will not allow someone on their tribal rolls because "they didn't like him." It is such paternalistic, elitist, ignorant, prejudiced, narrow-minded liberal BS. The assumption is that Indian tribes do not make the decisions to include or exclude individuals from tribal rolls based upon rational, logical decision-making processes, but they make these decisions based upon prejudice and ignorance. No. The prejudice and ignorance that is involved here is the prejudice and ignorance of politically radical so-called progressives that are more than willing to use sophistry and the misuse of intricate rules of Wikipedia to censor valid, relevant information from the article on Ward Churchill because they are sympathetic to Churchill's radical left-wing politics. I agreed with Kanguole's premise that the Creek membership information is not relevant to first claim cited in the article. So it was removed from the actual article. However, I placed it in a footnote next to his claim of Creek heritage. It was not placed in the actual article. Yes, the Creek tribe used a rational, logical decision-making process to exclude Churchill. The fact that they excluded Churchill is a relevant to his claim of Creek heritage in that he MIGHT be Creek, but even if he is Creek he can't prove that he has enough blood line to join the tribe. Yes, it is relevant. It proves that he is clearly not full-blooded Creek. It proves that he is not even one eighth Creek. It proves that if he was to cut his finger and bleed he might not have any Creek at all. It discredits his Creek heritage claim. It discredits his claim that he is a American Indian writer. It discredits his claim that he speaks for all Indians. It discredits his claim that he speaks for all Indians. The fact that one of his greatest apologists is Lulu proves that he mostly (99.999%) non-Indian because Lulu, his greatest Wikipedia apologist, speaks about tribal law and tribal processes as if the tribes and their membership committees are administered by backward, ignorant Indians that only make decisions based upon their personal whims. Lulu's comment proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one editor that dominates this Ward Churchill article either hates Indians or has a deep and compelling distrust of Indian people and Indian ways. The attitude is: "So what if we trash a few thousand Indian people if we can censor information about Churchill in pursuit of radical left-wing politics? I just don't care what Indian tribes did or didn't do because they make decisions based upon prejudice and ignorance anyway." The truth is that Lulu's comment indicated more about paternalistic, elist, prejudiced, ignorant, liberal attitudes toward Indians than I care to know.--InaMaka (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the Creek tribe making a decision on including or excluding Churchill? The letter you linked to states that he is not on their rolls, but that's not the same thing, is it? Kanguole (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question gives away your lack of understanding of how tribal membership committes work. We don't know if Churchill applied for membership or not--which is the focus of your question. Of course, your question only focuses on one little, tiny part of the membership process. Yes, people can apply for membership. As I stated, we don't know if Churchill applied or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's not relevant to the letter that we are discussing here. The letter that we are discussing here indicates clearly that Churchill is NOT on the rolls. The vast majority of people on Indian rolls did NOT apply to get on the tribal rolls. They are descendants of individuals who were placed on the rolls long before you were born, long before I was born, and long before Churchill was born. I, personally, did not apply for membership on a tribal roll. My parents were on the rolls and the tribe enrolled me. Period. Churchill's lack of listing on the rolls indicates that his NEITHER of his parents were on the rolls. It indicates clearly that NEITHER of Churchill's grandparents were on the Creek rolls. It indicates clearly that NONE of Churchill's ancestors further up the line were on the Creek rolls. It indicates that for over one hundred years, no one even remotely was listed on the Creek rolls. And of course the discussion that I just outlined for you (since you obviously did not understand any of this) provides even more evidence that Lulu's comments are based in ignorance and prejudice. Let's assume for a minute that Churchill was once on the Creek rolls. That would mean that Churchill's mother or father was on the Creek rolls. According to Lulu's premise, the Creek membership director would have (just to "get" Churchill) to kick off Churchill from the Creek rolls and the membership director would have had to kick off Churchill's mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncles, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, great-great-great grandparents (you get the idea for over one hundred years). Is that what you and Lulu are claiming? That the Creek membership director kicked off Churchill and ALL of his descendants??? Now, I ask you did you have proof of this ludicrous claim?? Please provide it.--InaMaka (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill is not an enrolled member of the Creek Nation, partly because he may have "pissed off some people", and partly because if he did apply, he would probably not meet the requirements of the blood quantum laws. This is what Churchill was alluding to when he remarked that "I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull." The blood quantum laws are controversial, but that is another matter and the issue here is article improvement. To put it another way: having an Irish great grandfather would not make you particularly Irish in the eyes of most people, and nor would it make you an official spokesperson for the Irish community. This is one of the reasons for the controversy surrounding Ward Churchill, since he does tend to claim or imply that he is speaking for the Native American community in his work. His comments about the 9/11 attacks were disowned by his employers at the time (the University of Colorado at Boulder), and were also widely condemned by tribal leaders in the Native American community. In fact, it would be hard to find any senior figure in the Native American tribal hierarchy prepared to agree publicly with the Roosting Chickens essay. Churchill's relationship with the official Native American leadership organisations is famously poor and riven with disputes, and this is one of the reasons why his Wikipedia article often leads to edit wars. Perhaps the article should expand on this, and look at the cause rather than the symptoms. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ianmacm: I agree with most of your comments. However, I must point out that you state concerning Churchill's lack of enrollment in the Creek Nation that is "partly because he may have 'pissed off some people'". Once again, I have to now ask you, "What evidence (what reliably source) do you have to back up that claim. Now, I want to make it clear that you have not been editing the Churchill article as long as Lulu has and you have not exhibited Lulu's long-time, hostile, ignorant, and disrespectful dislike of Indian culture, Indian governments, and Indian ways. But your comment without providing even an inch of evidence to support it makes me wary. Please provide evidence to support the notion that Churchill "pissed off" the Creek authorities. Lulu has not provided. You have not provided it. Kanguole has not provided it. It would like to see hard, solid evidence that Churchill has been kicked off of ANY tribal roll (not just the Creeks, but ANY tribal roll) for "pissing off" a tribal government official. So far all that you, Kanguole, and Lulu have offered is just your own personal opinion based upon what?? What evidence? According to Wikipedian rules you need to provide a reliable source. I haven't heard it from anyone to back up the claim that tribes just arbitrarily kick off/refuse admittance/etc. to individuals such as Churchill. Also, I ask you: Did these tribal administators just arbitrarily kick off Churchill's parents also??? Please provide evidence for your wild claim.--InaMaka (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you check, you'll find that I've made no suggestion that Churchill was removed from rolls.

