Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 5

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 [here].

• 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)

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)

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)

NOT SURE WHAT YOU ALL THINK IS A PROVOCATION BUT AT THE MO THE WHOLE THING IS GONE!!!!!!! PEOPLE WHO DO THAT SHOULD GET A LAST WARNING AND UPON RELAPSE DISQUALIFIED.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The whole what thing? Kelly Martin 17:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• David Horowitz, 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. Fred Bauder 13:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you provide an abstract of what this book discusses and how it's relevant to Churchill? Kelly Martin 17:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you provide an abstract of what you discuss and how you're relevant to anyone? Allianceofpatriots 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

If a Tribe has a right to decide--which they do--and WC does not meet that "arbitrary" threshold then WC should respect that Tribal decision and he should not state that he is member of a tribe when he isn't. What you perceive as "arbitrary" I see as reasonable. It is your perspective that is skewed not mine. Where do non-Indians get off judging what is arbitrary and what is not arbitrary???-----Keetoowah 16:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please try to be less bombastic? You are making enemies out of someone who is not your enemy.

As far as "arbitrariness" goes, the Cherokee requirement for 1/4 (IIRC) descent is arbitrary, to anyone outside the tribe. I'm sure you all feel you have a good reason for that requirement, but to those not privy to the logic and tradition behind it, it appears arbitrary. The fact that different tribes have different requirements (I've seen 1/4, 3/8, 1/8, 3/16, 1/16, 1/64, and even 1/256) supplants a claim of arbitrariness; again, I'm sure that various tribes have good internal reasons for making their decisions as to what quantum they will apply, but to an outsider who is not informed of internal tribal politics, they appear very much arbitrary. In any case, this is not the forum to debate blood quantum laws.

As to Churchill's claim: from what I have been able to piece together Churchill was granted an "associate membership" (presumably in recognition of services performed or some other reason not related to ancestry) at some point; while the tribe no longer grants associate memberships it does appear that it is true that he is, or at least was, entitled to claim that status. He also makes a vague claim to blood ancestry which he admits not being able to prove. This would be akin to my claiming Jewish blood ancestry, the only evidence for which I have is family folklore. I wouldn't expect my claim to be good enough for the "right of return", nor do I claim to be Jewish, but I'm still entitled to note that I have such heritage in my background without being excoriated for it. Now, I think there is some evidence that Churchill has misrepresented his associate membership as a full membership or suggested that associate membership implies verified ancestry when it does not, and that Churchill has misrepresented the degree to which he has American Indian ancestry. But let's please stick to the actual facts, here -- not just the ones that suit your particular point of view.

I welcome specific factual corrections to the statements above; it is possible that I am mistaken on some of these issues. What I do not welcome are your constant attacks of anyone you perceive, rightly or wrongly, of supporting your selected demon of the month. Please try to calm down a bit. Kelly Martin 16:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to focus on facts. I did not start this conversation I only jumped into it. So therefore your comment that my comments are not welcome because Wikipedia is not "the forum to debate blood quantum laws" is arbitrary and capricious also. If someone makes comments on blood quantum levels like JonGwynne did then I am going to respond regardless of your comments. You are not the arbitor of who can comment and who cannot comment. As to what is arbitrary and and what is not arbitrary is all a matter of the perception of the person doing the judging. My tribe, Cherokee, has a hard and fast rule at 1/4 for many, many years. WC applied for membership he was turned down. He should not claim that he is a member and he has claimed that before. There is written documentation of him making that claim. It used to be in the Wikipedia article, at an earlier time, until someone edited out the exact quote. that is a misrepresentation in and of itself. As to your comment about selected demon of the month, I find that comment presumptious on your part. I don't what month that you are talking about and I don't why you are talking about demons because I never called WC a "demon." You give me an order to "Please try to calm down a bit." I am quite calm thank you but I don't take orders. So in return I would order you to "Please try not to be so presumptious."-----Keetoowah 18:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is most definitely not the place to debate blood quantum laws as Wikipedia is not the place to debate anything. As to whether your comments are welcome: I welcome your comments; I think your point of view is valuable in framing this and other articles from a neutral point of view. What I find unwelcome is your hostile and combative attitude. I think you would find others more receptive to your point of view if you expressed it with less hostility and bile. Kelly Martin 00:06, Apr 28, 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 (an unconscious but no less real when unacknowledged) claim to Native American heritage (and a good deal more besides; all degraded to a point of unrecognizability, cycle complete, rinse, repeat), 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 (hundreds of links including quotes, audio by and about Ward Churchill seasoned with short comments by the compiler[[1]]).

