Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old text

I removed a section of mostly personal attacks on Ward Churchill. This talk page should be about the article, not about the merits of his positions. For posterity, the original discussion may be viewed here. Gwimpey 01:37, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Restored, since I wasn't done replying. Besides, the merits of Ward Churchill's lunatic positions are as much a part of the discussion as anything else. -- Me @ 00:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who is he?

The following material may have little value, indeed shows some stumbling around. However, it is not acceptable to remove material from a talk page unless there is some over-riding reason. Fred Bauder 17:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the only one working on the article, using news sources. Someone needs to read a few of his books. For example, is he a Marxist of any flavor? Someone put a link to anarchism in the article. That I doubt. Fred Bauder 17:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

When this story came out, I read some interviews and short pieces on the web. I'm not sure if he's a Marxist, but he does talk about violent resistance to oppression quite a bit. Gwimpey 17:49, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he's not a Marxist. Anarchist would be more likely (certainly most of his admirers tend in that direction), but you'd need to find a source. This article badly needs to be deal with his substantial scholarly work (versus his kneejerk polemics). RadicalSubversiv E 14:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

are you guys kidding? how did you assume the authority to author a piece about an individual you apparently know so little? If you had read his book Italic textMarxism and Native AmericansItalic text you may be better prepared to answer the question of whether or not he is a marxist. Professor Churchill also address this issue is several other sources, the first coming to mind would be his interview with Shawn Setaro. As to him being an anarchist you may consider citing his numerous statements about the State, along with his critiques of anarchists. For both these questions, it would be wise also to quote him on his opinions of leftist repression of indigenous peoples. And yes, he certainly does "talk about violent resistance to oppression", and it would only be fair to include his articulate and copious stated positions on this issue. It is also necessary to include a rather lengthy section on issues he has written extensively about such as cultural appropriation and cultural genocide, and political repression. This piece was really weak and deeply flawed. The authors ought to be embarassed at publishing such an uninformed and scantily researched piece. At minimum, this entry should only be labeled as being on the current controversy over Ward Churchill's "Some people push back".

Please note, "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." If this is to be a worthless entry it will be filled with propaganda against Churchill, if it's a worthy article it will take the NPOV.

Removal of offending quotation

We now have sanitation of Churchill's quotes to remove the bit about the "little Eichmanns." NPOV requires inclusion of all significant information, including the basis for the attacks on him as well as his reasonable explanations. Fred Bauder 12:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I guess this was not in the original quotation, but probably should be included. Fred Bauder 17:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Real Indian?

Any knowledgable person needs only a glance at Ward Churchill to establish his ethnic background, although he is not identifiable as to tribe. Throwing up someone's mixed blood or lack of enrollment in a recognized tribe to discredit them is a frequently used cheap shot. Fred Bauder 13:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Glance? He looks white to me. —Ashley Y 00:07, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley Y: puh-leaze, the guy [i]looks[/i] as lilly-white as fresh-fallen snow. The black-and-white "art shot" of Churchill which adorns the beginning of this article was specifically posed for the purpose of emphasizing so-called "indian features." He's putting on a pouty face to mimic the "indian brave" solemn expression, grew his (red-tinged) hair long and left it unwashed for stringiness, and is wearing dark sunglasses to conceal his blue eyes—how ridiculous he looks.

Moreover, there are "straight" mugshots of this guy elsewhere which, without the benefit of Churchill's artful posing, do much to belie any "indian" features he claims to possess.

--Ryanaxp 21:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

This 'mugshot' is a joke - it's so fuzzy you couldn't judge shit from it. Here's one that shows his 'pale face' pink-hued skin. His face shape however, does not look Caucasian. OK, the guy likes to be photographed in black-and-white because it makes him look more Indian - it makes him look more Indian, because behind the colouration he has Indian features.--XmarkX 16:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. He looks a lot like my mother and grandmother who I know to be partly American Indian. Skin color rapidly attentuates, but not certain other subtle features. Color of hair and eyes mean nothing. Like I say, it's a cheap shot. Fred Bauder 22:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

"We are the only ethnic group in the world that has to prove our degree of blood like dogs and horses," Russell Means, February 8, 2005, comment made while introducing Ward Churchill. Fred Bauder 22:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