As I understand it, you're saying that not being on the Creek roll means he can't establish an ancestor on the 1906 Dawes Roll. Well, perhaps that could be mentioned in the paragraph about genealogical investigations. Kanguole (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: even if Churchill did "piss off" people on the Creek council (and I'm not suggesting that he did), the main issue is that he does not seem to meet the requirements of the blood quantum laws for enrollment. Humans are not exhibits in a dog show, so they do not need to carry around cards showing their pedigree. This is why Churchill has described the blood quantum laws as racist, although his own claims to Native American ancestry have been questioned. The underlying issue here is the schism that has arisen between Churchill and the tribal councils, and the article needs to reflect this more clearly. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how InaMaka latched onto this idea of "kicked off the Creek rolls". It seems pretty silly. Obviously, WC never was on the rolls and never claimed to be, and the Creek statement never said anything about kicking anyone off. Obviously, I don't know the exact reasons the motivated the Creek council to make the rather odd statement, but "Churchill pissed them off" seems like a plausible hypothesis (not something to put in article space without citation, obviously): They don't exactly issue statements that "Lulu's not on the rolls, and by the way, neither is John McCain, Barack Obama, John Grisham or Paris Hilton" (even though those are all true facts as well). LotLE×talk 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, all the allegations that InaMaka keeps throwing around calling me racistpaternalistic, elitist, ignorant, prejudiced, narrow-minded,hates Indians, apologist, blah, blah (as humorous as they are given things being as they actually are) are pretty gross violations of WP:CIVIL... people get blocked for a lot less in some other discussion. Removing that sort of nonsense from this discussion would be a minimal gesture of good faith. LotLE×talk 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I never, ever stated that you were "racist" that is a figment of your imagination. Please provide the evidence for such a false claim. Do not put words in other people's mouths. It only lessens your credibility. Also, your attempts to put words in my mouth violates CIVIL. I merely pointed out that you have a disdain for the procedures in place to decide who is on an Indian tribal roll and who isn't. Your comments speak for themselves. Have you ever noticed that you always believe that valid points of people that you argue with are always "silly" in your opinion. Can't you come up with something more substantive than that?? Also, John McCain, Barack Obama, John Grisham, Paris Hilton, or even you never ever claimed Creek ancestry. Ward Churchill did, therefore, your response way off point and is a red herring. Your stated reason for removing the information was that it was based upon your claim that Churchill pissed someone off in the Creek Nation office. You have not provided one bit on information to back up the claim and I called you on it. Now, your response is that my call for evidence is "silly". That's all that you have offered. And of course your blatant attack on the credibility of the Creek Nation officials that you have accused on engaging in capracious behavior, another claim that you have not provided any evidence for whatsoever. I have provided actual reasons for why I believe the information should remain in the footnote. You have provided the word "silly" and a wide, unjustified, unsupported attack on the Creek Nation officials that issued the letter. Your arguments are very similar in style and substance to Ward Churchill's. They are cockingly dismissive and way off the mark and sophomoric. How's that for engaging in childish name calling? I think the word "sophomoric" beats your word "silly" any day.--InaMaka (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at you comments more carefully, I see they are even grosser violations of WP:CIVIL than my quick look suggested. I'll give you a chance to strike the offensive parts before I bring the issue to an admin. Other than your comments in the very comment above, one of the other particularly offensive ones is "The truth is that Lulu's comment indicated more about paternalistic, elist, prejudiced, ignorant, liberal attitudes toward Indians than I care to know". Trying to pretend you have no memory of posts you made today really isn't going to win you any points. It's fine to disagree on an editing question, but this sort of abuse of other editors has no place on WP. LotLE×talk 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Many Americans have mixed ancestry, as this famous painting by Norman Rockwell shows. This thread is not about Churchill's racial origins, but about his relationship with the Native American tribal councils, which has been at rock bottom since his comments about the 9/11 attacks. The article needs to reflect this, and the extent to which Churchill's views are representative of Native Americans. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems Ward Churchill's status can neither be proven nor disproven. I noticed some people talking about blood quantums. As far as I know, the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma does not have a blood quantum. So you may have enrolled citizens with blood quantums such as 1/100 degree. You also have lineal blood decendents of Cherokees and Creeks on other goverment tribal rolls, but are not neccaserily eligible for membership in one of the Federally Recognzied Tribes. As we know, Ward Chuchill has up until now, offered no proof whatsoever of his heritage. Ward Chuchill is not the only self indentifying Native American who has a wikipedia page dedicated to himself. The flutist Douglass Bluefeather has a wikipedia page dedicated to himself and is listed as a "Native American" flutist. Yet, he also cannot offer any documented proof of Native American heritage. If the "Self Indentification" definition is used here, then it should be revelant to everyone. And, if it is not, then the same rule should apply. In my opinion, whether or not an individual is controversial or not should not be the issue. There are many famous people who themselves cannot legally call themselves Cherokee but who claim Cherokee or Native American heritage. "Rita Coolidge" is another figure who is not an enrolled member of any of the 3 Federally Recognzied Cherokee Tribes, yet on her Wikipedia page is listed as "Cherokee Heritage". My question would be, why can Ward Churchill not be listed in his introduction page as "Native American"or "Creek Heritage" or of "Cherokee Heritage", while in the 2 above mentioned cases they cleary are? LightingBug (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

