Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ward Churchill: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:46, 27 April 2005 editGrace Note (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,516 edits →The question of heritage← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:01, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,014 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
] ] ] ] by ] 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{calm}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC
|action1date=05:56, 7 April 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ward Churchill/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=47366146


|action2=GAN
|action2date=17:47, 26 May 2006
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=55286073


|action3=GAR
|action3date=14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
|action3link=Talk:Ward Churchill#GA Sweeps
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=305255353


|topic=Socsci
I've unprotected the page following a request. The editors already warned over 3RR won't be warned again, so please try to reach consensus. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


|action4 = GAR
== Disagreements about the intro ==
|action4date = 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
|action4link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ward Churchill/1
|action4result = delisted
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Churchill, Ward|
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=Low |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Low |musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |CO=yes |importance=Low |CO-importance=Low}}
}}
{{archives|search=yes|auto=short}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 15
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Clarification needed! ==
Okay, anyone who is unhappy with the intro, list your problems in this section. Number them so we can discuss them point by point. Do not revert the article, please. It doesn't solve anything. I will be reverting to the consensus version and I request everyone involved to do the same ''no more than once a day''. Even if it's not your preferred version, please revert to it until this discussion is concluded.


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."
Let's do the intro before we move on to other issues, okay?] 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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.
:There is a lengthy discussion about intro problems and suggestions (including changing "lambasted" to "castigated") from just a a few hours ago in archive4, why did someone archive an active discussion? ] ] 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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).
::It hasn't gone away. If you want to revisit the discussion, it's all there. ''Someone'' didn't do it. I did. I was ]. I signed and dated it so that it's clear that I did. If you disagree that we should archive it and start the discussion fresh, you can retrieve it all and reinstate it. That's your prerogative as an editor. I'd certainly prefer it to a snotty comment. I don't agree that castigated is an improvement on lambasted by the way. Castigate is far more severe than lambast. It also implies that the criticism is motivated to punish, which would tend to imply that O'Reilly is a fit person to punish Churchill.] 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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)
:::It wasn't snotty, it was pointing out non-standard practice, the current discussion is a rehash of that. And generally discussions active within the last few days (and especially a few hours) are universally left on the talk page when archiving. The problem with "lambasted" is that it implies a physical attack and implies he was deserving of being attacked. Castigated is more neutral in those regards. Fulminated could be the best. ] ] 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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.)
::::The discussions active have been going on for a very long time. Some have already had sections archived. Look, reinstate anything you want to. It's really not a problem. I cannot agree about "lambasted". It ''also means'' a physical attack. There is absolutely no connotation of its being deserved. It says "telling off" to me. Castigated definitely implies desert to me. It says "you are being punished to me". I could definitely go with fulminated against. It is exactly what he did. It has that idea of denunciation, which is exactly the thing. ] 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
] (]) 16:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
:::::How about "censured", which implies an entirely verbal statement of disapproval. --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


: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.] (]) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
My suggestions:
* Just call him an academic, he's many other things you could list, it's pointless having a catalog.


Underlying the particular falsification would appear to be a second one, namely that the distribution of smallpox blankets by anyone in the USA ever happened at all. The notorious Fort Pitt incident was before the USA existed. There appears to be in fact zero evidence that any US citizen or agency ever did such a thing. But it's become an American myth, yet one which Ward Churchill was happy to liken to genocide. Cassandra <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''Why are those things irrelevant? It's particularly important to mention that he is an author because it is something he wrote that caused the problem. You cannot have your cake and eat it re the Indian tI hing. His ethnicity is only an issue because of his activism in American Indian affairs and because rightists want to use his possible dishonesty about it as cause to sack him''
:I agree that it is important to describe him as an author and an activist. I am a Brit and were it not for this controversy on Misplaced Pages, I would know almost nothing of the man. It seems to me that he is notable because of what he writes (that is, because he is writing and because he writes about activist issues). This is more important than his status as an academic but his status as an academic gives him credibility, which is why I would like to see all three elements: writer, activist and academic. --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== Babel, babel ==
* No problem with second sentence, as long as the University inquiry is mentioned. It seems certain that the inquiry is going to be big news later in the year. But the way it's been structured means i can go towards the end which is fine by me