A number of Indian sources (such as writers for Indian Country Today) claim that there is no evidence that Churchill either has Indian ancestry or grew up with any Indian cultural background. While arguing over blood quantums is probably not useful, it would be good to know if there is anyone besides himself who can back up his claims to Indian heritage. If not, then he's just another white man "playing Indian" (as writer Philip DeLoria titled his book (ISBN 0300080670)). Part of his authority derives from speaking as one who has experienced oppression. Thus, the controversy is real and is important to understanding him. If he, in fact, is not Indian, then the question of why he would adopt such an identity is open. Gwimpey 02:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Generally the way someone knows they have Native ancestory is from family history. That is usually accepted by others, after all, to most people of mixed blood who are away from a tribe or a reservation it is simply a matter of interest, not something that defines your life. Why it defines the life of Ward Churchill is an interesting question. Perhaps in his voluminous writings he addresses that. Fred Bauder 14:59, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am an enrolled member of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and I used to work for the BIA. I added into the article the written opinions of people that have researched Churchill's Indian ancestry and 99% of these Indian folks point out that Churchill has not provided the basic information required to prove that he is an Indian. I put it up last night and it much of it was taken down early this morning. It was information where I provided sources for the comments. I understand that what I wrote can and should be edited. But taking out information that provides sources and citations seems to be an attempt to stifle the information. Dear Fred Bauder, it IS fair to ask if Churchill really is an Indian. He is taking away from actual Indian people the ability to speak for themselves. He has build his whole career on being someone who has experienced the oppression of a minority culture. It is similar to a white middle class Protestant person from Idaho was writing books about himself being a Jew in Hitler's Germany. And don't even say that I just made a inaccurate analogy because Churchill himself compares and uses Hitler and Nazi analogies. I'm sure that is how you learned about him in the first place because he made this most recent comment about 9/11 victims are all "Eichmann's." Look, providing information about whether you are an Indian or not should not be that difficult. Why? You have Indian parents. It is simple as that. Even if you don't have brothers and sisters then you have Indian parents and your parents have brothers and sisters. Correct? Why doesn't anyone in Indian Country know any of these people? This is NOT a cheap shot as you indicated above. It goes to the heart of who he claims that he is. As Suzan Harjo pointed out: Churchill is taking jobs and speaking engagements from real actual Indians and building a whole career on it. Those jobs and speaking engagements should go to actual Indian. Also, Harjo made the point that Churchill's comments are having a backlash and where is that backlash going? On to Indian Country. Look, no one believes that he should not have the right to say what he wants. We all believe in the First Amendment even if it is difficult speech. However, just don't run around and claim that you are an Indian when you aren't and that you personally have been oppressed. Let's say that I am a white person that lives in Kentucky and I attend a Baptist church and my parents came the United States from South Africa, do you really believe that I could run around and write books on Irish experience of oppression in Belfast? No. But that is what he is doing. And you are calling it a cheap shot. It is not a cheap shot. It goes to who and what he is. He is what we call in Indian Country a Wannabee. There is a whole tribe of Indians called the Wannabee Indians and he is the Chief. The people that making the complaints about his fake Indian heritage are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination either: Suzan Harjo (worked for Bill Clinton), Dennis Banks (Founder of the American Indian Movement), etc. He can say wherever he wants about 9/11 or America, but he shouldn't lie and claim that he is an Indian when he isn't. And schools like the Univ of Colorado should do a better job of doing there homework when they hire a someone and put out to the world that he is an Indian because he isn't.----Keetoowah 17:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah: very simply, before your 50 or so edits yesterday, this page already said quite clearly that Churchill cannot prove he is an Indian, and it still does. It used to say, and now does, that this does not disprove his claims to be an Indian - until you show me a source that his researched his past and shown that he definitely does not have the ancestry he claims, rather than that just shows he can't prove it, then his claim is moot. This should be the position. Your editting added a massive volume of rather nebulous argument which as I far as I can see mainly has the effect of making it seem like something has been proven by sheer volume of argument, when in fact all it tells us is what we already know, that we do not know for sure whether Churchill is an Indian or not. XmarkX 11:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear XmarkX: I understand your desire to edit it down in size, that is understandable and I can't argue with that. Your streamlining of the section makes sense. However, you did take out information that is critical and not redundant. You took out the information from Jodi Rave. That information was cited and sourced and it was not redundant. It was unique in that Jodi Rave is a news reporter in Montana now and she once was a student of Churchill's at the Univ of Colorado. That information should go back in. It is relavant, sourced and not redundant. So I beg to differ at your editing. Also, the sentence that you added at the end is exactly what you claimed that you were attempting to remove. You added: "It should be noted that the inability to prove Native American ancestry merely means that Churchill's claims have neither been proven nor disproved." This sentence is NOT NPOV. You are not citing a source for your opinion that Churchill's Indian heritage is proven or not. It is simply your opinion. I respect your opinion but if you are attempting to make the section NPOV then you should interject your point of view into the section either. If it is NPOV then you provide the information and you let the reader decide--you don't tell the reader that Churchill's Indian heritage is neither proven or disproven. I happen to personally have much more information about Mr. Churchill from my own personally dealing with the guy; however, I have not stated anywhere that his Indian heritage is either proven or disproven. My opinion is just as irrelavant as yours. Therefore, your statement will be removed by me because you are flatly stating that is neither proven or disproven. That is your opinion. Period. It shouldn't state anything on the topic. I'm going to take out your opinion filled comment and I am going to put back in Jodi Rave's story.