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)

Note to Keetoowah: I didn't mean to imply that "abitrary" had any negative or judgemental connotations when I used it. I simply meant that since different tribes have different subjective criteria, it is abitrary in that sense. I didn't mean to suggest that the tribes don't have the right to set limits as to who is a member and who isn't. Clearly they do. But Kelly makes a good point about drawing the distinction between being "officially" considered to be something and being entitled to remark on one's family history without being yelled out for it.--JonGwynne 18:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I read the comments on this page and I get accused all the time of merely gripping about WC because I'm a tool of the Republicans or Bill O'Reilly or FOX News or someother wild, hair-brained conspiracy theory. I just don't like him running around and claiming that he is a member of tribes when he isn't. So I took your meaning of "arbitrary" differently than you meant it. If he would just come clean and state that he has a small amount of Native American heritage, which I don't believe (but whatever) then I would not see the problem. But where he is disingenious is where he claims that he is a member of certain tribes but he can't prove it or he claims that he speaks for ALL Indian people when he clearly doesn't. Or when he attacks other Indian people both verbally and physically who disagree with him or have the temerity to question his Indian background, etc. That is why the Ethnicity issue is an issue and it has been an issue for 20 years--long before Bill O'Reilly and Wikipedia.org came along. So many of the Wikipedian try to argue that his fake Indian scam only became an issue when the 911 comments hit the news. People in Indian Country has been gripping about this fake Indian for 20 years. He has been taking jobs for actual Indian people and he has been physically attacking and verbally attacking Indians for 20 years. Now that is an issue whether the Viajero or the other apologists for WC believe it is or not.------Keetoowah 18:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Physically attacking" Indians and people who disagree with him? This is a new charge. Can you point to a single shred of evidence to back up this extraordinary assertion? As for "taking jobs" from other Indians, this criticism is so pathetic that I have resisted commenting on it, but you repeat it so often that it is becoming tiresome, like a bad smell that won't go away. Ward Churchill is not a Wal-Mart, he is not a maquilladora on the Mexican border; he is one individual. If CU had wanted a "real Indian" presumably they could have found one. That people pay him to give speeches, write books -- are you seriously claiming that these activities take bread out of anyone else's mouth? Please, get real! Try to come up with something just a little more convincing. If you think his politics suck, why don't you just say so.

As for credentials, who are you to dictate whether Wikipedia should describe a given indivual as a "real" Indian or not? You state your user page that you are a member of such-and-such tribe, but you use a fictious name, like most of us, so we will have to take those claims at face value. All we really know is that you self-identify as an Indian, the exact same that can be said for Ward Churchill.

Finally, you state above that you don't take orders, but that doesn't stop you from giving them. Something wrong with this picture? I think so. Whatever you are smoking in your peace pipe is making you hostile, paranoid, and irrational; maybe you ought to try a different mix. -- Viajero 19:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are blind defender of guy. You like his politics. Period. You don't know anything about Indian Country except for the very little that you have learned since you became the defender of the FAKE Indian. I have provided evidence of how Churchill spit on and physically attacked an American Indian Movement member in the past. The information is on the American Indian Movement Web site. She had the temerity to question the great Ward Churchill and his FAKE Indian story. I think it is time to go get that information from AIM--all of the news stories and articles about it--and bring that information back into the article AND the time that WC lowered a student's grade for questioning his FAKE Indian status and put that information in the article. It has now become relevant. Yes, I am saying that Churchill's fake Indian act is taking bread out of real Indian's mouths. Everytime one of these universities, etc. pay for one of his speeches they could be hiring a REAL Indian, not FAKE Indian that you defend, to give a speech on real Indian issues and concerns, not the false topics and false agendas of the FAKE Indian. If you want to provide definitive proof of my background then I am more than willing to provide that to you directly, but not on this public Web site. I more than willing to provide you with my 25 work history in Indian Country, but once again not on this Web site. And while you and I are exchanging our credentials then I will expect you to provide what background you have to comment on life in Indian Country. I'm more than willing to provide my credentials, are you willing to provide your credentials?? His ethnicity IS an issue. The University of Colorado has questioned him about lying about his status as an Indian to get preferential treatment in the Affirmative Action program at CU. What shred of evidence to you have to back up your assertion that CU wanted a REAL Indian, but couldn't find one so they had to settle for a FAKE one??? What are trying to imply? That is no qualified REAL Indians can represent Indian Country?? I was simply turning the tables on Kelly Martin to show the pomposity of his demands on my comments. So you don't like it. So? That was the point. He was rude and dogmatic to me and was just providing him an opportunity to see what it looks like when it turned on him. Oh, by the way, WC is a FAKE Indian.------Keetoowah 21:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Keetoowah, I'm a she, not a he. I wasn't making any demands; I was making suggestions. Nobody here is in a position to make demands. As to whether my comments were "rude and dogmatic", I will leave that judgment to my peers here, in the unlikely event that that question comes up. Frankly, I find your attitude offensive and unproductive; I think it would benefit your cause as well as this article if you were less hostile and aggressive. But of course you're entitled to pursue your interests by whatever means you feel are appropriate. Kelly Martin 00:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you believe my attitude is "offensive and unproductive," well, that is simply your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will add that to Viajero's "hostile, paranoid and irrational" and see it for what it is: The flapping of arms of folks that can't provide substance and supportive evidence for their arguments. Second of all, when you start a paragraph with "First of all" then you need to have a "Second of all" and maybe a "Third of all," etc.-----Keetoowah 01:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you choose to believe Keetoowah's claim to be Cherokee or not (I personally see no reason to doubt it). The concerns he has expressed about "fake Indians" isn't a position that he alone holds - I have heard similar concerns expressed by Sherman Alexie (one of the most interesting speakers I have heard, btw). In the absence of documentation, we can only speculate as to whether CU was looking for an American Indian or not, whether affirmative action played a part in his hiring or if he would have gotten the job even if he didn't claim (truly or falsely) to be American Indian). On the other hand, WC has gotten a lot of mileage off his claim to being American Indian. There are millions of American who have some amount of native blood. I have seen estimates that about 10% of the white undergraduates claims American Indian blood (and most of them are descendant of a "Cherokee princess"). Most of these people probably believe that this is true (even the princess part). But that doesn't given them the right to claim that they are American Indian. On the other hand, you can have a credible career as an academic in the field even if you have no American Indian blood...I doubt that researchers studying diabetes in the Pima population are judged on their ethnicity, but rather on what they give back to the community. [Disclaimer: I claim ancestry which I cannot prove, but which I don't have reason to doubt either. I also understand the difference between claiming ancestry and being something]. Guettarda 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a POV, Guettarda. What you mean to say is that there is no right according to the tribes to claim this or that ancestry. My personal belief is you can claim whatever you like. I'm a great believer in self-determination. If you self-identify as a thing, you are, by my lights, that thing. This is, of course, because it doesn't matter to me what ethnicity or nationality people are.

