Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 7

Anon on anti-Churchill slant

I agree with the person who asks whether this Wikipedia article is an extension of Rocky Mtn. News. This came to mind several times as I was reading the article. I also think that the anti-Churchill bias is quite apparent. Although the man is surrounded by a great deal of controversy no doubt, there are also many who agree with his politics and those people are not represented at all, not to mention the many who likely have balanced opinions on his work, accepting that he makes some intelligent points about world politics while also engaging in questionable academic procedures.

Real Native Americans see Ward Churchill as a liar and a fake

One of the major isuses we Native Americans have with Churchill is from the begining he was a liar and elaborated on his Native background. The majority of Native people see him as a joke or with disdain. In every major American Indian newspaper, Indian forums, Indian conferences Ward Churchill is considered a fraud and phoney. We see him as one who uses Indians for his own ego.

Churchill complained and was against the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which protected Indian artists against fraudulent phoney Indian artists, like himself. Our tribal art is one of ways we American Indians are connected to our culture. A lot of Indians of the Southwest live solely off the sales of their pottery, jewelery and other crafts. The Act was created to protect Indian artists from "phoney Wannabee Indian" art who were flooding the market at the peril real Indian artisans, yet Churchill railed against it. He did so because Churchill was copying peoples artwork and selling it as "American Indian" art.

Churchill also complained about Indian blood degree used by the Indian Nations. Most of those who complain bitterly about that have questionable Indian hertiage. There are some people who have valid complaints, but most who vilify Tribal Nations blood quantum do so because they have very little Indian blood or like Churchill, no Indian blood at all.

For years before he wrote that piece about 9/11 some Native American activists had been trying to address the fact that Ward Churchill was a fake and liar to the University of Colorado. Several well-known Indian activists had written the University, but they never responded to the concerns of the American Indian people. They instead continued to pay this phoney instead of hiring a qualified Indian professor. Ward Churchill knowingly lied on his job application claiming he was an Indian, when in reality he was a 100% white. In fact his ancestors were really Indian killers and slave owners. Yet this is the type of person the University of Colorado has teaching Indian studies. A person whose ancestors embarked on genocide against black and Indian people.

I suggest that the University fire this liar and fake and hire a real Native American person to teach Native studies, not a descendent of slave owners and Indian killers. Yosemite Indian

Good comments Yosemite Indian! It is good to see another Native reading and commenting on this page. It has been frustrating to hear only the comments of non-Indian editors who are sympathetic to Churchill simply because he spouts off anti-American rhetoric and because of that sympathy are biased in their edits--attempting to cover up his anti-Indian agenda and his fake Indian status to take jobs, contracts and work from actual more qualified Indians. What you stated is well researched and well-spoken. Hope to see more of your editing. P.S. mark your comments for reference!-----Keetoowah 00:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

article seriously flawed

I didn't know wikipedia was an extension of "rocky mountain news." This is your source? Where do they get their material? They interview a bunch of cranks and opportunists and publish this as "controversy," then you use up 2/3 of the article simply mouthing this crap. Almost all the other links don't even connect with anything. What a joke.130.63.100.82 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your complaint is the joke here. The Rocky interviewed the professors and authors that Churchill plagiarized and falsified. Who else were they supposed to interview about these issues? Your characterization of these writers as "cranks and opportunists" reveals your true colors. (unsigned comment by User:Pokey5945)

"Treason"

I would like an explanation for the removal of the following:

On technical and legal grounds, the governor's argument is flawed. The Smith Act, which previously declared it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government, was declared unconstitutional in 1957, protecting the free speech rights of communists, socialists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries.