----Keetoowah 15:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Keetoowah: first off, I want to thank you for your restraint. I know how hurtful/irritating it is to see one's own work removed, and I basically expected you'd revert me again. Now, I do think there was a basic problem with the Jodi Rave material that I removed. The claims you made were not backed up by the cited source. That source was an article by Rave simply drawing attention to the doubts about Churchill's Indian heritage, and does not mention any of the stuff you had put in about her personal dealings with him. You claim that she said these things in the Rocky Mountain News, but don't provide any more specific evidence. I think there were more problems beyond the lack of referencing, but that is irrelevent, since the lack of referencing was serious enough for that section to be removed.XmarkX 17:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Jodi Rave allegations have been printed in the Montana paper for which she writes and it has been reported in the either Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News. I will re-write the information and make my citation of its source much more clear. I will cite both sources when I figure out which Denver paper it was and, of course, her employer, the Montana paper. I can see how I did not make a clear sourcing/citation. But when I re-do it I will make it clear.-----Keetoowah 18:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear XmarkX, Ward Churchill admitted in front of dozens of reporters and in front of TV cameras, last night, February 22, 2005, that he is NOT in fact an Indian. He has been lying about his heritage for many, many years and people like me, who live and work in Indian Country everyday, have known for years that he was out and out lying about his heritage. I repeat: Ward Churchill during his speech at the University of Hawaii admitted that he is NOT an Indian. The comment, word for word, was published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 10, Issue 54--Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Churchill attacks essay’s critics by Craig Gima. [1] I'm going to attempt to be gracious but I have to say that you and Fred Bauder missed the boat on this one. I'm not going to do it tonight because I do need sleep, but there is going to be huge re-write of the article tomorrow because the article is just flat out wrong now. These "allegations" of "fabrications" have been provable facts of fabrications. It calls into questions so many other things about the guy. What other things is he out and out lying about??? But more importantly the way that the section on his fake Indian heritage needs to be completely re-written. Considering the arrogant and sanctimous way that he has treated people like me in Indian Country who dared to question his Indian heritage claims over the years, I think that Indian heritage section needs to play a more centralized role in the article and tomorrow that role is coming. So many people--who do NOT even live in Indian Country, who do NOT work in Indian Country--made the claim that to dare question the great Ward Churchill's fake Indian heritage was a "cheap shot." We have been hearing that from non-Indians for many, many years and now Churchill has admitted that he lied about it for over 20 years. He claims that it merely a misunderstanding created by some sloppy reporters. That is a damn lie too. He has been claiming Indian heritage for over 20 years. It is written on either the front cover or back cover of his numerous books. He refers to the fake Indian scam in newspaper article after newspaper article. He committed fraud when he applied to the University of Colorado. The Denver Post has published his employment application and on that application he claimed that he is Indian for affirmation action purposes. That is a damned lie. There is going to be re-write and Jodi Rave's comments are going back in and all the rest. Your attempts to stifle the topic has ended by Churchill himself.-----Keetoowah 04:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin is now admitting they misquoted him, "Churchill misquoted in article on UH speech", see [2] Fred Bauder 12:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fred Bauder: So what? They misquoted him. He is NOT an Indian. I placed in the article a citation from either the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News where the Keetoowah Band specific states that that Churchill is NOT a member of his tribe. XmarkX, however, removed it. XmarkX claims that the citation, on this topic he was not very specific, was redundant. That article was NOT redundant. All of the information that placed in the article is going back in. And going forward the burden will be on others to prove that the information should not be in there. In Honolulu, Churchill contradicted himself again. There are citations where he claims that he is Creek and now in Honolulu he claims that he is Keetoowah. But in the same breath he ADMITS that he is less than one fourth and therefore he does NOT qualify to be a member of the Tribe. You think that because the Honolulu paper states that they misquoted him that gets him off the hook on this issue. It does NOT. He has claimed, once again to the either Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News--once again, it was in my original edits and taken out by XmarkX--that he qualifies for membership in the Cherokee Nation. You are pointing to his comments in Honolulu as some kind of vindication for Churchill. But it is NOT because in the Honolulu speech he contradicts the comment that he made that he qualifies for the Cherokee Nation, but to be a member of the Cherokee Nation he would have to have one quarter and he clearly stated that he does NOT. Once again, it comes back to this edit war. For some reason, XmarkX does not want these contradictory comments of Churchill concerning his fake Indian heritage to be placed in the article. I don't know why. However, the information is going back in. Neither you or XmarkX have given sufficient reasons to keep this important information about Churchill out of the article. I have given five or six different articles where the guy contradicts himself on this topic and it has been deleted from the article. Look: if you both are sympathetic to his anti-America rants that's fine, but why do you feel that since he engages in anti-America rants that takes him off the hook for lying about his