In particular, I've seen disruptions in some other articles recently that have heightened my appreciation of the important of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If InaMaka wishes to participate in this article discussion, I very strongly request that s/he read the WP policy, and thereby remove those comments s/he makes above in violation of policy.

I'm not removing the comments that I made. I still believe that your comments about how the Creek Nation makes membership decisions arbitrarily is an effort to the sovereignty of the Creek Nation. I find that comment to be ignorant. I find that comment to be paternalistic. I find that comment to be elitist. I find that comment to be prejudiced. I find that comment to be unfair and it is not something that I want to hear. I stand by my comments. I'm sure that you will find an admin that will block me, etc. But I'm willing to take the block because I did and I still do find your comments to be disrespectful to all Indian Nations and the people that work in them. Also, you stated that I called you a "racist" and that is not true. It is a lie. Let's get the admin so we can get this over with. I also realize that you are going to get an admin to punish me so that you can continue to dominate the debate on this article. It is easier to vanquish people that disagree with your opinions than it is argue substantively. It is easier to simply dismiss their opinions with the comment that their statements are "silly" than it is to provide solid evidence for claims, such as your claim that the Creek Nation banned Churchill from the tribal rolls because they were mad at them, etc. I can live with your aggressive behavior toward others that don't agree with you. I can live with the blocks and the Requests for Comment and the other forms of punishment that the bullies of Wikipedia are willing to throw at me. It ain't no big thing. Let's get an admin so you can feel that taught me a lesson not to even dare to disagree with you. Just keep in mind, just so you know, even after the punishment is over I'm going to continue to monitor the article and make changes where I see fit.--InaMaka (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I never made a comment remotely similar to your caricature above. I guess we're in user-conduct problem area here, so that will be the issue that needs to be addressed before anything else. Wikipedia WP:CIVIL policy really isn't that hard to follow; it's sad that you are unwilling to. LotLE×talk 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already put a post on the Admin Incident Board. Also, I'm not going away, even though you want me to. I have noticed that you are very, very concerned about Wikipedia violations when other people are supposedly engaging in violations, but you do not seem to be concerned when you yourself violate Wikipedia by: (1) threatened to call an admin to "get" me, simply because I will not cower to your aggressive, abusive tactics and agree with any edit that you do and (2) attempt to put words in my mouth such as previously where you flat out lie and state that I called you a racist, when I of course never, ever stated such a thing and you have not provided any evidence that I did. I know that after all of these years you are not going to stop your bully behavior and I don't expect you to. But I do expect you to apologize for your flat out lie where you stated that I called you a racist.--InaMaka (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, trying to read past the abuse, I think Kanguole makes a reasonable observation about the Dawes Roll. Reading through that lens, the Creek statement can be seen as having some relevance to ancestry, which would give a plausible ground for inclusion of the footnote. I'm not convinced is genuinely needed or relevant, but I'm happy to live with in the article (as a footnote). LotLE×talk 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a notice to all users involved in the above discussion(s). Please maintain your temperament at all times, no matter what. Understandably, conversations and debate can get quite heated, but please try to remember to comment only on content, never the contributor. No one is exempt from this notice. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on AN/I, read the article, then this talk. Have to say that while reading about his made up credentials as a native tribal member and descendant, I wondered why it was all about how he's not Cherokee, not how he's not Creek. Then, I checked the history to see what the fight's about. If you're going to use reliable sources for everything else, and we have them for this, it should go in, as shoudl the sitting bull, which nicely conveys his attitude when questioned on his claims. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a YouTube video here in which Ward Churchill expresses his frustration at being asked constantly about this issue. However, there is some relevance given his implied claims to speak on behalf of the Native American community. The article does need to look at this more closely. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Scarian's request to abide by our policy of civility. Please note that this is not a recommendation, but one of the core principles of this project. If editors are unable to follow this policy, they should consider not participating, and if civility issues persist, there are administrative actions that can be applied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Creek letter