And what does it matter if he has got "mileage" from his claim? I mean to you and me, Guettarda. Who manages to work a claim of ethnicity is not actually a concern of mine. I'm not fussed whether it's WC or Ketoowah, or whoever. That's not to say that no one does or should, just to point out that it's one POV among many.Grace Note 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course this is nothing more than a POV. Which is why it's here and nowhere near the article. Just trying to add to the perspective. I'm not fundamentally anti-Churchill. I can't say whether he was taken jobs away from people via his claim, so it's hard to criticise on those grounds. On the other hand, he has gotten attention and mileage by selling himself as an "American Indian". If he has been hired to talk as an American Indian, if he got money that was going to go to an American Indian, and he is not one, then there are good ground for people to be upset. In other words, I am conceding the point that, as a speaker one could make the point that he has taken money away from "the genuine article" (assuming that he really is a "fake Indian"). On the other hand, the CU hiring issue is unknowable. Guettarda 13:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: His critics reject the notion that anything could have provoked or justified the killing of 3000 innocent victims. -- Even if I kinna saw them as a big frothing mob of idiots for the most part too, I wouldn't state it as such where my desire for the critical description of the critics is that it not be dismissed out of hand by someone's 'dar. --chaizzilla 02:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: 'working claims of ethnicity' --- I know a few that do and others that don't. For example, a shockingly large segment of Maroccan blooded Dutchmen fit the latter category .. . but for reasons quite opposite to the ones Ward's working is disqualified (by a bunch of pc sellouts and blood betrayers), For Holland namely, not the adopted blood is in question, but the likelyhood its type of breeding imported along with it (since segregation comes naturally with migrations on such a scale) qualifies for Dutch life is all the more so. Firmly grafted on its rootstock it is getting set to preemptively usurp and transmogrify in much the same way whities began sucking the goodness from under redskins in great and greatly destabilizing numbers a few hundred years ago).

Ward's and my claim to understand the ecological, autarchic, power accumulation preempting permasecessional and seasonal aspects of tribalisms; the same one that establish equal rights and pars of all sorts between the widest possible array of life forms has nothing to do with racial purity but all the more with clear thinking.

To try honour and champion this burnt bridge and past station, these clay feet all civilizations deface at their peril, this stage in the now globally out of control runaway career of practically all ethnicities that have left or are inticed, cajoled and bribed to leave their traditionally more or less modestly embedding, responsibly demographicizing is a thankless task to say the least. The paradox that those few of us who do so get chosen to function as beast of burden for projected, transferrally unloaded sins of the presently functioning figureheads for expungement make it big (and often too big for their own good either way since the gossipmill quite often obscures what they really stand and try to stand for) while defending the small isn't something I see many 'real' indians managing to grasp.