Am I the only one that's bothered by just repeating the drivel of some governor with no regard to fact? Isn't it a bit disturbing to suggest that people can be accused of treason simply for their beliefs? The above sentence, and the way treason is defined in the constitution, puts the governor's comment in context. I feel that this is being ignored because a certain user or certain users see this article simply as a vehicle to defame Ward Churchill. --Tothebarricades 00:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tothebarricdes.tk: No one is defaming Churchill. You make a strong accusation and should back up that comment or shut up. What is the definition of defame and how does this article defame Churchill??? Why isn't Churchill suing anyone over the comments in the article if it truly defames someone. Isn't it a bit disturbing to know that you, who knows nothing about the laws of defamation can accuse others of defamation when you obviously do not know what you are talking about??? You don't even know what defame means. Now you expect Wikipedia to repeat your drivel when you are NOT an expert on the topic of treason. You expect Wikipedia to repeat your drivel when you have NOT provided a citation for the words that you want to insert in the article to defend the man that delights in the murder of people in the WTC. If what the Governor of Colorado has stated is defamatory, why hasn't your hero filed a defamation sue in Colorado court??? The comment will be removed by me over and over again until you provide a citation to a published recognized source for the comment and NOT just you and some words that you got out of your high school text book.------Keetoowah 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, how about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act? I didn't get the information "out of my high school text," I was just illustrating that the facts involved aren't exactly obscure. As for the "defame" comment, I wasn't using it in the legal sense - obviously. And since you defamed him in this sense in the very paragraph above I feel no need to further qualify my comment. And furthermore, I would like to know how you are more of an "expert on the topic of treason" than I am? Or that such expertise is necessary to edit articles on a free and open encyclopedia? It's a simple question of neutrality and factual accuracy. Don't resort to personal attacks, please. Calm down. --Tothebarricades 02:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Keetoowah has now attacked Tothebarricades within two hours of his first posting here. Taken in conjunction with similar attacks on me, Slimvirgin, Cberlet, Viajero, Fred Bauder, and zen master (in order of recency), this is an unacceptable level of aggression. I have raised a request for arbitration. Please could we all show courtesy and respect for other editors. —Theo (Talk) 12:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Why? are you suffering from a lack of respect? The company's I work for don't respect me when they edit my work. The chew me up and spit me out. Maybe that's why you don't have a real writing job, Theo -- you can't stand the pressure. So you bring your leftist-racism here and try to bully a Keetoowah member into conceding to your liberal western world view by intimidating him or her with a threat of administrative intervention that has nothing to do with the content of the article. I don't see you responding substantively to the content at all-- you're spending your time making Keetoowah out to be a "bad, wild injun." Racists liberals like you remind me that the grandfather of liberalism -- of state socialism. We kicked his ass in '45 and if we have to do it again, we are locked and loaded. Stand down. If you want respect, earn it. If you don't get it, learn to live without it. It's not Keetoowah's mission in live to provide your fragile ego with respect, nor is it my purpose. WizUp 10:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT personally attack you. That is a falsehood. You are simply upset that I pointed out how your were and are wrong. You are attempting to use political correctness to manhandle me into agreeing with your point of view. That is wrong.You don't like what I stated. Simple as that. You one defamed Churchill. And the comments that you want to put in the article are not supported by a third party outside of Wikipedia. They are just your personal opinions. You have not provided a citation for the commentary that you want to put in the article. Where is the citation????? Who is the expert??? You???? That is fine if you can provide me with a published article by one on this topic and you can provide your credentials. That you have not done. You are simply angry that I am right and that I'm not going to simply put your personal opinions in the article. Where is the citation???? Please provide that citation and then we have something to talk about.------Keetoowah 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that I need to provide a citation, and I definitely do not need to be an expert! I am a college student. I read books. I edit the encyclopedia. That's how this thing works, if you didn't know. I would say that YOU should provide citations to show that Churchill is somehow guilty of treason, because that's the more bizarre claim. Bill Owens's remark is an opinion, constitutional law is not; it is quite simply a fact that it is not treasonous to advocate the overthrow of the government. By your definition of treason, I am also a traitor because I am an anarchist. Perhaps I'll give you my name and address, so that we can arrange for my trial. Maybe they'll let you execute me yourself. :) --Tothebarricades 19:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proving how ridiculous you sound. Clearly you are way off the topic and you need to read the rules of Wikipedia.-----Keetoowah 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you are quite the character. Godspeed in your arbitration efforts, Theo. --Tothebarricades 04:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The "Treason" section has to go. Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Even if you hate Ward Churchill, there is simply no way that what he said rises to the level of treason under the US Constitution. Descendall 05:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Descendall: You missed the point entirely. Tothebarricades does not have a citation for his essay. Wikipedia is not for someone to create an essay. Tothebarricades has not provided a recognized source for the opinion that Tothebarricades wants to place in the article. The debate that I was attempting to have with Tothebarricades was about the appropriateness of Tothebarricades edit. However, TheoClarke and Tothebarricades have chosen NOT to debate the appropriateness of Tothebarricades's edit, but to attack me personally. That is way that someone who is losing the argument does, change the subject.-----Keetoowah 14:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not concerned with what someone wrote a while ago. The bottom line is that there is simply no way the Ward Churchill could be convicted of treason under the United States Constitution. Treason is the only criminal offense that is spelled out in the US Constitution, and Churchill didn't do anything that rose it its definition. Unless someone can provide evidence that Churchill has waged war against the United States or given aid and comfort to someone else who is, it should be taken out. Descendall 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Descendall: You make a good point. It is possible that Churchill did not commit treason. However, we just don't know and the main point is that as Wikipedians it is not up to us to decide. The charge of treason has been made by the Governor of Colorado and whether you agree with it or not the Governor spoke for quite a few people. You are making the argument that you have looked at what Churchill stated and you have looked at what the Constitution demands and you have came to your own personal conclusion that Churchill did not commit treason. (I would point out that you have not mentioned whether you have looked a the Federal Court cases on the matter, but that is not important.) However, it is beside the point whether you or I believe that Churchill committed treason is relevant. There are people that think he did and the Governor of Colorado speaks for them. The fully sourced, fully cited comment should stay in the article.-----Keetoowah 14:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Any Recent Developments?