fake Indian heritage. I cited a direct quote from the Keetoowah constitution that specifically states that to be a member of the Keetoowah Band the applicate must be one quarter and XmarkX took the citation out of the article. Now in the speech in Honolulu, Churchill admits that he is NOT one quarter and therefore he does not qualify for membership. In Honolulu, he is basically admitting that he is not Creek because he did NOT even attempt to make that claim again, with all of the press watching him. In Honolulu, he is basically admitting that he is not Metis as he has claimed in the past. In Honolulu, he admits that he not a member of the Keetoowah Band. And the Keetoowah Band has flatly stated that he is not on their tribal roles and that they do NOT consider him a member of the Band. After his comments in Honolulu, his claims to Indian heritage seems unbelivably weak and I don't hear very good arguments from either you or XmarkX, who keeps taking out relevant information, why the citations should stay out of the article. I even put a citation to a Denver Post article where the reporter did genalogical research on Churchill's claims--and the results are printed in the Denver Post article--where the Denver Post reporter concluded that Churchill is not an Indian based upon his parentage, but yet XmarkX took out that citation from the article. What is the deal?? Let's just put the information out there and let people decide for themselves why does XmarkX feel that he either has to decide for the Wikipedian readers or protect Churchill. Let's get all of the information in one place and let reader decide for themselves. Let them see where Churchill claims to be qualified for the Cherokee Nation and then later when questioned he admits in Honolulu that he does NOT qualify for the Cherokee Nation. Let them see for themselves that Churchill used to claim that he was a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but now in Honolulu he no longer claims Creek ancestry. Let them see for themselves the ancestry investigation work that the Denver Post did on the guy and they will see that one person that he claims is Indian is four generations removed from him and that even though he claims that the person was Indian, researchers know from historical records that the guy was probably NOT an Indian at all and was definitely an Indian fighter. Why does XmarkX feel that the comments of Jodi Rave, a Montana reporter, who once took a class from Churchill, must be removed from the article. Rave has reported he mistreatment by Churchill to the school administrators at Colorado U. She reported the abuse and mistreatment by Churchill in the Daily Coloradan. She has now written an article for her current employer in Montana and XmarkX claims the Rave information is not backed up enough. Why the cover up? Why? This man has been abusive to Indians throughout his career and for some reason his followers don't seem to care. They just like the anti-America rants as far as I can figure out. However, his anti-American rants would NOT have gotten the attention that they have if did NOT claim that he was Indian. He got his professorship at Colorado because he claimed that he was Indian. The guy does NOT even have an academic PhD. All of the information is going back in the article.-----Keetoowah 03:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 'so what' is very simple: you're quoting him as making a statement he seemingly did not make, and referencing an article that's since been corrected. (As the correction now appears in the linked article, this simply looks ridiculous.) If he's made such an admission elsewhere, then quote those, or if you wish to re-describe the H.S-B content more accurately, fair enough; but it's not feasible to simply ignore the correction completely. I'm re-reverting the change in question. Also, please don't mark wholewhole changes as "minor edits". Alai 19:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My comment "so what?" stills stands, even after reading your comments. I did NOT quote him from that article. But I did revert your changes. The truth is that both the quote from the Honolulu article and your edits were BOTH mischaracterizations of the situation. You are obviously not aware of the whole situation surrounding Churchill. You quote Churchill as stating that he is NOT a full member of the Keetoowah Band. That is only partially right and since it is only partially correct on your part that makes it incorrect. Yes, that is what he stated in the Honolulu article, just because that is what he stated does NOT make it true. Someone else took down the information where the Keetoowah Band states to the world that he is NOT on the Keetoowah Band's roles and the Keetoowah Band does NOT consider him a member. So before you go off half cocked maybe you should check your facts. Also, he should not be telling anyone that he is member of the tribe when he isn't and your argument is basically: "This is what he said and we should just stick to that." Yes, whoever quoted the incorrect version of the Honolulu article should not have done that, but it was NOT me so your lecture is inappropriate and unwanted. Maybe you need to check your facts next time before your decide to give me a lecture. Keep in mind that your mischaracterization of the Churchill situation is NOT correct either and it will be edited and corrected. And finally, I don't need your lectures about the minor edits.----Keetoowah 23:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you don't need my lectures on minor edits, then please adhere to the policy on using them. As since making this comment you've just made two non-minor edits marked 'minor', I must disagree with your conclusion about their necessity. I certainly don't claim to be aware of the whole situation about Churchill, but's that's not at issue here. The quotes were in the context of the HSB article: '"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," [Churchill] said. http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html, to quote the exact text I most recently editted. Alai 00:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I edited your work because 90% of what you added to the Churchill article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin article was irrelevant and off point. It did NOT fit in the article and was unnecessary. It was removed. However, I did leave in your characterization of what Churchill said, but I put Churchill's comment in proper perspective by bringing in fully sourced citations from appropriate authorities that completely, directly, contradicted his comments. HSB added the complete and total comments of Churchill and you added them to this Wikipedia article, but I removed them because they, as I stated, are irrelevant and off point and, quite frankly, complete gibberish from Churchill.-----Keetoowah 03:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rant