Who is going to be left the quietly meditative room to reach the conclusion and/or belief this or that (wo)manofthemo might try to stand for the ways and means whereby 'scapegoatage' and 'charismachinery' exploits are prevented from taking on the scales that reach far beyond handson maintainability but remain cut down to denominations suitable to local control when they get dragged into the big time and ones ears are filled with racial rhetoric regarding purity?

Is WC abducted from his task and focus, to the exact degree he threatens to become succesfull? - (hundreds of links including quotes, audio by and about Ward Churchill seasoned with short comments by the compiler[[2]]).

Can our 'infopediadicalism' see us through to the praxis of effectively outgrowing the big baddies simply by starting so uncontrollably small in such massive numbers (parallels to the role of rock dusts in photosynthesis come to mind) that free, crisp and easy word of mouth does the trick?

It must the long, dead soul of the photojournalist in Apocalypse Now (Dennis Hopper)talking to us.-----Keetoowah 12:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to Keetoowah. I know it is sometimes hard to resist being snide and patronizing--these are flaws I find in myself--but it does not help build consensus. I also am concerned that you seem to be taking a position that only your views count in this discussion. This is especially toubling since you appear to have deleted a discussion I was having with someone here on this talk page. See: diff-1 and diff-1. --Cberlet 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cberlet: I really don't know what drugs you have been taking but I did NOT delete anything. Also, the nature of Wikipedia makes your accusation absolutely ludicrious. Why? Well, every change, whether an addition or a subtraction, is tracked by the Wikipedia software program. My edits are a matter of record and the deletion that you unfairly, irrationally, and incorrectly accuse me of making does not appear in the record of edits. You need to show me using the Wikipedia edit tracking system the deletion that I supposedly made or should keep or unfair, irrational, incorrect and unstable accusations to yourself. So until you provide me evidence to back up your claim, and it would be in the Wikipedia system if I really did it, please get a grip on your grasp of reality. When I did supposedly do this??? Wouldn't the date and time be in the Wikipedia system??? YES. Show it to me. I now understand the reason that you feel compelled to defend the FAKE Indian.------Keetoowah 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to become involved in an article about a subject to which you have a strong emotional response, especially if that response tends to manifest itself as your looking like a flaming asshole. 68.6.40.203 4 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

The difference that you are pointing to was made by 137.224.252.10 That particular IP address is based in the Netherlands. I'm not in the Netherlands, I'm in the U.S. So you need to talk to someone in Europe, not here.------Keetoowah 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chip, I had my first look at changed (wiki) pages' ever (didn't and still don't know how to find previous versions), lo and behold they were my own and used colour (swoon)!. Ps: nothing gone missing as far as I can see. I just edited previous stuff instead of answering you, OK? [[3]]). 08:30 29 April 2005

Thanks for the explanation. I clearly need more experience in inerpreting versions and diffs. My apologies to Keetoowah. I was clearly mistaken in thinking that deletions had been made. --Cberlet 14:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the basic issue is

• WC has always claimed indian heritage (not disputed)
• WC has not been able to provide credible documentation of this indian heritage (not disputed).

• WC became an Associate member of the UKB Cherokee (not disputed)
• WC was never a real member of the UKB Cherokee since he could not satisfy the tribe's heritiage requirements for full membership.

• WC has been involved in fringe indian politics

• WC went around claiming to be UKB, and offering greetings from the UKB leadership. (not disputed, this was his standard opener for speeches)
• WC's Associate membership in the UKB Cherokee has been revoked. (not disputed)

• WC may have benefitted from Affirmative action programs, on the basis of his claimed indian heritage.
• WC may have engaged in material misrepresentation of his indian herritage to to UofC, since he has no acceptable documentation of indian herritage.
• WC may be discharged because of this material misrepresentation.