Gas anything of substance happened relating to this guy of late? Last I heard the University was investigating the allegations. As school is now back from break, have they made a decision? Paul, in Saudi 13:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

They are still investigating, and it could take as long as five months to reach a decision. The process is supposed to be confidential, so we won't get any rel;iable info from CU, just spin from Churchill and his lawyer.

Temp page discussion moved here

The "temp" page is now at Talk:Ward Churchill/temp

The Lead

As it stands (April 17, 2005 version) the lead is a POV editorial against Churchill and cearly violates the concept of brilliant prose and the inverted pyramid found in many of the better leads in Wikipedia. Editors who make this into an attack piece on Churchill or who misstate the facts should save those opinions for their various blogs, web sites and talk pages. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place to bandwagon your ideas, it's an encyclopedia which has a nonnegotiable policy that articles be written with a neutral point of view. When anyone, especially an American citizen, thinks about Churchill's essay, he would do well to ponder the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The quote was mentioned in Hamilton College's statement regarding cancellation of Churchill's appearance after Bill O'Reilly initiated a campaign against Churchill, resulting in threats against the professor's life and threats of violence directed toward the private university. Calicocat 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely, esp with OWH and the Voltaire who inspired him. The Hausaud version is bad, very bad in places. The Viajero/Zenmaster version is not as bad, but it seems to obviously want to cut out anything that reveals the controversies involving Ward. Such controversial subjects need pro/con treatment I think and that's what we can achieve I hope. TonyMarvin 10:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The lead does not appear to have any of the problems you claim it does. Could you site a specific complaint?--198.93.113.49 14:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Marketplace of Ideas

Prof. Churchill has a right to attack the current policy in Iraq. The tradition of academic aid to foreign enemies is decades old and should be upheld. Why should Prof. Churchill be singled out? Almost every academician, from Noah Chmpsky to Harold Hochberger, has given comfort to terrorists and Prof. Churchill is no exception.