This material:

"Using inflammatory speech with manufactured passion, he ‘professes’ his masses instead of teaching his students to make their own interpretations of the world around them. Any questioning view of his is met with dismissal. This tyrannical technique is comparable to those seen by Adolph Hitler in Germany in the 1930s with the rise of the Third Reich. (Churchill himself has ‘played the Nazi card’, describing the victims of the 9/11 attacks as ‘little Eichmans’.)"

would be quite valuable if it were sourced. I can imagine it being a valid expression of how it feels to be in his classes, but it must be well referenced from some reputable source. Even the Colorado Daily would do, but a rant, even if based on personal experience, is not enough. Fred Bauder 22:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Meeting with Gadhafi

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540067,00.html

oh and the Raeliens http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?extend.20

Churchill and Painting

I saw this on the news and found a article about it at http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

They talk about how Churchill copyied a Thomas E. Mails painting and sold it. And they comfornted Churchill about it.

It is a really good article but I am not that good at editing a page to put this in Churchill's article so if someone thinks this article is good and wants to add it to Churchill's article it would be awesome.

This page in its present condition is highly problematical. This entry wrongly places the present controversy as the central and preeminent feature of the topic, Ward Churchill. The original author left out nearly half of Ward Churchill's books which I needed to fill in. Also, why does the first line define Ward Churchill as a"radical leftist"? Would it not be much more appropriate and accurate to rather label him an "Indigenist" as he himself has done?