Klonimus 01:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, "material misrepresentation" implies WC may have lied which is very different from simply being unable to prove heritage. Did the affirmative actions programs specifically require someone to be greater than 1/4th native american? Is there any evidence that WC does not genuinely believes he is of partial native american heritage? I would think WC being even an associate member of UKB Cherokee is enough evidence to prove he did not commit a "material misrepresentation". zen master T 02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To benefit from an affirmative action program you need to show membership in a protected class. Ward Churchill has claimed membership in a protected class, but not given evidence of membership in a protected class. With regards to his job, the question isn't what WC beleives, it's what WC is. The UKB have explicticly stated that being an Associate member is not evidence of any native american heritage, and that WC could not show enough (any?) evidence to merit inclusion on UKB tribal roles as a full member. He was given UKB Associate membership in exchange for the promise of writing a history of the UKB Cherokee. Klonimus 20:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What evidence was required and what did he present? My point is being unable to prove heritage does not automatically mean fraud. Isn't WC an associate member of other native american organizations? Did UKB back then state associate membership is not proof of heritage? The issue is separate from what UKB says today, the key is what the state of Colorado required and what evidence WC presented as evidence of heritage back then -- WC has never claimed more than 1/4th heritage, right? If this is true how can there be fraud? Worst case the state should not have approved his admittance into the affirmative action program but it did (hardly enough justification for removal of a subsequently tenured professor, is it?). WC may have gotten hired initially because of the affirmative action program without proving heritage but the main issue today centers around him being a tenured professor, I read somewhere he got tenure because the school feared he might go work at another university that was starting their own Native American studies department so WC did not commit any fraud in getting tenure at least. zen master T 22:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WC may have benefitted... WC may have engaged..., WC may be discharged... This is all speculation and speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless it is clearly attributed. -- Viajero | Talk 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "3000 children" reference because it was out of place where it was, and may be out of place for the entire article. The article should dispassionately present Churchill's point of view, and then, with equal dispassion, present the criticisms of Churchill's POV and the events related to that criticism. The use of weaseling to introduce a POV opposed to Churchill so early in the explication of Churchill's POV is strongly biasing and almost certainly not NPOV. Kelly Martin 17:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Churchill's claim to partial American Indian descent is disputed by some Native American groups." the word SOME is vague and of little use. give specifics. what NA groups? when? what did they say? Kingturtle 15:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is in the article.----Keetoowah 15:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

More precisely, the lead paragraph merely notes the existence of the dispute; the detailed discussion later on expands on it. One should not expect the lead to contain all the details. Kelly Martin 18:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

In the Activism section all Churchill's named colleagues except David Hill are wiki linked. Is there a reason for Hill's unique treatment? --Theo (Talk) 07:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There is already a David Hill, but that David Hill is not the David Hill of Ward Churchill's acquaintance. Someone might eventually write a disambiguation page, but the problem here is that this particular David Hill is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article (unlike the other David Hill, who, as I recall, is a former governor of New York state). Kelly Martin 04:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Are the neutrality and accuracy of the article still disputed? I can see no outstanding issues. Can we take down the template? --Theo (Talk) 07:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• http://unitedkeetoowahband.org/

Statement from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Regarding Ward Churchill

May 19, 2005

Ward Churchill received an “Associate Membership” from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) council in May, 1994. He was not eligible for tribal membership due to the fact that he does not possess a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” (CDIB) which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior / Bureau of Indian Affairs. 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. However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee.

“Associate Memberships” were only issued during the term of former Chief John Ross (1991 until the council voted to approve no more such memberships in July, 1994). It was made clear to all such members that they were not eligible to vote or receive any benefits. Federal law requires recipients of any benefits available to Native Americans to have a CDIB, which Mr. Churchill indicated he did not possess. The UKB’s eligibility for enrollment is based on providing documented evidence of direct lineage to the Dawes Roll enrollees, or to the 1949 UKB roll. Receiving an Associate Membership is akin to receiving an honorary doctorate, and then claiming to have received eight years worth of university education.

Employers regularly contact the tribal office to verify candidate employees’ claims of being American Indian through the tribal issuance of an Indian Preference letter, which is also approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Because Mr. Churchill does not have a CDIB, the UKB would not issue such a letter, if requested. There is no legal record of Mr. Churchill being a federally recognized Native American in the tribal office. Associate memberships are awarded to non-tribal applicants, while eligible tribal members are enrolled into the tribe. Mr. Churchill was never enrolled as a member, but was awarded an “Associate Membership.”

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma hopes this statement clarifies the facts as we know them. It is our desire to not be distracted by such matters and continue helping our Elders and families here in our Nation.

For further information regarding Mr. Churchill’s status as a Native American, please contact the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington , D.C.

I do think the chicken's are comming home to roost for Ward Churchill. Klonimus 03:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the ethnicity criticisms of Churchill are designed and encited to deflect attention away from and to discredit Churchill's arguably valid criticisms of the U.S. historically, and U.S. policies currently? I do think the turkeys are home, but thanksgiving isn't that far away. zen master T 03:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zen-master, in the words of Kelly Martin, your opinion has been noted over four hundred times. And once again your opinion is irrelavant. Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.----Keetoowah 13:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

His criticisms of the US are not original, and don't resonate with most Americans. He was and remains a fringe figure: a typical academic, leftist, blame america first, crank. Virtually everything Ward Churchill has said (except for stuff related to American Indians) has been said before by Noam Chomsky, and the Zmag/Counterpunch crowd.