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 Misplaced Pages in 14 years. ] (]) 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
''The University inquiry is covered in detail elsewhere in the article. The intro is about him, not about the shit that's been thrown at him. Give a good reason for including it.''
:The enquiry seems to be tertiary in the hierarchy: the man, his behaviour, the consequences. In my opinion, it is not essential to an introduction. --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Replace author of many books and essays with 'prolific'


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
''I don't see how that's improving the sentence. Do you mean "prolific author of books and essays" or just "prolific author"? It's obviously of some consequence that he writes essays!''
:I would prefer to see "author of <fourteen> books and <over 100> essays". Precision tends to favour neutrality. The numbers that I cite have not been researched. The number of books came from the bibliography in the article; the number of articles is an illustrative guess. --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* Delete highly outspoken, replace with outspoken


I have just modified 17 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
''Does anyone want "highly outspoken" particularly?''
*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
:In my opinion, adverbs militate against neutrality. I would lose "highly". --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*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 {{tlx|dead link}} 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.
* I am yet to hear a single reason why Bill O'Reilly needs to be in this thing. Isn't he everywhere we turn enough already? The controversy was about the essay not because Bill O'Reilly lambasted, excoriated or terrorised him.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
''You have had it explained about O'Reilly. Tony, he wrote the essay in 2001 and there was no outcry. He was lambasted by O'Reilly and kerbang! Outcry. Pretending otherwise is no good.''
:O'Reilly seems fundamental to the extent of the interest in Churchill and his work. --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
* There absolutely must be some reference to the content of the essay. I have tried so many formulations of words that I have nearly run out. It makes no sense to leave this hanging


===Smallpox isn't caused by infected blankets===
''Nope. It's fully discussed in the article.''
The article reads: "In 2005, University of Colorado Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct, 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.] (]) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
* The expression "kicked off a media frenzy" you would not even see in the New York Post. Maybe the Inquirer.


:Anyway, it happened at least once in the 1760s -- see ] and ] -- but I don't think there's any evidence it was a general or often-recurring practice. ] (]) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
''Suggest an improvement that conveys the same idea.''


==Where is he now?==
: Instead of "kicked off", how about "started", "initiated", or "instigated"? I think "media frenzy" is okay, it shows up in a lot of higher-class publications in a Google News search. -- ] 23:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps, what is he doing now? Has he retired? ] (]) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
::Propose: "led to intense media interest". --] ] 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* I believe the rest of the sentence is OK, I suggested a change to state the University's Standing Committee for Research Misconduct is investigating those matters, which they are according to Denver Post it is a very wide ranging inquiry (code for, they're out to get him).


:He hasn't held an academic post since he was fired from Boulder in 2007. The most recent Google News coverage is in September 2018, when he spoke at an event in Pittsburgh.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
''There is no need to detail what the investigations are, Tony. The article does that.''


==Good article reassessment==
* Delete "various Native American groups" replace with American Indian Movement. Am not particular enthusiastic about this but think it reads better.
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. ] (]) 19:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ward Churchill/1}}


: I have no opinion about good article status, but noting for the record that the initial complainant, IP address 74.67.6.88, was on 6 Feb as a sock of ]. ] (]) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
''Why? Give reasons for your changes. Convince the interested editors. That has to be the way forward. Just saying "it's what I think" or "it's what I will let stand" will just get you reverted.''

There you have it. Bear in mind there are dozens of other changes Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have made without any consultation at all. These changes involve the deleting of facts sourced from respectable media sources. I believe this is probably an even more serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy than the multiple blind reverting that Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have been indulging in. To say nothing of today's vandals. ] 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''If you want to work in good faith towards an article everyone is happy with, you have to realise that you cannot have it entirely your own way.''] 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Am trying to keep changes to a minimum anyway. However all bets are off if the term consensus version is used. It is misused to exclude people with a view different to Viajero's and am not interested in that. ] 04:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Is it just my browser, or has something weird happened to the photograph? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

