Talk:Ward Churchill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWard Churchill was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
July 13, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Clarification needed![edit]

As present the article says "It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim that the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim has been criticized as a falsification."

This reads like the whole concept of smallpox blankets used to destroy the indians is 1) an idea of Churchill, 2) is considered to be a falsification.

Yet in reality Churchill was found guilty of inventing an incident that allegedly happened at Fort Clark against the Mandan Indians in 1837. (Near Missouri river in todays North Dakota) and this story was found to be completely fabricated and that led to Churchill's being found guilty of academic misconduct. (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009?rgn=main;view=fulltext).

There are other cases, proven and documented by contemporary sources, when smallpox blankets were really used to extirpate the indians and neither the use of smallpox, nor the intent to completely annihilate the indians is questioned. (http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html)

Please reword the cited sentence so it states clearly what was questioned and proven false otherwise it is wrong and greatly misleading. (I would do it myself if i felt capable to.) 176.63.176.112 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

okay, i have reworded it, now it is "It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim of an alleged incident in which the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim of this incident has been criticized as a falsification." It points to the particular falsification instead of denying the smallpox blankets (which are proven) altogether. However if anyone can make the text more fluent or clearer, pls dont hesitate.176.63.176.112 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Underlying the particular falsification would appear to be a second one, namely that the distribution of smallpox blankets by anyone in the USA ever happened at all. The notorious Fort Pitt incident was before the USA existed. There appears to be in fact zero evidence that any US citizen or agency ever did such a thing. But it's become an American myth, yet one which Ward Churchill was happy to liken to genocide. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.45.3 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babel, babel[edit]

As a long-time WP editor, I'm really put off by this article's excessive tirade about Churchill's heritage. It's not only un-encyclopedic, it's clearly an ad hominem exercise (as is most criticism of Churchill). A brief recap of the decades-long slurring would be adequate ... and leave room for a balanced critical description of the point-of-view he has consistently represented for all that time. Briefly said, it's currently the crappiest bio (of the living or the dead) I've encountered on Wikipedia in 14 years. Twang (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Ward Churchill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox isn't caused by infected blankets[edit]

The article reads: "In 2005, University of Colorado Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct,[37] including three allegations of plagiarism, and four allegations of fabrication or falsification regarding the history of the Dawes Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and statements that smallpox was intentionally spread to Native Americans by John Smith in 1614 and by the United States Army at Fort Clark in 1837 (not to be confused with the well-documented use of smallpox-infected blankets at Fort Pitt in 1764)."

It is worth pointing out in the article that this is not an effective means of spreading smallpox. Smallpox is spread primarily by face to face contact, sneezing, saliva, etc.--not by sharing articles that have been used by infected people. Attempts at weaponizing the smallpox disease have failed. It is not an effective biological agent, not now, and not in the 18th century.107.77.207.110 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it happened at least once in the 1760s -- see Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst and Henry Bouquet -- but I don't think there's any evidence it was a general or often-recurring practice. AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he now?[edit]

Or perhaps, what is he doing now? Has he retired? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't held an academic post since he was fired from Boulder in 2007. The most recent Google News coverage is here in September 2018, when he spoke at an event in Pittsburgh.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment[edit]

I have tagged this article for a good article reassessment. This article was listed as a good article back in 2009. Surprising. I just made some changes (reorganizing, adding information on personal life, and condensing the lead) that help, but it still doesn't fit the criteria for a good article. Too much unsourced material/original research. Also, there is little to nothing about Churchill's work or activities following the disposition of his lawsuit, so the article may need an update. I don't believe that it's well-written enough to be a good article, either. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. Femke (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations, cleanup banners, lack of updates on post-2009 work, poor prose in areas (elaboration on the talk page) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The "Writings" section definitely needs a trim / citation update that only uses primary source references as extra backup. That said, I'm not convinced "lack of updates on post-2009 work" is a problem. Google News seems to show that the only notable thing that happened after 2009 was the Supreme Court rejecting his appeal in 2013 - which is already in the article - and him showing up at U Colorado Boulder for a single 90-minute speaking / venting session in 2017, which was barely newsworthy and really just an excuse to tell his story again. Everything else seems to be retrospectives talking about the original incident, the 9/11 deal, and so on. It seems like he hasn't really done much of anything notable since 2009. (To be clear, I agree that the prose & citations in writing sections still need to be fixed for the article to stay a GA - just not the "comprehensive" concern.) SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No edits on the article after a month, problems remain unresolved. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this must be delisted, no improvements on warranted and reasonable buidhe and SnowFire suggestions.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have no opinion about good article status, but noting for the record that the initial complainant, IP address 74.67.6.88, was blocked here on 6 Feb as a sock of User:SunCrow. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&oldid=1215783218"