He could have kept his academic little fiefdom, but instead chose to perform a publicity stunt, thatas a public employee, that would outrage %99.997 of taxpayer's who pay his salery. And now, the chickens have come home to roost. Klonimus 21:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kelly Martin 00:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the article needs a short blurb explaing how Adolf Eichmann was a nazi bureaucrat who did not himself kill anyone, but instead directed the machinery of the nazi state that did kill people.

This is needed because otherwise the significance of the money quote is lost. The Main Adolf Eichmann Article, doesn't emphasise enough the aspect of Adolf Eichmann presenting himself as a minor faceless cog of the nazi machine underserving of punishment. It's Ward's claim that the 9/11 victem's were faceless bureaucrat's implimenting evil policies that deserved to die. That was found so offensive by most americans.

I chose that small picture of Adolf Eichmann because it shows him as a harmless person. He looks like a college Professor, or harmless professional of somesort. I think this picture enhances the article. Klonimus 03:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no reasonable way that someone could consider the inclusion of Adolf Eichmann's photo on this article as NPOV. Kelly Martin 03:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's verifiable, and Ward himself compared people to Eichmann, so a photo isn't as I see it POV in any way. Perhaps you could explain why you feel that a photo of Eichmann is POV? Klonimus 04:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The photo is not required to explain the article, is not particularily relevant to the article, and is extremely inflammatory. That makes it not NPOV. Kelly Martin 04:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes the "little Eichmann's "quote less abstract. As well as providing some needed context for why Ward Churchill refered to Adolf Eichmann vs say Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Klonimus 04:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The facelessness of Eichmann is a characteristic that should be included in the Adolf Eichmann article and possibly footnoted here. The picture over-emphasises the significance of Eichmann in this context. --Theo (Talk) 10:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly and Theo. Including a photo of Eichmann here is heavy-handed and shameless editorializing. -- Viajero | Talk 12:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The photo is a distraction and will be widely misunderstood. The real issue is the two views of Eichmann. The right-wing critics of Churchill have mischaracterised Eichmann as an ardent Nazi, which he was not. Nor was he the "architect" of the Holocaust. In Arendt's clssic "Eichmann in Jerusalem," she portrays Eichmann as a bureaucrat--the subtitle of her book is "A report on the banality of evil." It would be useful to have a paragraph sorting this out. --Cberlet 16:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break, I thought that Wikipedia, as KellyMartin keeps saying, is NOT a soapbox!!!!! You are basically arguing that Eichmann is somehow less of a Nazi!!!! A Nazi is a Nazi. Have we really stooped the level of defending the FAKE Indian by having to delineate between the various levels of evil that was the Nazi world. Also, give me an example of where--as you state--"right-wing critics of Churchill have mischaracterised Eichmann as an ardent Nazi"!!!!! That comment is just pure BS. You don't have anything to back up that soapbox comment. It is just a pure figment of your vivid imagination. No, you get off of the soapbox. Who said this? Where did they say this??? Provide back up for the words that you putting in the mouths of mysterious "right-wing critics." I want some back up for your imaginative comments defending the FAKE Indian. For the record, I don't see why the Nazi picture should be in the article either, but Cberlet's comment is just BS. Now while we are on topic why do we have a copy of the FAKE Indian's book in the article???? Seems like an example of shameless bookselling for the FAKE Indian.-----Keetoowah 14:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[I have removed a personal attack from here that was inserted some six weeks after this discussion, does not develop this debate, and has been seen and answered by its target. —Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 09:40 (UTC)]

Well, the Israeli Supreme court felt Adolf Eichmann was important enough to be executed. Eichamnn directed the logistics of of holocaust as bureaucrat, it doesn't matter if he was as ardent a nazi as Alfred Rosenborg. Adolf Eichmann made sure the trains ran on time. And that is what Ward Churchill was aluding too. They key point which needs to be illustrated is that Adolf Eichmann claimed he was a minor functionairy and thus not important enough to deserve punishment. Klonimus 18:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the photo of Eichmann is a nice one and show's him looking like an innocent university professor, exactly the sort of pseudo-innocence that Ward Churchill is claiming about the 9/11 Victims. I've yet to see good arguments as to why it's inflamitory or POV. Klonimus 18:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that pictures elicit more immediate emotional responses than do words. Because of this, I believe that pictures can have a dominant effect on an article. In this case, Eichman has strong associations with Nazism—one of the most emotive subjects in our culture. I believe that the consequence of such an image is that many readers will obtain an initial impression that Churchill has some significant connection with Nazism. Given the acute sensitivity of such an association, I see the use of such a picture as inflammatory. Similarly, emphasising a link with Nazism is a form of demonization and that is POV. Does this help? --Theo (Talk) 22:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But you have to admit that your boy, Churchill, the FAKE Indian that you shameless defend seems to use Nazi references toward anyone and everyone that disagrees with him. He is a huge demagogue and the folks that have written this glowing article about him are his shameless tools.------Keetoowah 14:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