::Call me crazy, but I think the current protected lead is a reasonable compromise. I could offer a dozen suggestion, but maybe we could just live with this for a week? Let people chill out? I object to every suggestion made by TonyMarvin, and he will probably object to every suggestion I would make. :-) --] 13:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Glad you like it; this is the intro we (me and my sockpuppets) worked out here on the Talk page. I for one have no objection to leaving the page protected for a week. -- ] 13:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's just so funny to see the kind of ] I'd advocated weeks ago is now the more or less "approved" lead. The best method for things like this, as I have pointed before, is to ] employ the ]. Again, the only thing missing from the lead, still, is the fact that the Churchill questions center on ] and ], but you're almost there, stay on the ] path and you'll arrive. Look again to the exact events that lead to this article's creation to see how it goes...read the news...do a time line...it's there if you look. I was going to contribute a time line for this, but was "fired" as an editor and so I've just watched the attact dogs savage the voices of reason from afar, even if they, the "anti-wardists" "win" this "fight" it will be but a ] for them; in the long run ] is stronger than ]. Anwyway, now that you have all gotten to a kind of appropriate lead, your next step, is to realize that the key issues with Churchill are 1) ], 2) ], I'd posted and intented to develop a section on these central questions (deleted as "editorial"), but they got at least a passing mention. The section I was working on is
].
*Supreme Court Justice ]: ''If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.''

*Justice ]: ''"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."'' ] 00:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power==

This is my last edit, so I hope it has some effect. The article as it stands is pure spin that fails to explain why Churchill became so notable. No mention in the introduction is made of possibly some of the most controversial remarks uttered in public life in many years.

I could not agree more with his right to express his views and his right to keep his job while expressing them. Academic freedom is at the heart of learning.

But you've heard all that before. And the agenda pushers on both sides who read this page don't care. One side wants nothing but bad about him, the other wants nothing but good.

And in the midst of it is an Administrator so guilty of misconduct that he is unfit to serve. SlimVirgin's tactical interventions with blocking users, protecting the page and so on is a clumsy attempt at promoting the interests of those pushing his pro Churchill agenda. No doubt the anti Churchill forces will find a similarly dishonest administrator and then the damage already done to this article will rise exponentially.

]'s admission (above) of sockpuppet abuse is revealing. I have looked at his edits and found a pattern of flagrant POV promotion. And with corrupt administrators protecting him (SlimVirgin) this will no doubt continue.

] 11:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:LOL! The sockpocket "admission" was a joke. Many of us have actually tried to find a compromise text. I assume we can continue. --] 13:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Provocation ==

From the article: "His critics reject the notion that anything could have provoked or justified the killing of 3000 innocent victims." Has anyone really argued that nothing could ''provoke'' such an attack? ] (] 11:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I believe that sentence is an attempt to push a POV and should be deleted. ] 20:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

==Further reading==
* ], ''Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left'', Regnery (25 September, 2004), hardcover, 295 pages, ISBN 089526076X To be placed in the article when unprotected. ] 13:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
**Could you provide an abstract of what this book discusses and how it's relevant to Churchill? ] 17:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
***Could you provide an abstract of what you discuss and how you're relevant to anyone? ] 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Back to the intro, again ==

:'''Ward LeRoy Churchill''' (born ], ]) is an ] writer, activist, and academic. He is currently a ]d professor of ] at the ]. The author of over a dozen books and many essays, Churchill has written extensively on the use of police power to repress political minorities. Churchill became nationally known in ] when talk show host ] excoriated him for an essay he wrote immediately following the ]. This led to intense media interest in Churchill, which expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his activities as an ] activist. Churchill's claim to partial ] descent is disputed by some Native American groups.


<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background: orange; margin: .5em 2.5%; padding: 0 1em; border: 1px solid black">
'''''ATTENTION: Be advised that the Alliance of patriots will not accept of of this. Below we have Zen-master claiming that 'various' implies all. Next he will be saying 1 implies 2. Further, in relation to O'Reilly I might suggest "opined" or "bloviated" but that would an in joke among fans and there are no fans here, obviously. I also note with amusement that the below is a chat among people who fiercely agree, you have paid the price for this before and will pay it again unless the article reflects the unvarnished unspun truth in contrast to the slop you seem intent on serving up. End of lesson.'''''
</div>

:::Response to alliance: So patriots consider it their duty to correct every random person's claim of partial Native American heritage? What kind of patriot are you exactly? Various does imply all, or more precisely it implies there may not be people that support his claim, which is inaccurate. ] ] 07:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to reflect what I feel are relevant recommendations from the discussion. Please discuss. ] 17:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