The issue is whether it is relevant to what the article is talking about, namely Churchill's claims of Creek and Cherokee descent and Keetoowah membership. Churchill has, while claiming Creek descent, said that he is not enrolled, so the letter adds nothing there. InaMaka has argued that not being a member implies that he has no Creek ancestors, or at least none on the 1906 Dawes Roll. I don't think that works. As I understand it, enrollment would require at least the submission of birth certificates by Churchill or his ancestors. In any case, he might well claim that his Creek ancestors were not on the Dawes Roll for some reason. Kanguole (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the footnote should go. The letter it refers to lies within a blog that is derogatory to the subject of the biography, and so needs a strong argument that it is important to the article. But its relevance has not been established; it merely confirms what Churchill has himself stated (that he's not enrolled Creek). Kanguole (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue seems to have come about because the Creek letter is perceived as anti-Churchill spin. Nobody is denying that Ward Churchill is not an enrolled Creek, but this does not necessarily mean that he has no Creek ancestry. The relevant issues for the article to look at are:

• Does Ward Churchill have Native American ancestry that would be notable in an affirmative action program?
• Are Ward Churchill's views representative of the Native American community?
• Is Ward Churchill's relationship with the Native American tribal councils at a low ebb after his comments about the 9/11 attacks?

Please confine comments on these questions to suggestions for article improvement, as Wikipedia is not a forum. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Support for Churchill" section

As ever with Ward Churchill, this section has the potential to cause controversy. As Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters pointed out, this reads too much like a coatrack section and does not fit in well with the surrounding sections. No doubt there will be more debate on this, but it has been raised as a style issue rather than because of the pro or anti content. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A support section has the same problem as a criticism section (see WP:CRIT). We're not trying to praise or condemn a bio subject, but rather present neutral biographical details. I do agree that this bio tilts critical a bit too much. The solution isn't to add a "on the other hand" section, but rather to work in the relevant material into the main flow of Churchill's biography. However, the additions really seem to indicate "support" relative to the free speech/essay controversy issues, rather than about Churchill's own work per se. So I think working them into the daughter article makes more sense. If we had someone who was notable and praised Churchill's academic (or political) work, that might fit better in this main article... but that also has a danger of soapbox, the mere fact someone likes his books isn't that significant (it's more-or-less implicit); not to rule out such praise that actually affects the course of Churchill's life/career though. LotLE×talk 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These issues are already addressed in the 9/11 child. If they go into the main article, or into another child article, then they should come out of the 9//1 child once they become redundant. I agree that they belong in one of the articles, and I don't really care which one. However, they should not be replicated across all three articles.Verklempt (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Verklempt, on the content in the 9/11 Essay article. That does indeed have some of the support comments, and I agree that we don't need to be entirely duplicative. I think there's a difference to be drawn between the supportive comments that were made in the time frame after the first controversy around the essay, and any comments that were made after the actual conclusion of the misconduct investigation (or at least well into the investigation). A certain amount of duplication would be OK, but only a modicum of it.

Let me take another look at the material recently added to the investigation article, and see if I can get a sense of chronology. Perhaps something like a summary sentence like "A bunch of people supported Churchill's academic speech, and question the investigation: go look in the 9/11 Essay article for details" (obviously, phrased more formally) could cover much of what was added. Or certainly if any other editors want to take a look with a similar idea... I can't look at it in any detail until tomorrow. LotLE×talk 02:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the decision whether some goes in the article or does not go in the article is NOT simply up to Lulu. Look, if the biased section is added--the biased section assumes that Churchill is an American Indian, which most informed American Indians believe to be a flat out lie, then there needs to be a beefing up of the section that outlines the arguments that Churchill is NOT an Indian. The proposed section is clearly biased in that it quotes "Counterpunch" a clearly biased, uninformed, non-Indian Country publication to provide support for Churchill's Indian heritage. Counterpunch does NOT provide one shred of REAL evidence for the conclusion that Churchill is American Indian. Counterpunch does not provide one shred of REAL evidence for its false claim that Churchill is being mistreated in the investigation because he is American Indian. First of all, Counterpunch is ASSUMING that Churchill is American Indian and MOST American Indians believe that to be flat out lie. Second, Counterpunch does not provide ONE piece of evidence that the investigation was based upon anything other than academic misconduct.--193.254.196.167 (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you are objecting to a section that I removed (and did not write) by heaping insults on me about the flaws in the section?! Do I have that right? Which pugilist name do you go by when not masked in anonymity, BTW? LotLE×talk 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FromaNativeSon.jpg

The image Image:FromaNativeSon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill is fine with ripping off other people's images without giving credit, so don't worry about this one.Verklempt (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with not addressing issues raised by Fair Use Bot is that the images get deleted. I have rewritten the rationale. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Churchill 1993 letter

This was removed but it was re-added with a fact tag:

In a letter to the editor of the Rocky Mountain News, c. 1993, Churchill argued that the government has an obligation to arrest and jail racists and bigots, because of several international treaties that the USA has ratified.

