Talk:Ward Churchill

overcitation

The following sentence is vastly overcited:

In the view of supporters of Professor Churchill, the media interest[36] in his ancestry[37] is an intentional distraction,[38] orchestrated by conservative[39] corporate media,[40] in order to divert attention from the issues of the historical genocide[41] against, and ongoing oppression[42] of, indigenous nations.[43]

There are several issues here: First, when there's a citation every two words, readability takes a nosedive. Secondly, this is original synthesis. There is nothing in the three sources cited in footnote #40 that mentions Ward Churchill, similarly, I don't think that the cited books that discuss historical persecution of native Americans are specifically mentioning the Ward Churchill controversy and the reaction to it by conservatives. You can't take use sources in this way - you can't use a citation that says that there is corporate control of the media in combination with another citation that says conservatives objected to Ward Churchill, to suggest that conservative, corporate media orchestrated a campaign against Churchill. GabrielF (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"2 sentences of supporter POV in appropriate" - No POV is appropriate for an encyclopedia. There is no shortage of online venues to promote viewpoints and opinions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Funding the litigation

I believe the article would be improved by covering the topic of how the litigation has been funded. His lawyer taking it on a percentage of any legal judgement is possible, but I don't see it supported in the sources in the article. Anyone have a source? – for how the legal defense of Churchill, and also the legal opposition to Churchill, was funded? The trial in District Court and then two appeals to date cannot be cheap. And the Inside Higher Ed source includes a statement by Chruchill's lawyer that they will appeal to the US Supreme Court. N2e (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard David Lane, Churchill's lawyer say that he's doing it pro bono, but I don't have a cite. Lane's an attention whore, so I tend to believe this.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

article is imbalanced

if you look at the great work he did as editor in the 1990s, eg the contintelpapers, this article is really unbalanced, focusing on cricitism and other recent matters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that since Churchill's habit of plagiarizing and fabrication has been exposed, you can't consider anything he wrote as a reliable source.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Compared to what it once was this article is extremely well balanced. Churchhill is a very controversial character. There was a time when all positive edits were being rejected wholesale. So congratulations to the ones who have brought this article back from the abyss Michaelgossett (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What is he doing today?

If anyone could add this to the article, it would be helpful. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Today Churchill lives in Atlanta, and appears to be "professionally" (I hesitate to apply that word to what Churchill does)inactive.Pokey5945 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to say something about this, but he seems to have fallen off the Google News map recently. There is little or no sourcing on what he is doing today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at his web page. He's asking the United Nations to give him his job at CU back because he's a victim of human rights abuses. Or something like that.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On Blood Quantum issues

While I am not advocating for this individual; for years he was riding high on the idea of Native American heritage. But our heritage is complicated in the U.S., and I would note some important problems in the way Indian heritage has been masked or race misrepresented. One problem is census takers of yesteryear; the notation of race involved self-reporting, (and no one wanted to be an Indian back then) and unfortunately, race and some other notations are not very reliable sources of blood quantum information. The Dawes Act and subsequent 'Rolls' are also problematic. It is accurate to say that there were notations of blood-quantum, but this depended on the note taker or observer. Modern databases with genealogy are also a problem. I have seen notations on Indian blood quantum in the Dawes Rolls, and the same individual is noted as 'white' by the worldwide LDS FamilySearch.org. I have written, bringing this to the attention of staff for the organization, who reply that they use census data whenever possible. At least they understood my concern.

All this considered, there may not be 'proof' that Mssr. Churchill is Native American in heritage, but there are important reasons to doubt some 'primary' sources which provide information on race. As yet another aside, there was a coroner's office in Virginia with a director who changed the death records of many Indian people of mixed heritage, to 'Negro.' I believe this was done to deceased members of the Pamunkey tribe, or a nearby band.

KSRolph 70.36.140.221 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)