:I think it is a fair compromise for a contentious topic.--] 18:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. --] ] 19:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I like the proposed new intro. One comment: there are some Native American groups that support Churchill's heritage claim, right? "various" implies all Native American groups dispute Churchill's partial heritage claim which I don't think is true. How about "...descent is disputed by some Native American groups"? ] ] 19:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I agree with zen, "various" also seems a bit vague. I would have suggested "several Native American groups", but "some" is OK as well.--] 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::I can live with "some". ] 00:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

::::Er ... here in England, "various" means "of many different kinds". I read the phrase "various Native American groups" to mean "members of significantly more than one tribe". Is that not what is meant? --] ] 10:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "criticized" is far too weak. He said he was a traitor who should be fired from his job forthwith! That's not "I don't like your hair", is it? How about "excoriated"? I still agree with Zen-master that "fulminated against him" would be best, but yes, it's not that common a word. ] 00:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I can live with "excoriate". ] 00:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
::How about "accused him of being a traitor"? --] ] 11:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::I think that was after he first mentioned him on his show. It is definitely worth including in the body but the intro should probably be as neutral as is possible without whitewashing it. Of course, if you stuck that in, I wouldn't be the one to revert it.] 13:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::I think the lead should be brisk and have few details--like all leads--and so I like "excoriated him," but I think the accurate phrase is what Zen-master suggested: "fulminated against him." Sigh... --] 13:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::"excoriate" is a little too editorial and borders on the hysterical, how about "condemned"? Also, let's be careful, this isn't an article about Bill O'Reilly and it isn't like he needs any free publicity. Is it even necessary to mention B.O. at all?--] 18:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::::I don't agree with you about "excoriate" but "condemned" is a lesser and included term and would also be acceptable to me. I believe that O'Reilly deserves mention; it was his action that made Churchill famous (before that he was merely notable, and not very much so, at that). ] 22:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Absolutely not. "Condemned" implies that Bill O'Reilly has a right to judge Churchill. It certainly is not a lesser term. "Excoriated" is not too editorial. Really, just look it up. It simply means to criticise harshly. O'Reilly is central to the whole thing. Without him, Churchill would remain in relative obscurity. ] 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Is "criticized" just too mild? --] ] 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I do not agree that "condemned" implies anything about O'Reilly having a right to judge Churchill. I (or anyone else) can condemn a thing without having any moral authority behind that condemnation. That said, I would accept any of "criticized", "condemned", or "excoriated"; I don't think any of them are inappropriate here. ] 01:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::You don't think "condemn" has a connotation of "judgement"? Which word ''we'' choose implies that ''we'' support or do not support the notion of his moral authority, Kelly. It's not O'Reilly who is choosing the word "condemn" but us. Do you see? Well, we've all stated our opinion. Frankly, if the word used is as weak as "criticised", I'll be changing it. If it's "condemned", I'll be changing that too. I think that what whipped up the hysteria was the fierceness of the denunciation but I don't think that we should even hint at a position on it. I think we generally agree on "excoriate". Why not go with that?] 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::"Excoriate" works for me. --] ] 10:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update, since it's been quiet here lately:
:'''Ward LeRoy Churchill''' (born ], ]) is an ] writer, activist, and academic. He is currently a ]d professor of ] at the ]. The author of over a dozen books and many essays, Churchill has written extensively on the use of police power to repress political minorities. Churchill became nationally known in ] when talk show host ] excoriated him for an essay he wrote immediately after the ]. This led to intense media interest in Churchill, which expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his activities as an ] activist. Churchill's claim to partial ] descent is disputed by some Native American groups.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any useful suggestions from the so-called "Alliance of Patriots", so I can't attempt to incorporate their point of view into the discussion.