I am not saying that this is wrong, but the usual Wikipedia policy is for all quotes to be sourced. In its current form the quotation is both vague and unsourced, so it is probably unsuitable per WP:V. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It seems dubious, but even if it were well cited a letter to the editor is of far less significance than whole books from major publishers that we discuss in the rest of the writing section. I can't see how one letter-to-editor (even if it actually exists and says what is claimed) is of encyclopedic importance in this biography. LotLE×talk 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suzan Shown Harjo

Is it not a fact that American Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo has publicly stated that Ward Churchill's claims to any purported Indian ancestry are bogus?--jeanne (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill's native American ancestry (or the lack of it) is discussed in the article and its relevance to the article has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The problem with a word like bogus is that it can run into issues with neutral point of view. Both sides of the argument have expressed strong views, and the citation in the article Suzan Shown Harjo at [5] does not seem to be working at the moment. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Harjo has written several articles critical of Churchill, including his claim to Indian ancestry. However, the last word on that issue came in early 2005, when both the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain Times published genealogies proving that Churchill has no Indian ancestry going back more than two hundred years. The one ancestor that Churchill has claimed as Indian -- Joshua Tyner -- was actually a white Indian fighter.Verklempt (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, most American Indians take a dim view of white people claiming spurious Indian ancestry. Vine Deloria Jr,. in his book Custer Died For Your Sins, strongly criticises those whites who declare they have "a full-blood Cherokee princess great-grandmother" (few claim descent from Indian men), and then proceed to re-enforce all of the negative stereotypes about Indians to back up their claim. Just like Churchill's comment about Sitting Bull!--jeanne (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Vine had his own issues. He was only 1/4 blood, and yet he thought there should be a BQ for tribal membership. Set, not surprisingly, at 1/4, which would have disenfranchised his own children.Verklempt (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I never knew Deloria was only 1/4 Indian. The US government set the BQ at 1/4. I believe It was Thomas Jefferson who made that law so as not to make the descendants of Pocahontas-members of Virginia's leading families- non-white. Mexico also had a BQ at 1/4 Indian, anything less and you were Spanish.--jeanne (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tribes set their own BQ. TJ had nothing to do with it.Verklempt (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did the tribes have different BQs? I only mentioned Jefferson as he set the BQ at 1/4 as regards the US Govermnent. As I have said the Spaniards used the same BQ in Mexico. Which tribe has the lowest BQ required for membership?--jeanne (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Writings

Should this start out, " As a scholar,.."? It appears that wikipedia is taking a stance that he is a "scholar" when the vast majority of reliable sources say he is not.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being controversial, it's an awkward phrase. The sentence would read better without it. Kanguole (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More accurate might be," Although discredited as a "scholar", he has published x, y &z..." but if not acceptable to the majority, its simple removal wouldbe satisfactory.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposed replacement is also controversial and unnecessary. Kanguole (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it is more accurate, and reliable sources could be brought to bear thet he has been discredited, but , as I said, its simple removal would do as it seems that Wikipedia is pushing a certain POV with its inclusion.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one else has an opinion that they have voiced, I will remove it shortly.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A little matter of genocide

An editor added this paragraph below the blurb on Churchill's book A Little Matter of Genocide. I think the description is well written and well cited. However, this degree of discussion of the specific debate his book participates in is unbalanced for a general biography. Ideally, if someone were to start an article on the book itself, this discussion would be germane there. LotLE×talk 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

A major debate which Churchill has been involved is with the historian Deborah Lipstadt over the singularity of the Holocaust. In a 1996 review of Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust, Churchill defended the German philosopher Ernst Nolte, whom Lipstadt criticized for asserting that the Holocaust was a non-singular event. Churchill argued that the Holocaust was indeed just of many genocides as opposed to Lipstadt’s view of the Holocaust as a singular event Churchill accused Lipstadt of denying what he sees as the genocide of Native Americans in his book A Little Matter of Genocide, though in some other respects he appears to appreciate her work. Churchill argues that by claiming that the Holocaust cannot be compared to anything else in human history, citing its uniqueness, Lipstadt herself is engaging in a form of what she later would call "soft-core denial"; for, if one does not recognize the genocide of Native Americans to be as morally despicable as the Holocaust, then one is denying the true nature of that genocide, similarities among these otherwise-disparate genocidal phenomena.