In the marketplace of Ideas, frauds such as Churchill will get criticism also. So, if you really believe in Free Speech then you should believe in my right to call Churchill a Fake Indian, if I want to.--Keetoowah 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

impartiality regarding volatile material?

I would sugest that the current piece is biased, and that wikipedia is impugning what little legitimacy it has be presenting it as such.... for revision i would suggest that the following sections from the introduction be moved to another section

"Churchill received national attention in January 2005 for an essay he wrote following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he described the attacks as "chickens coming home to roost," and some of the people working in the World Trade Center as a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" and as "little Eichmanns." [1]

The subsequent controversy and intense media coverage led to an examination of Churchill's academic qualifications, allegations that he had violated scholarly and journalistic standards in his writing, and claims that he has mischaracterized or lied about his ethnic background (either in order to receive his honorary Ph.D. or his current position with the University of Colorado, or both)."

This section may or may not be legitimate, but as a lead it fails.... perhaps something more neutral, such as an analyses of his theories? with some refutations if the right-wingers can't stomach such a representation.

anyways, consider my point, if you wish... K

Dear K: You are wrong. The lead does not fail. The lead quotes Churchill directly on the topic that made him famous. His outrageous comments are the only reason for his coverage nationally. Not to quote them in the lead would be left-wing bias and prejudice. It is unfortunate that you are advocating such obvious bias and prejudice. You have allowed your political leanings to dictate your editing work.-----Keetoowah 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfair & arbitrary deletions by Keetoowah

Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?--Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... I spent quite a bit of work today trying to get this page improved. I didn't take out much of the various criticisms of Churchill, but I tried to get them into an actual narrative flow, rather than just reading like a bunch of random quotes thrown at the page. I did also try to put in a bit of stuff for balance, like the quote from CU President Betsy Hoffman expressing concern about academic freedom.

And the art stuff is notable too... I admit I know some of it from personal acquaintaince (I've seen his work in galleries, and own the drawing I included as an example); but it's not exactly a secret that Churchill is an artist. In fact, all the silly allegations of plagerizing art don't even make any sense if he isn't an artist. Someone's not going to suddenly make a plagerized lithograph without knowing how to make a lithograph in the first place! Certainly if there is any real question, we can dig up some citations to gallery reviews or the like.

While it's understandable given the national attention, this article is quite unbalanced as a bio. Some right wing national press decided to make an example of Churchill, and so we have these endlessly recycled half-sensible sound bytes about it filling most of the article. But in fact, Churchill was a pretty well known scholar ten years before any of this ever happened. Sure, minus Fox News, his article would be quite a bit shorter; but his fifteen books are well read in philosophy, political science, and several other departments courses (like ethnic studies, where they are taught). Churchill isn't uniquely important in that regard, but he's up there with the top dozen or two notable critics of US foreign policy in academia, quite apart from the recent scapegoating and hysteria. This article would be a lot better if it gave a better sense that Churchill was not suddenly generated as a chthonic golem in 2004. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu's and Cberlet's Defamatory Comments Toward Keetoowah

Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?--Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cberlet: What I did was quite simple. I returned the changes concerning the ethnicity issues to state that they were in before Lulu came along. For example, Lulu charges on this page (See below.) that I am misquoting the Keetoowah band. That is quite clearly untrue. I quoted the Keetoowah directly from their Web site. Please review the Keetoowah's Web site yourself. Please don't jump to conclusion because you have some kind of bias toward wanting to defend Churchill for whatever reason. Clearly Lulu has a personal bias also. Go to the Keetoowah's Web site and move all the way down to very end of the various statements. The original statement of the Keetoowah is the one that I am quoting. It is the official position of the tribe. I personally know the Keetoowah and I know that they do not know you and I can't be sure of this but I would be more than willing to bet that they don't know Lulu. I would also be willing to bet that Lulu is not very aware of the issues between Churchill and the tribe because his edits give him away that he just does not know the topic. He is allowing his bias to guide him, not a knowledge of the topic. If was fully aware of the topic then he would know that I have had this discussion--concerning the proper quoting of the tribe--with other Wikipedian editors and I have guided them to the proper quote before. If Lulu and you were aware of the discussion that took place on the Churchill Talk Page then you would be aware of the proper quote. Please Cberlet and Lulu do your research first before you make wholesale changes to the document. That due diligence would include reviewing the all the comments on the article's talk page.--Keetoowah 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... I spent quite a bit of work today trying to get this page improved. I didn't take out much of the various criticisms of Churchill, but I tried to get them into an actual narrative flow, rather than just reading like a bunch of random quotes thrown at the page. I did also try to put in a bit of stuff for balance, like the quote from CU President Betsy Hoffman expressing concern about academic freedom.

And the art stuff is notable too... I admit I know some of it from personal acquaintaince (I've seen his work in galleries, and own the drawing I included as an example); but it's not exactly a secret that Churchill is an artist. In fact, all the silly allegations of plagerizing art don't even make any sense if he isn't an artist. Someone's not going to suddenly make a plagerized lithograph without knowing how to make a lithograph in the first place! Certainly if there is any real question, we can dig up some citations to gallery reviews or the like.

While it's understandable given the national attention, this article is quite unbalanced as a bio. Some right wing national press decided to make an example of Churchill, and so we have these endlessly recycled half-sensible sound bytes about it filling most of the article. But in fact, Churchill was a pretty well known scholar ten years before any of this ever happened. Sure, minus Fox News, his article would be quite a bit shorter; but his fifteen books are well read in philosophy, political science, and several other departments courses (like ethnic studies, where they are taught). Churchill isn't uniquely important in that regard, but he's up there with the top dozen or two notable critics of US foreign policy in academia, quite apart from the recent scapegoating and hysteria. This article would be a lot better if it gave a better sense that Churchill was not suddenly generated as a chthonic golem in 2004. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu's false and defamatory comments about Keetoowah and Lulu's Ignorance of the topic

Dear Lulu: You are absolutely wrong when you state that I am vandalizing the page and that I am putting bogus quotes on the page. This is perfect example of how you and Cberlet do not know what you talking about. Please review the coments above of mine. Please review the previous discussion of this issue on the Churchill talk page (in the archives ) and Please review the Keetoowah's Web site at the bottom of the Web site. You are clearly mistaken and this out and out lies that you making about me and what I did shows your bias and your lack of understanding of the topic. Please do your research before you make wholesale changes to the article. Unfortunately, for you and for Cberlet you both have shown your ignorance of the topic and your bias. Please correct your mistakes immediately.--Keetoowah 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe someone, somewhere once wrote the quote you wish to insert. But the currently linked URL to the Keetoowah website contains the statement now included in the article. On WP, we don't provide unverifiable quotes, nor falsify citations. Moreover, the actual current Keetoowah statement is much better written than the semi-grammatical statement you wish to insert. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You are unbelivable. I ask you to go to the Keetoowah Web site and direct you to the BOTTOM of the page and work your way through all of the postings by the Tribe and you will see the FIRST and STILL DEFINITIVE statement of the Tribe concerning Ward Churchill. That statement has been on their Web site since May 2005 and it is still up there today. It is the official postion of the tribe. Your additional comments about me personally shows that you are rude and unprofessional person. You refuse to go to the Keetoowah Web site and read the official statement of the tribe. You e quoting a supplemental statement of the tribe. But they have never waivered in their original position which is still on the Web site today. Instead of doing what I ask of you (go the Web site and review from the BOTTOM working your way up) you choosen to attack me personally. You don't know me and you don't know anything about me. The only thing taht I do know about you is that you lying when you say that I am making up bogus quotes of the tribe. The statement is there right now. Cberlet should be ashamed of his kneejerk defense of you.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC) The statement states:

UKB Statement Regarding Ward Churchill

Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) that Ward Churchill continues to promote himself as a Keetoowah member in order to substantiate his claims of Indian ancestry. The UKB is also aware of the apparent lack of understanding that the larger society has regarding Native America's enrollment policies.

The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990's because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry. However, the associate rolls were discontinued shortly after Churchill received one: "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.

Any records of past affiliations with the UKB are non-existent, and Churchill does not appear anywhere on our membership rolls.

Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.

The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree."

All of Churchill's past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so.

The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill's assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

I know your goal is do dig up something as derogatory to Churchill as possible, rather than what is actually representative of the United Keetoowah Band's position (which mostly supports Churchill's statement about prior honorary membership, though limits it and provides context).Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC) This statement by Lulu is a lie that he had to admit later was a damnable lie.--Keetoowah 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) But again, that's not how WP works. You user page alleges that you have a J.D., I noticed... I wonder how the judges you brief feel about falsification of evidence, if so. Does it go over well? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Once again, this is dafamatory, damnable lie by Lulu and an example of his schoolyard bully tactics. He should be ashamed of himself.--Keetoowah 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the need to attack me personally. Especially, since you don't know me or really anything about me. Just do your homework. Go the Keetoowah Web site, TO THE BOTTOM AND WORK YOUR WAY UP and you will see the tribe's original and continuing statement concerning Ward Churchill.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I had to make a wild guess, I'd guess that someone associated with the Keetoowah Band did make the hasty and poorly written statement that you are fond of. Then after some other members had a chance to review it, they realized they should make a more precise, and better written, statement for their website. That's just my guess though, since anything else violates WP:V. Heck, you claim on your user page to be Keetoowah (i.e. tribal membership, not just having that username), so maybe you wrote the doggerel yourself, and think it should thereby be official because of your membership. Actually, come to think of it, that is my best wild guess. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC) This is another damn lie by Lulu, where later he actually goes and looks on the Keetoowah Web site and see for himself that what he wrote here is defamatory, damnable lie.--Keetoowah 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you are attacking me personally instead of dealing with the substance of the matter. You don't know me personally so you are not qualified to judge me, but you in your hubris and egotism have decided to judge me anyway. I hope your defenders like Cberlet and Karmafist are truly proud of your childish personal attacks. Why don't you just focus on why you have choosen to defame me by stating that I made up quotes when I didn't. Why don't just go to the Keetoowah Web site and work your way up from the bottom of the page until you see the original and still continuing position of the tribe. I would be willing to bet that you have never been to Indian Country. You should be ashamed of yourself and Cberlet should be ashamed of himself for his kneejerk defense of you before he did his research also.--Keetoowah 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So, you finally went to the Web site and you saw that Original Statement of the tribe exists. It is about time. Now that means that you claim that was "making up bogus" quotes comment from you was and is a lie. You need to acknowlege your lies and attempt to apologize for them.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, on to the substance of the issue. You state above that we must use the second statement. That is simply your opinion based upon an assumption that you make. The original statement is still on the Web site. If the Tribe does not believe in the statement then why does not the tribe just take it down??? They have not taken it down because it is the still the position of the tribe.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the tone of your comments are amusing. You sound like you are the Wikipedian enforcer and that you are going to go get SlimVirgin and El_C and you are going to come back here and beat me into submission. By the way, you never answered my questions: Why do you feel the need to attack me personally? Does it make you feel like a big man? Do you like to be the schoolyard bully?? How do you feel qualified to judge me when you really don't know me at all? Go get SlimVirgin and El_C but that will not answer the questions that I have asked: If the tribe does not believe the statement on their Web site, then why is it still there??? They could take it down. They have had plenty of time, since May2005. But they have choosen not to take it down. Also, you have never apologized for lying about me when you stated that I made up the quote. Be a man and apologize or are you too much a schoolyard bully to admit it when you are dead wrong. I wonder if Cberlet is a big enough man to admit when he is wrong. How about karmafist? They jumped on your bogus bandwagon and now they look like they are been fooled by your bragging, overbearing bully routine.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff on past editing behavior

Hmmm... tracing through it since I suspect we're going to need to take some action. It appears User:Keetoowah engaged in an edit war over putting in the wrong quote at: [1], [2], [3], etc.

Our respected admins SlimVirgin and El_C were among those trying to fix the vandalism before (several times each). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here [4] and anon editor tried the overly verbose (but good faith) attempt to give both the preliminary and final statements. But User:Keetoowah again removed the official statement at [5] (2005 Aug 2). His edit comment was: OOOPS! 69.14.233.98 does not know what they are talking about--summarily reversed.. Which is rude, but actually not as bad as a lot of other edit comments by this editor. For example, earlier: Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE

Lulu and Cberlet need to do their research before they make wholesale changes to the article.--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not edited the article since July. Your "proposal" about research is thus ironic at best.--Cberlet 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER TWO

Lulu needs to immediately stand down and apologize from his defamatory comment above where he stated that I made up bogus quotes for the Keetoowah Tribe.--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE

Lulu and Cberlet need to go to the bottom of the Web site for the Keetoowah band (the very bottom) and work their way up the page until they get to the first comment by the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill.--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not involved in this edit in any way.--Cberlet 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu's ludicrous and Untrue claim that there was Improper quoting United Keetoowah Band

Now, in hindsight, it is clear that what I quoted is actually on the Keetoowah Web site and Lulu admits that it is, his comment is clearly a defamatory, damnable lie. It is schoolyard bully tactics and it indicates the type of person that is attempting to make wholesale changes to the document. He has not apologized for his defamatory, damnable lie and I don't expect him to since, obviously, his perferred line of attack is to attack personally.--Keetoowah 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So, you finally went to the Web site and you saw that Original Statement of the tribe exists. It is about time. Now that means that you claim that was "making up bogus" quotes comment from you was and is a lie. You need to acknowlege your lies and attempt to apologize for them.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, on to the substance of the issue. You state above that we must use the second statement. That is simply your opinion based upon an assumption that you make. The original statement is still on the Web site. If the Tribe does not believe in the statement then why does not the tribe just take it down??? They have not taken it down because it is the still the position of the tribe.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the tone of your comments are amusing. You sound like you are the Wikipedian enforcer and that you are going to go get SlimVirgin and El_C and you are going to come back here and beat me into submission. By the way, you never answered my questions: Why do you feel the need to attack me personally? Does it make you feel like a big man? Do you like to be the schoolyard bully?? How do you feel qualified to judge me when you really don't know me at all? Go get SlimVirgin and El_C but that will not answer the questions that I have asked: If the tribe does not believe the statement on their Web site, then why is it still there??? They could take it down. They have had plenty of time, since May2005. But they have choosen not to take it down. Also, you have never apologized for lying about me when you stated that I made up the quote. Be a man and apologize or are you too much a schoolyard bully to admit it when you are dead wrong. I wonder if Cberlet is a big enough man to admit when he is wrong. How about karmafist? They jumped on your bogus bandwagon and now they look like they are been fooled by your bragging, overbearing bully routine.--Keetoowah 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah has a point. There are two quotes on the page that is cited. You are not looking far enough down on the page, but Keetoowah’s quote most certainly exists on the page he cited. TDC 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER FOUR

After a review of that page and how their comments were about me and my edits were lies, then they need to take my chnges with a some respect and try to listen to a different perspective on Churchill.--Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort. Please fact-check before making "proposals."

EDIT PROPOSAL NUMBER FIVE

Immediately and without hesitation put back in the correct quote of the Keetoowah tribe concerning Churchill. --Keetoowah 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)