User talk:M.JamesRoth
(Redirected from User talk:M. James Roth)
|
Ward Churchill article
[edit](Discussion transferred here from Xenophrenic's talk page.)
Greetings! Might I have a word with you privately about some proposed changes to an article? Thanks and best wishes, --M.JamesRoth 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Howdy, M.JamesRoth~
- If you wish to discuss article improvement, the discussion page associated with that article would be the appropriate location, as this is a collaborative effort. If the article doesn't yet exist, then you could start the discussion on my talk page, or yours, or send an email - but I would advise against the latter as I don't tend to email as frequently as I should, and editing articles on Wikipedia isn't really a private matter anyway. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your fast response to my inquiry. I haven't yet figured out how to email through Wikipedia. I notice that you have been involved with edits to the Ward Churchill entry. I consider the article to be biased against Professor Churchill, though not too badly considering the emotional nature of the subject matter. I'm not hesitant to jump into a fray, but would prefer that it be with an ally, or at least a more clear idea of what I'm getting into. Any insight you can give would be deeply appreciated. (1) The section on Professor Churchill's writings states: "Churchill... is particularly outspoken about what he describes as the genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of North America..." While appearing to be truthful, the passage is actually deceptive in that it implies that there is actually doubt about whether genocide occurred in North America. A more truthful phrase would omit the words "what he describes as", stating "Churchill... is particularly outspoken about the genocide..." As a citation, one could quote the "Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill", which states on page 97: "Plenty of reliable evidence supports the conclusion that Native Americans were on more than one occasion subjected to racist genocidal campaigns by some of these actors. There is no need for any scholar to exaggerate data to support that conclusion. Those who do so inflict harm on other scholars doing meticulous work that documents aspects of the racism and genocide inflicted on Indian peoples of the Americas by the settler society, and on the enterprise of such scholarship more generally." *http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf The fact of genocide in America can no more be refuted than the fact of global warming, though obviously that doesn't prevent people from trying. Churchill provides a thorough examination of the denial of genocide in "A Little Matter of Genocide" (2) A similar deception occurs in paragraph five of the section where the words "what the authors claim was" should be omitted. The fact of political repression in America can no more be denied than the fact of genocide in America. (3) My preference would be to delete the whole section on "Ethnic Background", as the entire issue has certainly arisen as an attempt to discredit Professor Churchill. Is ethnic background a standard feature of Wikipedia biographies? Is Native American ancestry a requirement for understanding and denouncing genocide and political repression? Professor Churchill is correct to characterize questions about his ancestry as a "racist diversion from the nature of the issue". *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN0ZxytJ1G4&NR=1 I'm not sure that any of the sources cited in this section are even relevant to the subject at hand, and are certainly far short of the standards used to judge Churchill's research. It seems to me that The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News are about as viable as sources on the issue as Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. If the section is to remain, then it would seem proper to quote attorney and long-time activist Russell Means: "So I want, from this day forward, every media person nationally, internationally and locally to know that we have ascertained that Ward Churchill is a full-blooded Indian leader." *http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill02212005.html Please feel free to email me if you can. Best wishes, --M.J. --M.JamesRoth 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, M.J.
- I added some navigation information to the top of your user talk page here. Hopefully it will help you find the answer to any questions you may have. With specific regard to emailing Wikipedia editors, there will be an "E-mail this user" option on that editor's talk page — in the toolbox on the far left side of the screen — if that editor has email enabled.
- I have done a little editing on the Ward Churchill articles, but I must confess I still know very little about him. Most of what I know about him I've learned from the cited sources I've been reviewing while checking out some highly dubious content in the Wikipedia articles. Fortunately, you don't need to be an expert on a subject in order to be a productive editor — you just need to be able to access good quality reliable sources and convey that information accurately and neutrally in the article. Some of the concerns you've mentioned above do merit some consideration, so I'm going to take another look at the article. Feel free to get your feet wet and make article edits yourself, but I'd recommend reviewing Wikipedia's biography of living person policies first. There is an additional, stricter set of editing rules we must follow when editing articles about living people like Churchill. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your fast response to my inquiry. I haven't yet figured out how to email through Wikipedia. I notice that you have been involved with edits to the Ward Churchill entry. I consider the article to be biased against Professor Churchill, though not too badly considering the emotional nature of the subject matter. I'm not hesitant to jump into a fray, but would prefer that it be with an ally, or at least a more clear idea of what I'm getting into. Any insight you can give would be deeply appreciated. (1) The section on Professor Churchill's writings states: "Churchill... is particularly outspoken about what he describes as the genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of North America..." While appearing to be truthful, the passage is actually deceptive in that it implies that there is actually doubt about whether genocide occurred in North America. A more truthful phrase would omit the words "what he describes as", stating "Churchill... is particularly outspoken about the genocide..." As a citation, one could quote the "Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill", which states on page 97: "Plenty of reliable evidence supports the conclusion that Native Americans were on more than one occasion subjected to racist genocidal campaigns by some of these actors. There is no need for any scholar to exaggerate data to support that conclusion. Those who do so inflict harm on other scholars doing meticulous work that documents aspects of the racism and genocide inflicted on Indian peoples of the Americas by the settler society, and on the enterprise of such scholarship more generally." *http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf The fact of genocide in America can no more be refuted than the fact of global warming, though obviously that doesn't prevent people from trying. Churchill provides a thorough examination of the denial of genocide in "A Little Matter of Genocide" (2) A similar deception occurs in paragraph five of the section where the words "what the authors claim was" should be omitted. The fact of political repression in America can no more be denied than the fact of genocide in America. (3) My preference would be to delete the whole section on "Ethnic Background", as the entire issue has certainly arisen as an attempt to discredit Professor Churchill. Is ethnic background a standard feature of Wikipedia biographies? Is Native American ancestry a requirement for understanding and denouncing genocide and political repression? Professor Churchill is correct to characterize questions about his ancestry as a "racist diversion from the nature of the issue". *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN0ZxytJ1G4&NR=1 I'm not sure that any of the sources cited in this section are even relevant to the subject at hand, and are certainly far short of the standards used to judge Churchill's research. It seems to me that The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News are about as viable as sources on the issue as Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. If the section is to remain, then it would seem proper to quote attorney and long-time activist Russell Means: "So I want, from this day forward, every media person nationally, internationally and locally to know that we have ascertained that Ward Churchill is a full-blooded Indian leader." *http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill02212005.html Please feel free to email me if you can. Best wishes, --M.J. --M.JamesRoth 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)