---

OK, I went ahead and created the book article, as mentioned. It's a bit crude and stubby, but includes the basic information contained in this bio and in the recent addition. Please, by all means, clean up or expand the new A Little Matter of Genocide article. LotLE×talk 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward Churchill and the little Eichmanns

I don't understand why do people write about arguments of essays that they have never even read. Why come here a talk about "little eichmanns", sometimes ranting about how awful the analogy is, and never read the original argument in which it is put forward. Ward Churchill made a connection between the economic agents targeted in the WTC with the passive, amoral technician, Eichamnn, who helped make the holocaust possible. This excludes many people who were killed in the twin towers. This is clear in the original essay, and Churchill has made it even more clear ever since. All rebuttals should be made in those terms, without original research. Maziotis (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Some" people again

Maziotis wishes to change the wording to "some of the people working in the World Trade Center who were wounded and killed". The text we are reporting here is[6]

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

One could certainly read the "little Eichmanns" as referring to the technocrats, as Churchill later explained, but there is no qualification in the sweeping statement of non-innocence of those killed. Indeed that would have taken much of the force out of his argument. It was his broad-brush rhetoric, at least as much as his argument, that got the reaction and provided ammunition for his critics, and this article should accurately reflect it. (Your reference to "wounded" makes me think you're using a different text; I don't see it in the essay.) Kanguole (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I still don't understand how that reference to "wounded" keeps coming up. I didn't add that to the article. As for the innocence of those who died in the WTC, I have to say that, although you can claim to balance things out on how he benefits from this, we have to acknowledge this as a serious issue of wikipedia:Living persons. If he didn’t meant to compare “all those who died at WTC” with Adolf Eichmann, then we have to respect that in the article, even if with a sign of ambiguity.

In this case, we have an article where the author talks about technocrats in various institutions. When the reference is made to those who worked in the WTC, who had the pointed particularity of not being military, it is clearly open to the interpretation that he may not be referring to everyone (ex. children, visitors, other types of workers). So, if we are going to be cautious, with respect to wikipedia:NPOV and wikipedia:Living persons, we cannot affirm what is not clearly stated.

I think it is disturbing to see the way you address the issue with Ward Churchill in a personal light, when this is a clear case of NPOV. Maziotis (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned "wounded" only because you re-added it claiming it was in the essay.

My mistake: I misread "original" as referring to the essay rather than the article.

I'm not claiming that he compared all those killed with Eichmann, and the version you reverted didn't say that. I'm saying that he said "The [Pentagon] and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break." Kanguole (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never written the word "wounded" in this article. I have just put "some" to restrict the comparasion.

As for just saying what he said, that is not what you are writing in the article. That is original research. He didn't say that all those who were killed in the WTC are like Eichmann. You are using the ambiguity of that particular statement to affirm something which is not there. You are taking the sentence out of context. Even if you write that Churchill wrote: "As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent?", it could be challenged under wikipedia:NPOV, since you are taking a particular sentence to make a statement that may not reflect the overall argument to which it belongs. Maziotis (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not claiming he said that all those who were killed in the WTC are like Eichmann. The sentence you reverted was this:

Further, he argued that those killed in the World Trade Center were not innocent civilians, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

I'm claiming that is an accurate report of this part of the essay. I agree that quotes are problematic. One would need to quote a lot to have enough context, and that would unbalance the article. Kanguole (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia:NPOV. What I am saying is that you can still be in violation of NPOV when you accurately reflect what is being said in a part of an essay. Your claim is not enough. Maziotis (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated before, and there have been various interpretations of what Churchill meant by the "little Eichmanns" phrase. The best thing for the article to do is to quote directly from the essay and allow people to make up their own minds. There is a certain amount of forking, since the 9/11 essay controversy has its own article. Ideally, the full quote above should be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My position was to say less, not more. I believe we have a problem of original research when someone writes in the article that Churchill said that the people who died on the WTC were not innocent. That was my point. Maziotis (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what he wrote (as quoted above). It takes extra interpretation to get something different.

By the way, you've added a POV-title tag. Did you mean POV? Kanguole (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I already changed it. I addressed your first edit above. Maziotis (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We definitely do not want to quote long passages (or ideally any passages) in this summary biography. What we want is to paraphrase and summarize. Within that goal, adding the word "some" to the "people killed are not innocent" bit is simply more accurate and more neutral. Without the quantifier, there is a certain openness about whether it means "some" or "most" or "all" or "a few", etc. The absence of modifier definitely skews towards implying he meant "all", which is obviously false, but only as a matter of insinuation. The obvious and correct clarification is to add the word "some". LotLE×talk 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about quotations. But "some" would be inaccurate, because he wrote nothing of the sort. The wording in the lead: "he claimed that people killed in the World Trade Center attacks were involved ..." does not imply "all"; it's quite close to "some". Sure, the wording in the 9/11 essay controversy section is closer to "all", but in that it accurately reflects what he wrote. Adding definiteness to the paraphrase that was not present in the original is not accuracy. Kanguole (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you claim that including "some" is inaccurate, then we have to consider the possibility of removing the reference altogether. We could simply explain in the article that there was a controversy concerning Churchill's comment on the WTC attack. Do I need to remember again that we are dealing with a case of wikipedia:Living persons? This is covered in wiki's policy. Maziotis (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this is something that I expect from news channels, not wikipedia. Words are part of sentences, sentences are part of paragraphs and paragraphs are a part of texts. Picking a line and summarizing it, giving the justification that it is an accurate translation, is something that I expect from sensationalist journalists. If there is the possibility that in that sentence he wasn't including all of the people, as I have seen you admit it, then we cant categorically state that he said this.