If we are in agreement on this language, I would ask that either an admin substitute it for the introductory paragraph, or else that the page be unprotected. ] 22:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

:It needs to be unprotected to make the change. I call on the good-faith editors to restrict themselves to one revert each a day and not allow POV pushers to make any dispute be about who did or did not break the 3RR.] 22:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I think this language is a good compromise. Hope folks can see both sides here and not trash the article.--] 23:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


==The question of heritage==

Can someone who knows enough about this issue to comment on it accurately please make it clear in the intro whether Churchill's heritage is being questioned because people think he's lied about his background or because he isn't "Indian enough" to meet some arbitrary threshold?--] 06:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Dear JonGwynne: What creditials do you have in Indian Affairs to make the claim that the thresholds that Indian Tribes set for their members is arbitrary? Are you Indian yourself? Do you serve on a Tribal Council? Do you believe that Tribes do not have the right to decide who is member of their tribe or not???? I think that you no know nothing about the topic, but you are like the fact that WC makes rash, irrational statements about the U.S. policy and since you sympathize with his radical beliefs then you feel compelled to defend his fake Indian background---even though you obviously know nothing about the topic.-----] 14:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Steady on. The "thresholds" are not based in anything but the judgement of the tribes, are they? That's all that "arbitrary" means. There's no objective measure of "Indianness". Do you see that saying the tribes have the right to decide, which I don't think anyone is disputing, is saying ''exactly'' that there is no outside measure being applied. ] 14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:There's a section called "Ethnicity", Jon, that deals with it in detail. It seems he is not Indian enough (or at all, depending on who you talk to). The alleged lying about it is also an issue. ] 07:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::It seems that opinion is divided between those who believe that Churchill has poorly documented Indian ancestry and those who believe that Churchill is outright lying about having Indian ancestry. I don't believe that anybody believes that Churchill has enough Indian ancestry to satisfy the "blood quantum" laws. ] 12:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

::: None of the articles on this subject make the much more plausible observation that all Americans lay (A SUPRESSED) claim to Native American heritage (and a good deal more), inch by inch, breath by breath ... . WC admits, faces, tries to respect and be part of it. If you want to be critical about Churchill follow my lines on optimizing forcefullness/minimizing agression and those of Carol Moore and George Lakey; I recently checked how often these people were mentioned on webpages together with WC (via google) and came up with under 10 and 46 respectively which was a shock to me (vadercats).

:::To see the David Victor Hanson article here (in the external link section) but not an equivalently nonschizo piece to balance/cancel it out was another shock.

:::::It's not clear what you mean in your first comment. It simply makes no sense to me...sorry. can you explain?--] 13:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:01, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ward Churchill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ward Churchill. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ward Churchill at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Former good articleWard Churchill was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
July 13, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians / Politics and Government / Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconIndigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Colorado Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Misplaced Pages articles about the U.S. State of Colorado.
To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above.
For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Clarification needed!

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).

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).

Underlying the particular falsification would appear to be a second one, namely that the distribution of smallpox blankets by anyone in the USA ever happened at all. The notorious Fort Pitt incident was before the USA existed. There appears to be in fact zero evidence that any US citizen or agency ever did such a thing. But it's become an American myth, yet one which Ward Churchill was happy to liken to genocide. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.45.3 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Babel, babel

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 Misplaced Pages in 14 years. Twang (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Smallpox isn't caused by infected blankets

The article reads: "In 2005, University of Colorado Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct, 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)

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)

Where is he now?

Or perhaps, what is he doing now? Has he retired? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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♦ 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

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)

Ward Churchill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. Femke (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citations, cleanup banners, lack of updates on post-2009 work, poor prose in areas (elaboration on the talk page) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. The "Writings" section definitely needs a trim / citation update that only uses primary source references as extra backup. That said, I'm not convinced "lack of updates on post-2009 work" is a problem. Google News seems to show that the only notable thing that happened after 2009 was the Supreme Court rejecting his appeal in 2013 - which is already in the article - and him showing up at U Colorado Boulder for a single 90-minute speaking / venting session in 2017, which was barely newsworthy and really just an excuse to tell his story again. Everything else seems to be retrospectives talking about the original incident, the 9/11 deal, and so on. It seems like he hasn't really done much of anything notable since 2009. (To be clear, I agree that the prose & citations in writing sections still need to be fixed for the article to stay a GA - just not the "comprehensive" concern.) SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist. No edits on the article after a month, problems remain unresolved. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist - this must be delisted, no improvements on warranted and reasonable buidhe and SnowFire suggestions.--౪ Santa ౪ 03:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Categories: