Talk:Ward Churchill

Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission

An editor has inserted a link to a Publications website, and cites it as proof of something about Ward Churchill. Churchill is not mentioned in any way at the link given, yet the text inserted by the editor makes claims that certain things are "moot" and certain things don't apply to Churchill, etc. These claims are original research on the part of the editor and are inappropriate for a WP:BLP. If a reliable source can be provided that asserts the same thing this editor is personally asserting, that would be great. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission publication mentions the tribal enrollment criteria for the two tribes mentioned, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Cherokee Nation, which are both listed as requiring "lineal descent" as opposed to a minimum blood quantum. The section is about blood quantum and features two quotes from Churchill equating blood quantum with genocide; however, my statement demonstrates that not all tribes use blood quantum for membership. Tribes enrolling based on lineal descent increase in numbers each generation as opposed to decreasing. The section also implies that the US government creates the criteria for tribal membership, when in fact the tribes do (I can make this more explicit). As per the talk section you've edited, "Recent edits re:Blood Quantum," the quotes do seem to imply the Churchill was discussing his own unenrolled status; however, my sentences that you keep deleting demonstrate that blood quantum is irrelevant to Churchill's inability to enroll in a tribe, since the two largest federally recognized tribes representing the two indigenous ethnic groups Churchill claims, Muscogee and Cherokee, do not require a minimum blood quantum

You've reverted my statement three times now, simply repeating verbatim "no mention of Churchill in cited source" each time. This is not a requirement for source on Wikipedia, and neither Appendix C — Best Practices". Campus Diversity Plan: A Blueprint for Action. University of Colorado at Boulder. July 1999. http://www.colorado.edu/cu-diversity/blueprint/appendix_c.html or U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, A Study of Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based on the 1970 Census, Vol. 3: American Indians (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) pp. 74, 78. mention Churchill by name. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It sounds as though you take issue with some assertions made by Churchill. That's fine, but to add that as content in a BLP, we need a reliable source to convey that content. If Churchill's statement(s) is/are incorrect, then it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a RS that conveys that. You are incorrect that Wikipedia does not require you to provide reliable sourcing for your statements -- even if you believe them to be self-evident or common sense. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The OIAC booklet is a government publication and not original research. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

No one said it was. However, the "statements" you made concerning Churchill, while citing the above sources, is indeed original research. Please find a reliable source that specifically states, "In the case of Churchill's own status, tribal blood quantum laws are moot. Blood quantum laws are not preventing Churchill from yada yada yada..." Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, by the way, on the UofC Blueprint. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a different approach: the whole section "Blood Quantum" is a mix of a) Churchill's own background and b) one of his major points of criticism/activism of U.S.-policy (historic or otherwise). The way these two points are mixed up right now, it reads as if Churchill's only motivation for raising these points ("genocide" etc) is to defend himself. I suggest that the two elements be separated and the quote-boxes-bit be given a separate section as part of his activism (note that he doesn't specifically mention himself in the quote-boxes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty sad when people think a little piece of paper originates one's identity. Do Americans need a status card to understand they are American? Do Canadians need a status card to understand they are Canadian? No. Then let us educate ourselves on what the purpose of a status card is, what membership in a "band" or reservation means; before we decide who can be "native" and who cannot. Ward Churchill is an intelligent speaker and scholar who makes legitimate arguments and when people do not like to hear the truth because it means destroying what they always held firm - to be true - or holding themselves or others they admired, accountable for actions - when what they thought was a democratic, human rights loving government, is in fact not; then that is hard for some people to come to terms with. And so, when it is hard to admit one is wrong, distracting from the true conversation becomes an easy alternative. If Ward Churchill says he is native, I believe him, especially when he is not declaring status; that makes me believe him even more. But to turn the smart reality of what he wants people to understand into a conversation about the colour of his blood is a tragedy and insult to the intelligence of humanity as an intellectual species, robbing people of a holistic debate. Since when did the burden of proof turn to Churchill? Let us ask those many critics to prove he is false. Churchill makes me engaged in the reality of the world and his arguments should do the same for other people. If someone cannot argue with him equally because they cannot handle his extremity of his wit, then educate yourselves... let's stay on topic people. As for tribes making criteria for membership, I think people are not understanding what colonialism is all about. What is the difference between lineage membership and blood quantum - none! The point is membership is the problem in the first place. If you agree with membership then I suggest you decide to set up memberships for what constitutes Americans, if not, then reevaluate your understanding of "native" memberships. Perhaps you should read up on the concept of a "compradore class". Do you really think these "tribal" governments existed before Columbus or the establishment of the US? You should realize that tribal governments and reservations are extensions of the American and Canadian bureaucratic systems (i.e. American and Canadian governments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The blood quantum debate, although a distraction, is much needed. So, I thank Churchill for sparking this much needed questioning of a colonial mechanism - used by North American governments - that pit non-natives against natives and natives against natives. Perhaps these conversations will reveal what tribal membership/blood quantum is really about!

Appeal again

The appeal is back in the news today: Ward Churchill's appeal to win back job to be heard by state high court (Denver Post).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

now there something to see. So praytell, where's your source that justifies the categories you want to have on this page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

From our article:

In an abrupt change of tone two days later, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians removed its critical statement regarding Churchill and replaced it with one that acknowledged his "alleged ancestry" of being Cherokee. "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," the tribe's website now said. "However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee."

Churchill claims "some" native american heritage. That much is in reliable sources. There also is no proof that he does not have native american heritage (although there are sources that state he has not provided proof of certain required amounts with certain tribes and factions). What is it, exactly, you are trying to accomplish with your edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point: the categories you are adding are for enrolled tribal members. As such, you need to provide a source that proves he is an enrolled member. Feel free to add Category:American people of Native American descent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add any categories; I reverted some deletions. I was unaware that one needed to be enrolled in, for example, the Native American Writers Tribe. Is there somewhere I could verify these requirements before I revert the deletions of certain categories? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@ the wikiproject. The categories were recently pruned; it must be in the talkpage-archives somewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will point them out to me if it becomes an issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Court decision

An editor has replaced a brief section of text indicating a court decision, and the basis for that decision, with text that indicates only the decision. The editor explains, ((1) This is too complicated for the introduction. I had to read it three times to understand it, and I know what happened. (2) WP gives sources in footnotes, not in body. Discuss in talk.)

I've read that brief text, and had no trouble understanding it, even without having known what happened. As for your objection to sources (in this instance, The Chronicle of Higher Education) in the lede (and yes, sources are indeed routinely given in the body), that can be easily addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

genocide should be attributed

I'm concerned about the recent change in the text of this article, which removed the phrase "what he describes as" from the following:

Churchill has written on American Indian history and culture, and speaks about what he describes as the genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of North America by European settlers and the repression of native peoples that continues to this day.

Genocide is a highly charged term and I don't think it is universally accepted by scholars that it applies to native americans. This article by Guenter Lewy, in Commentary, argues that, while scholars have used the term, it is inappropriate in this case. [1]. The scholarly debate is described at great length in Chapter 3 of this MA thesis. Given that this is a very loaded term, I think that WP:NPOV requires us to attribute it to Churchill. GabrielF (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Rmhermen (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)