Consider the actual essay. He talks about those in power, and how those in the WTC might be civilian but not innocent. Many people who died at the WTC were not a part of these considerations. He was talking about WTC as a target. I believe that what you are saying is original research, because he didn’t make any explicit reference to those who died. Even if he had said that the attack was legitimate, that doesn’t tell us anything about all those involved. The so-called “collateral damage” argument may be considered a way to categorize the death of some as a “lesser evil”, but an “evil” nevertheless. So, there isn’t even a room to speculate such a thing. He made a reference to the target that is the WTC, not a moral consideration (innocent or not) about those who died. What you are saying is something that goes beyond any consideration about the attack itself. You are stating that in the essay he clearly portrayed every single individual who died as being guilty. It shouldn’t have come to this because, under wikipedia:NPOV, his argument shouldn’t have to be defended, but merely respected in the translation from the original source.

Maziotis (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a longer version of the quote to Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy. This gives a better idea of what Churchill was trying to say, including why the essay was seen as offensive by some readers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is adding words that the man did not write that is original research. Presenting an angry, pointed and sweeping essay as a careful and precise argument is not neutral. He did not refer to the WTC as the target; his focus throughout is on people, and he certainly did discuss innocence.

I'm not sure that considering the rest of the essay really helps your argument. This section follows one on the "Perpetrator Population", in which he argues the collective guilt of the American people for their tacit complicity in the crimes of their rulers, comparing them to "Good Germans".

It is hard to faithfully convey this essay in a couple of sentences. I think the answer is to expand this section, discussing what the essay actually said, Churchill's subsequent clarifications, discussion of the essay in reliable sources, reactions to the essay and the use made of it by Churchill's opponents. This would not be undue weight, as this essay and the controversy surrounding it have been pivotal in the man's life. Kanguole (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my argument? I didn't talk about what we should write in the article, I talked about why what is written in the article is original research. Maziotis (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the overly broad {POV} tag that would suggest an issue with the entire (long) article. The matter currently being discussed is about a particular sentence in the lead of this article. For that, I found the {POV-statement} tag, that seems suited to the specific type of question being discussed here. LotLE×talk 09:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lulu, Maziotis has been talking about the "9/11 essay controversy" section. The sentence in the lead (which you wrote) already has an implicit "some". Kanguole (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The lead has the exact same problem. I think the only way to keep it NPOV is to include the word "some". Otherwise, if we at least put "people in WTC were involved in provoking" insteand of "people killed were involved in proviking" we won't be expressing a plain lie. But we should try to avoid any confusions, so I think this is a bad option. Maziotis (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that sentence in the lead a bit awkward, in particular the "involved in provoking" part. How about this wording:

In the essay, he claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. policy, and described referred to "technocrats" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns".

The first part of this sentence would be insufficient by itself, as he was hardly the only one to make that claim. Kanguole (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that approach is the path to follow. I would personally subscribe to that sentence. Maybe the "little eichmanns" issue should be dealt with in the body of the article, as it is a controversial issue that does not necessarily represent who the subject of the article is. Other than that, I think that the sentence presents a correct assertion.Maziotis (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support for Ward Churchill

The citation at [7] has several issues. It comes from a blog, and is in list form, which is not very informative. Worse, some statements of support, such as the one from Noam Chomsky do not work, having been taken from defunct links.

Statements of support for Ward Churchill should have a reliable source. Blogs, online petitions etc do not fall into this category, and the current citation is far from ideal or compliant with WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite looking around, it has been hard to find a good source. This recent article expresses support, but is another example of a personal opinion piece rather than a news story. The citation in the lead at [8] is substandard and should be replaced when something more suitable can be found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look through the archives of Counterpunch for some support source. I remember reading some relevant stuff there. It's hard to find completely secondary sources for some claims like this, since by their nature "support" is often primary (as is criticism, FWIW, including much of what we cite). LotLE×talk 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the Colorado Daily source looks pretty good to me. A note though, if we add several citations to that clause in the lead, let's please put the citations in the same footnote, with some minimal transition between them. Listing a long string of footnotes for the same small point looks really ugly, and is unnecessary if they are all listed basically to support the same small fact. At simplest, just put semicolons between the several citation templates. LotLE×talk 08:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This PDF document cited in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation actually does work when the link is clicked. How about using this and the Colorado Daily citation in the lead section?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly seems reasonable to me. LotLE×talk 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are recent events in "Ward+Churchill"|Google News -- SEWilco (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The case for wrongful dismissal is under way. This has led to renewed media interest, and the case is expected to last three weeks.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If a pointless list of supporters is going to be included, then accurate descriptions of those supporters should not be censored. Mumia is a cop-killer and Ayers is a terrorist.

By the way, how did all of the Churchill disciples miss that the trial started? There was nothing on his page about it! The man himself is very disappointed in you all and questions your commitment to the cause. Steve8675309 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is just your POV, and it should be censored. Read my answer to you on your discussion page. Maziotis (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Churchill v. University of Colorado

In my opinion this ongoing report by a team of 10 University of Denver Law School students who, accompanied by some faculty members, are attending the three week trial of this matter, while styled a "blog", has sufficient elements of peer review to justify its use as, a least, an exterior link. Fred Talk 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that link would be good to add next to our brief mention that a civil trial has started. However, we should not try to add any minute-by-minute trial coverage under WP:NOTNEWS. Once a judgment is in, we can report that (presumably many sources will report the result), but there is no urgency to get in any individual evidence or argument from the trial. LotLE×talk 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And cut!

This rather long quote got cut out entirely as being too long. I agree it is too long, but I think there may be some part of it or at least the ref itself that are worth preserving in the article so I'm posting it here for consideration:

Writing in Salon, Gary Kamiya has stated: The ultimate lesson of the Churchill case is that no cause, however just, benefits from being taken up by a propagandist. Scholarship must be sacrosanct. Rules of evidence must be followed. You can't assert things that you want to believe are true, no matter how morally right or practically beneficial those assertions may be, and then distort or make up evidence to support them. ref Kamiya, Gary (April 9, 2009), Ward Churchill's win is scholarship's loss, retrieved 2009-04-09 {{citation}}: Check |author-link= value (help); External link in |author-link= (help) /ref

Maybe something along the line of: Churchill was criticized for being a propagandist who did not abide by the best practices of scholarship accused of distorting evidence to make assertions on moral grounds? Seems like an interesting and notable take that may be worth including in some fashion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We have already given far too many detailed quotes on various critics of Churchill's scholarship, throughout almost every section of the article. To try to weight the article so that every encyclopedic sentence is followed by one or more sentence denouncing Churchill in exactly the same way again, absolutely destroys its encyclopedic quality, and turns it into just another screed against him. I suppose there might be a way to work the new Kamiya material into the child article, but it definitely has no place in this main biography. LotLE×talk 07:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If similar content is already in the article maybe we can work it in there or at least add the ref? Salon is generally pretty liberal politically, so it's not like we're giving undue weight to partisan attacks. I think it's a pretty interesting and notable take and deals with these issues in a general enough way that it might be nice to include here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good refactoring

InaMaka did a good job removing a list of academic supporters of Churchill from the main article, and moving it the the Research Investigation child article. It was definitely more words than this main bio needs, and the general statement that some academics question the investigation was already in there as good summary.

I was trying to trim that section, given the existence of a child, and InaMaka's additional removal is helpful in moving towards good WP:SUMMARY style. Small note to InaMaka though: try to avoid using ALL CAPS for edit summaries, it looks like you are shouting. LotLE×talk 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The blog link you've re-added doesn't pass WP:SPS. How about replacing it with an article listing supporters, like this one? Kanguole 23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Ward Churchill Network" thing. That definitely is fine by WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SPS. Using self-published statements are no good in support of facts purported by self-publishers, but they are perfectly acceptable as evidence that "person X believes/states Y". The article you list looks fine too, but it doesn't seem to get at the range of names the mentioned link does. LotLE×talk 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. The ref is offered as support for the statement "Numerous academics have published objections to the investigation and dismissal process." How is it evidence of the beliefs or statements of a self-publisher? Do we even know who the publisher is?

I know the THES article doesn't have the same range, but it does cover the NYRB letter, ACLU, AAUP, Society of American Law Teachers and a couple of other individual academics. Maybe there's something better out there, but it was the most comprehensive I could find. Kanguole 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, is this being disingenuous? Our statement is "numerous academics...". This is a good summary of the prior longer sentence that said "Academics including Noam Chomsky, Drucilla Cornell, ..." (I don't remember the exact order and list, but it contained a fairly large sample of names). The "Ward Churchill Network" link contains statements written by those same people who were previously enumerated. A statement by Chomsky or Cornell (or whomever) is WP:RS/WP:V evidence that that individual feels as they have stated (even though it's basically self-publication by Chomsky, Cornell, etc).

I think it's good to eliminate the excessive verbiage of listing these supporters, but a footnote that lets readers explore further to figure out which academics are included in that "numerous" is still useful. Most readers won't click through the link, but a few will. LotLE×talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it's a great ref, but I won't push it. Kanguole 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proven government agent

Ward Churchill is a proven government agent, as can be seen here: http://www.aimovement.org/csi/index.html 68.94.201.217 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some interesting stuff here, notably at [10], which states:

The above individual, Ward Churchill, is believed by the American Indian Movement to be a provocateur/disrupter who intentionally disrupts the activities and integrity of American Indian organizations and communities for his own personal megalomania and gratification.

This is sourced to the Morning Star Institute in Washington, DC.[11] Quite why the sources quoted here show that Ward Churchill is a government agent is unclear, although they do appear to show that some people in the Native American community do not like Ward Churchill, which is hardly a revelation. On the question of whether Ward Churchill is a government agent, the following verse springs to mind:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. It seems to be reasonably WP:NPOV for such a controversial issue. Among the things that can still be improved, the "Writing" section is probably foremost. This part needs some discipline; it is far too listy at the moment. It is hard to see what the brief mention of From a Native Son does there, for instance, except listing the book and vaguely describing its content. Nevertheless, I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)