With a view to keeping the discussion of the Eichmann on track, I have spilt this into its own section and italicised a copy of the original post from which it flowed (Theo (Talk) 10:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)):

It is my opinion that pictures elicit more immediate emotional responses than do words. Because of this, I believe that pictures can have a dominant effect on an article. In this case, Eichman has strong associations with Nazism—one of the most emotive subjects in our culture. I believe that the consequence of such an image is that many readers will obtain an initial impression that Churchill has some significant connection with Nazism. Given the acute sensitivity of such an association, I see the use of such a picture as inflammatory. Similarly, emphasising a link with Nazism is a form of demonization and that is POV. Does this help? --Theo (Talk) 22:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The removing of material based on claims that it may or might evoke "emotional responses," is itself evocative of Nazi ideology. -SV|t 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This last comment is outlandish, and a revisionist approach to the Nazi genocide that is breathtaking in its lack of sensitivity to mass murder. Editing for content is not a form of Nazism.--Cberlet 00:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

To term mere "outlandish" comment as "revisionism" is would only elevate my flippant remark to the level of serious "revisionism." If its outlandish, whats serious about it? If its not serious, how can it be a threat to any historical view? I was simply commenting on the aspect of censorship - certainly a core part of the Nazi concept - based on a notion that an image would provoke emotionality, and that emotionality is somehow POV. Flawed irrational thinking was likewise a part of the Nazi identity - there's another relevant point. Whatever happened to Godwin's law BTW? -SV|t 07:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's Law obviously does not apply since this discussion is about Nazism to begin with. Stop trolling. -- Viajero | Talk 09:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Theo, the whole issue of Eichmann would not exist it wasn't for Ward Churchill, calling victims of the 9/11 Attacks "Little Eichmanns". Since this statement of his is so important to understand the controversy. It deserves a though explication in this article. That means explaining what about Eichmann, Churchill was alluding too. I think the photo and it's caption do so in an effective and NPOV manner. I do not believe that having this image and its caption will create an initial impression that Churchill has some significant connection with Nazism. He doesn't. What inclusion of this image and caption will do, is visually explain who Adolf Eichmann was, and perhpas make Ward's "Little Eichmann's" more clear.Klonimus 09:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus: I am now convinced. I have added an explanation of Eichmann (it is important that we explain that he was not simply a war criminal but that he combined commerce and annihilation—presumably the essence of Churchill's comparison) and restored the picture, albeit smaller than originally depicted. --Theo (Talk) 10:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I really think that the additional text on Eichmann recently posted by Klonimus was fiar and helped put the argument in context:

"Eichmann's function during WWII was to manage the logistics the Holocaust. His official title was "Transportation Administrator". While he himself never killed anyone, he ensured that the apparatus of the Final Solution operated smoothly. During his 1961 trial for war crimes, part of his defense was the claim that he was only a minor bureaucrat, and thus was blameless for the larger policies that he carried out."

Why was this paragraph cut? It is a precise description of Eichmann. It goes to the core context of how Churchill was making the comparison. Let's discuss this.--Cberlet 12:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with this paragraph (although it currently rather garbled in the article). I do think that it should mention his conscious application of commercial principles to extermination. I also think that the extended caption to the image is too long; all the caption needs to say is his name and why he is there. In my opinion, the rest is better addressed in the text. --Theo (Talk) 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Theo, I it gives me hope for the wikiproject when people can change their minds. So I greatly appreciate your acceptance of having some further discussion about Eichmann in the article.

I think the current photo caption is a little too long, but that it should be discriptive. One of the most annoying thing's in wikipedia IMHO are photo's that waste the explanitory possibilities of a caption.Klonimus 19:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And there we differ. I think that captions should be succinct, containing just enough to tell the reader why they are there and to show how they hook into the text. It is a matter of style preference. --Theo (Talk) 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes captions are used to offer a short summary of a set of arguments. In this case, a longer caption is much more useful and NPOV. If the new text is garbled, folks should edit it so they think it reads better. I was trying to provide enough of both views to be fair to both sides in this matter. I happen to see both sides of this question. I think it helps readers to provide both sides and let them decide.--Cberlet 22:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I disagree with you about the caption length but I will not impose my view. Likewise, I refrained from editing the "garbled" portion because I do not wish to give even the appearance of an edit war. It is my opinion that the enlarged image and the long caption give undue weight to the analogy. Various magazine editors have told me that most readers read the pictures and their captions before going to the body of an article. I have no idea on what they based this but it seems credible and on that basis, the pictures and captions are crucial opinion-formers. --Theo (Talk) 06:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I continue to object to the photo of Eichmann as it makes a strong visual suggestion that Churchill has some significant association with Nazism. Eichmann should be dealt with in one line, not a paragraph; curious readers can click onwards if they want. -- Viajero | Talk 00:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I have been convinced of the benefit of including the photo, I beleieve that the length of the caption overemphasises the imnportance of Eichmann. Wiki-linking Eichmann's name increases the emphasis. I would like to see a succinct caption and a brief paragraph. If we must have a discursive caption, then I believe that the paragraph should be correspondingly concise. --Theo (Talk) 10:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viajero and I also object to including the picture: as a form of POV propaganda meant to intentionally inspire a distinctly negative, emotionalist impression of the subject. El_C 11:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Viajero; the photo of Eichmann simply has no business being here. This is visually-driven POV, the pointless guilt-by-visual-association tactic Klonimus tried and failed to impart at Islamofascism. BrandonYusufToropov 14:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of days ago - found here Wikipedia is cited on the subject of plagarism standards.

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you summarize it further? In what ways is it "unflattering"? unfairly so? How does that article relate to this article? Is there any info from it we should add to this article? zen master T 19:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear ZenMaster, there is plenty of new information that will be incorporated in the Wikipedia article over time.-----Keetoowah 17:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion: Academics and Churchill: Many academics feels that the argument over Professor Churchill and his paper miss the point and are being used by both sides of the political aisle for political hay making. Cases in point: there is no great conservative conspiracy to stifle liberal voices on campus. Anyone who works in higher education will recognize that we are, by and large, liberal, or at least left of center, and that cannot be changed by taking out one professor. The issue of Churchill boils down to several issues facing higher academia today. 1) The research work of professors is suppose to be defendable and follow basic guidelines of peer review and reproduceability, Mr. Churchill's paper is not peer reviewed nor should it be considered in that context, but he clearly does not make an effort to use factual information to present arguments. 2) Many in higher academia are worried about the establishment of "ethnic studies" "men's studies" "women's studies" and you name it departments. Traditionally, such research was carried on in the context of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, or some other social science unit. Each of these units have differernt rules on what makes "good research," but they are all couched in the concepts of peer review and academic integrity. The new "studies" departments seem to make end runs around these research areas. Scholars like Churchill, who received tenure after one year with only an MA and with a limited publishing history mostly outside of peer review (unusual for someone who does not teach in a professional studies area) worry academics because it displays a slackening of standards on campus. 3) The combination of 1 and 2 result in damage to the credibility of social science research (especially qualitative research) and the institutions that host professors like Churchill. The issue of politics of left versus right has nothing to do with the issue from a true academic standpoint. In fact, the politicizing of the issue hides the true issue that is most important with Mr. Churchill's paper in revealing an academic who violates some very basic canons (using known false information to push a political agenda under the guise of academic credibility outside of the peer review process). This then feeds into the issue of academic freedom: does this right, enshrined on campuses and protected by court rulings, allow professors to use known wrong data to make political arguements from the cover of their offices as academics.

Since you're obviously no academic, these comments are irrelevant, as well as being inaccurate. "Cases in point: there is no great conservative conspiracy to stifle liberal voices on campus. Anyone who works in higher education will recognize that we are, by and large, liberal, or at least left of center, and that cannot be changed by taking out one professor." That academia is largely left of center is no evidence against the proposition that there is an attempt (spearheaded by David Horowitz) underway to change that. Sheesh. 68.6.40.203 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

How about somebody add a picture on here? [Message posted 23:49, 10 Jun 2005 by User:24.159.43.93 ]

We would love to have a portrait of Churchill to illustrate this article. Sadly, we cannot find one that is not copyright. --Theo (Talk) 09:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So I drew my own from various photo references and have added that. --Theo (Talk) 10:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent pen drawing, why was it removed? J Shultz 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

It was removed by User:Zen-master with the edit summary "portrait not good". It is not the most constructive criticism that I have had of my drawings but it is also not the worst! I am comfortable that it is a pretty accurate candid likeness of the man. My reference material included these photos. I enjoyed the few hours that I spent on it so I am mellow if the consensus is against it.—Theo (Talk) 08:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not one of Wikipedia's best examples of open collaboration... [posted at 04:16, 12 Jun 2005 by User:65.96.123.208 ]

You are right. Not the bast but not bad. Perhaps you can help us to improve it. --Theo (Talk) 10:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which facts in the article remain disputed? Can we take the template down now?—Theo (Talk) 21:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it.—Theo (Talk) 15:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason it says "repress" rather than "oppress" minorities? I suppose you could use it that way, but oppress strikes me as the more appropriate term as far as authorities misusing power goes.

Because when force is used, it is political repression not merely societal forms of oppression, and Churchill writes about "repression" in two major books.--Cberlet 14:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)