If he is NOT a "radical Leftist," then is he a "radical Centrist" or a "radical right-winger"? No. He is a radical Leftist, so we will call him that. He simply made up the word "indigenist." Why should we call him a name that he made up??? That is ludicrous. Hey, I know, let's call him a "Ludicrist" because he is a clown and I just made up the word. Yeah, that's it. Let's call him a "radical ludicrist." No, I'm wrong. Since he is fake Indian. Let's call him a "radical Wannabeist." He can be the Chief of the Wannabeist Indians. The guy lies about his heritage, he makes claims that he is member of the Creek Indians, then people find out that is NOT true so he starts claiming that he is a member of the Cherokee Nation, but the Cherokee Nation will NOT recognize him because he is NOT an Indian so he starts saying that he is Keetoowah, they make him a honorary member because they think that he will help them get federal recognition, but he starts to mis-use that honorary title by telling people that he REALLY is an Indian so the Keetoowah's kick him out, and now he runs around and makes up a word, "Indigenist" and you want to call him that just because HE says that he is one!!!!!! Let's just say that he can be the Chief of the Wannabeists.-----Keetoowah 14:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non NPOV Tag

Some anonymous user came in and put a Non NPOV tag on the whole page. Of course, someone can edit without giving their name. That is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia policy, but putting on the Non NPOV Tag requires that the User attempt to reach a consensus with the other users. The anonymous user did not do this. There is no comments on this Talk page and there is no attempts to communicate with the other users. So in light of the lack of information the non NPOV tag is going to be taken down. I cannot, and other users cannot, work out what problems the anonymous user perceived with the Ward Churchill article. The decision to put the Non NPOV tag on the page without even attempting to work out the issues and at least explaining what the anonymous user believed the issues to be is a violation of Wikipedia policy. In light of all of this lack of attempt to reach a consensus the Non NPOV tag will be removed.-----Keetoowah 04:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia policy states:

As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles. Compare and contrast this with another guideline—to be bold in updating pages.-----Keetoowah 04:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.----Keetoowah 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adding a 4-character tag is not a drastic change. It simply labels the the blatantly polemical article for what it was. It's been cleaned up considerably since then, though it's still a long way from neutral.

Whoever you are, you are NOT following policy. You are refusing to state who you are and you not stating what the problems are other than making a grand statement of non NPOV. You only wrote something on the Talk page when I wrote something on the Talk page.-----Keetoowah 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a polemical article. Practically everything in it is an attack on Churchill. It doesn't say anything substantive about him that isn't written to put him in a negative light. That is not neutrality.

Once again, you are commenting on a Talk page anonymously, which is against policy. Why don't you step and state who you are. And once again, you a making generalized statements. That won't do the trick.-----Keetoowah 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of any policy against posting on talk pages anonymously. If such a policy existed, it could easily be enforced by the software. So I believe there's no such policy.

That is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. You are obviously not commenting and working in good faith. Once again, you aren't giving specifics you are arguing about policy. I will simply repeat the direct quotes from the policies involved: "As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles." AND "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question." Obviously, I'm not making any changes based upon comments since you can't follow basic policies and, of course, you haven't made any concrete suggestions or comments.-----Keetoowah 20:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm sure you have taken leave of your senses, if you had any. You said "you are commenting on a Talk page anonymously, which is against policy". I expressed skepticism of such a policy and you backed off to "many Wikipedians prefer", which is not a policy, it's simply a "preference" of "many wikipedians". Also, I'm no more anonymous posting without logging in than I'd be if I made up a wiki nickname and logged in under it. So your notion that I'm trying to dodge lawsuits by not logging in is completely insane. Finally, you are the one acting in poor faith. Everything in the wiki article is aimed at smearing Churchill and a lot of it is (or was) sourced from right wing political propagandists who have their own agendas against Churchill's politics. You are clearly trying to promote an external agenda with your edits. That is the very essence of non-NPOV posting.

I had it with your personal attacks. This is why you are posting anonymously so you can engage in personal attacks. You are a damn liar. I have not posted 90% of what is on Churchill's page, so your BS is just that. Also, calling Dennis Banks a right-winger, the man that started the American Indian Movement indicates that you do not know a damn thing about which you blowing off moronic comments. Get over yourself.--Keetoowah 14:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)