Talk:Ward Churchill - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grace Note (talk | contribs) at 14:46, 27 April 2005 (→The question of heritage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:46, 27 April 2005 by Grace Note (talk | contribs) (→The question of heritage)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 by Grace Note 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. SlimVirgin 01:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements about the intro

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.

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

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? zen master T 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 bold. 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.Grace Note 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. zen master T 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. Grace Note 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about "censured", which implies an entirely verbal statement of disapproval. --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suggestions:

Just call him an academic, he's many other things you could list, it's pointless having a catalog.

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. --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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. --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replace author of many books and essays with 'prolific'

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. --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete highly outspoken, replace with outspoken

Does anyone want "highly outspoken" particularly?

In my opinion, adverbs militate against neutrality. I would lose "highly". --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.

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. --Theo (Talk) 12:55, 23 Apr 2005 (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

Nope. It's fully discussed in the article.

The expression "kicked off a media frenzy" you would not even see in the New York Post. Maybe the Inquirer.

Suggest an improvement that conveys the same idea.

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. -- GreenLocust 23:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Propose: "led to intense media interest". --Theo (Talk) 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).

There is no need to detail what the investigations are, Tony. The article does that.

Delete "various Native American groups" replace with American Indian Movement. Am not particular enthusiastic about this but think it reads better.

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. TonyMarvin 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.Grace Note 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. TonyMarvin 04:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it just my browser, or has something weird happened to the photograph? SlimVirgin 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. :-) --Cberlet 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. -- Viajero 13:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's just so funny to see the kind of lead 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 honestly employ the Inverted_pyramid. Again, the only thing missing from the lead, still, is the fact that the Churchill questions center on freedom of speech and academic freedom, but you're almost there, stay on the NPOV 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 Pyrrhic victory for them; in the long run freedom of speech is stronger than hate. 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) freedom of speech, 2) academic freedom, 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 Oliver Wendell Holmes: 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 Louis Brandeis: "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." Calicocat 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.

User:Viajero'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.

TonyMarvin 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. --Cberlet 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? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that sentence is an attempt to push a POV and should be deleted. Kelly Martin 20:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Back to the intro, again

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, activist, and academic. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 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 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly excoriated him for an essay he wrote immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 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 American Indian activist. Churchill's claim to partial American Indian descent is disputed by some Native American groups.

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.

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. zen master T 07:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I agree. --Theo (Talk) 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"? zen master T 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.--JonGwynne 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can live with "some". Kelly Martin 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? --Theo (Talk) 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. Grace Note 00:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can live with "excoriate". Kelly Martin 00:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

How about "accused him of being a traitor"? (my source) --Theo (Talk) 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.Grace Note 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... --Cberlet 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?--JonGwynne 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). Kelly Martin 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. Grace Note 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is "criticized" just too mild? --Theo (Talk) 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. Kelly Martin 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?Grace Note 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Update, since it's been quiet here lately:

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, activist, and academic. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 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 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly excoriated him for an essay he wrote immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 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 American Indian activist. Churchill's claim to partial American Indian 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. Kelly Martin 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.Grace Note 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.--Cberlet 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?--JonGwynne 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.-----Keetoowah 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. Grace Note 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. Grace Note 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. Kelly Martin 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?--Cberlet 13:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements about the intro

SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power

Provocation

Further reading

Back to the intro, again

The question of heritage