Talk:Russell Means/Archive 1

POV issue re: independence declaration
I appreciate that people are taking pains to emphasis that Means lacks any official credentials with his latest statements, but reading the rest of this article it seems 'rebuffed' is strong language to indicate previous losses. Note the small margin with which he lost the first election, as well as the fact that courts agreed the election was not entirely fair. The citation for this note is not even close to strong enough to support the original language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.216.233 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact the courts upheld the election he lost. One of many, many elections he lost. In fact, I don't think he ever won an election. His repeated attempts at gaining the very offices he later referred to as "Nazi" positions or positions of collaboration with Nazis, is telling. If Russell Means makes himself appear a petulant sore loser, then perhaps his biography should accurately reflect that.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any info about the elections, but it is a relatively old issue and should precede in another paragraph the issue of Lakota Republic. Also, it's WP:original research for you to draw conclusions about the fact that his group is taking these actions after he lost elections.


 * To me the POV issues are: a) do we need to mention BOTH the criticisms of "IRA" tribal leadership; that is what seems like POV over-kill to me; b) if we want both, we have to make it clear the second statement is NOT on the web page by putting after the first sentence about the DC events; and c) "Nazi" should not go before collaborators, because you are interpreting what they said; the reference to Vichy clearly is a reference to the Nazi occupation, as I put in the first iteration. But collaborators could simply mean collaboration with the US govt.
 * Carol Moore 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk


 * PS. Why do you insist on deleting the fact that they say they met with groups in different cities? If it's true, it's of relevance and provides balance; if you can prove it's false, it also is of relevance.  It's POV to delete info like that for no reason.  Please see: Resolving_disputes "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
 * Carol Moore 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk


 * You are mistaken. I haven't deleted references to meeting with groups in different cities. I added "what they termed" before "treaty councils" because the term "treaty councils" is meaningless. According to news accounts and their own admission, they do not recognize and did not meet with any elected tribal governments, so it is likely that these "treaty councils" are simply groups of like minded individuals with no official standing. Hence adding "what they termed as," to indicate that all data regarding such "meetings" in those cities is solely based on their say-so, with no public record of it.


 * As for you denial that Means compared those who dissent from his opinion to Nazi collaborators, I find it laughable that you can deny - with a straight face - that he did so. Usually those who attempt to re-write history wait a while in the hope people will forget the truth. LOL.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blanked the entire section, temporarily. Let's work out a NPOV version on this talk page instead of the constant reverting to POV versions.Verklempt (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Even better, I just put back original version of current political activities which seems pretty NPOV and accurate. At this point reliably sourced info mentioning Russell's activities best since obviously there are big disputes going on but this isn't the place to work it out. People can go to the two mentioned web sites and try to figure out the disputea from there. Carol Moore 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
 * That version looks okay to me. But, ti does need to be updated with the tribal government's response. In a non-POV fashion, of course.Verklempt (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that deleting the reference to Means hijacking the website was the best solution to the problem which it was hard to see because the POV long presentations of the other side of the argument sort of blocked out the realization that maybe WikiNews might not have been the most reliable source and therefore the info might be libelous - so it was just best to delete the assertion as someone evidently did in some edit!Carol Moore 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk The article does not mention Mr.Means'06:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk) views on white European nationalists who are concerned about the horde of non-white immigrants flooding their ancestral homelands(Europe).Does anybody happen to know his POV regarding the issue?

-- Why is there no mention at all of what this man did between 1958 and 1968? Why is there no mention of the widespread murder that occurred against indians while Means was "leading" the AIM? Why is there no mention of the COINTELPRO movement that, beyond a reasonable doubt, inserted government agents into the ranks of AIM? see: "In August 2008, a federal grand jury indicted a third man, Vine Richard "Dick" Marshall, with aiding and abetting the murder. It is alleged that Graham, Looking Cloud and Clark had taken Anna Mae to Marshall's house where she was held just prior to her being driven to her death. This is based on testimony given by Marshall's wife, Cleo Gates, at Looking Cloud's trial. Marshall is alleged to have provided the murder weapon to Graham and Looking Cloud. Marshall had previously been incarcerated for 24 years for the shooting death of man in 1975. He was paroled from prison in 2000. Marshall was a bodyguard for Russell Means at the time of Aquash's murder.[5]"

Did somebody here seriously decide that this wasn't worth including in this article? Or is it being suppressed by somebody who doesn't want us to make the connection? Alcohol kills (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Why is there no mention of the widespread murder that occurred against indians while Mean was "leading" the AIM?" Are you trying to say that Means is somehow responsible for this?  I have read a lot of books and seen a lot of film about those days, and I don't think anyone, including the FBI, has ever claimed that Means had anything to do with the "Reign of Terror" at Pine Ridge.  Who is this guy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Churchill
Artcle says: "Means in the past was associated with the controversial activist Ward Churchill. He has since disassociated himself from Churchill". When did he do that? And how come if Means' own website is still giving some link to Dr Churchill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful citations
Should we remove dubious citations, ones that don't support the fact asserted, such as these two?


 * Means, Russel. ""Speech: For America to Live, Europe Must Die."". http://www.russellmeans.com/. "In dio" not found at this site.
 * "Alcatraz is Not an Island.Indian Activism". PBS. 2002. http://www.pbs.org/itvs/alcatrazisnotanisland/activism.html. Retrieved on 2009-03-17. (Doesn't explicitly say Mr. Means was present.)

--AndersW (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Russell Means on Comedy Central's "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher
Does anyone else recall when Mr. Means appeared on the television program in question? I saw it when it was first aired, sometime during the Clinton administration. Means got a huge standing ovation when we walked out on stage, and then proceeded to express support for the Montana Freemen, the Posse Comitatus organization, and the Militia movement generally. The audience, made up of the usual gaggle of liberal/Democratic/yuppie/Jewish/homosexual/metrosexual/Manhattanite contingent (admittedly, that is merely my interpretative characterization, not an objective analsis of the precise demographics of the studio audience), who were all undoubtedly expecting Mr. Means to heap praise upon them and their values, were horrified, and soon were vigorously booing the man they'd been uproariously cheering just minutes previous. I regarded (and still regard) it as one of the most gratifying and cathartic moments in the history of American television - it was glorious! (Although others would interpret it differently, I can well imagine).

Anyhoo, my point in bringing this up is not because I am under any mistaken impression that this Talk page is a general discussion board, but rather in the hope of reminding other people of this event, which I regard as sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article, provided adequate evidentiary substantiation for its occurrence can be located. I intend to go a-Googlin', in order to find said evidentiary substantiation, but I have related this (admittedly biased) account of the events of that evening, in the hope that others might feel inspired to seek out such material as well. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So far, I have been able to find a link (http://www.filmreference.com/film/64/Russell-Means.html) which substantiates that he did appear in a 1996 episode (and only that one episode) of Comedy Central's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually found an ancient link to the video of the original, 1996 episode on which Russell Means appeared...but it was dead, alas. I have spent over an hour this evening utilizing various search terms on various search engines, but other than for that link above with refers to his appearing on the show that one time, and a dead link to the episode itself, I just can't find anything.  Oh well.  Maybe someone else can.  Or maybe I'll get lucky next time I decide to give it a whirl. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Violence and Misuse of the Treaty of 1868
Why is there no mention of his conviction by the Navajo Nation on charges of domestic violence and the way he attempted to misuse the Treaty of 1868 to get out of it? http://www.gallupindependent.com/2005/dec/122205means.html http://www.tribal-institute.org/cases/navajo/means.htm http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1136734 http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011557.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagekat3 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Miskito support
the section about means' support for the meskitos in nicaragua, or rather the depiction of their situation in the 1980s, is put unintentionally distorted and simplified at best or intentionally POV. things are more complex. as one can also read in some wikipedia articles, the meskitos have a long history of an exceptional position within nicaragua, which was fueled and capitalized by UK and USA (if not created). anyway their resistance against the central power and the state's "response" didn't start with the downthrow of somoza as the current formulation in the article wants to insinuate! the question which arises here, is what came first, the hen or the egg, the meskito support for/involvement in the contra activities against the sandinist gvt or the sandinist gvt's action against "the" meskitos, including relocations. to portray that conflict as a persecution of an ethnical group BECAUSE of their ethnicity is a try which is not really new and has an agenda. one has also to keep in mind here that the meskitos are not the only amer-indian/native group in nicaragua, a country which owes it's name to the nicarao.

one cannot go into the whole background of the conflict when describing means' attitude towards the nicaraguan war but the section in question has to be more NPOV. --Severino (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Section POV
the selection of the recensions of means' auto-biography is very biased and POV. three extracts (which didn't refer to the spelling style or the structure but to means and his role as indian activist) from obviously very negative recensions is too much and fitting for poisoning the article. one was also definitely not in a mainstream media.--Severino (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Activity of Mr. Means' father
One paragraph talks about the father dieing in 1967.

A few lines down, there is a statement that Mr. Means participated with his father in the Alcatraz demonstration in 1968.

71.207.195.197 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)atman84 22 Sep 2011
 * The date of the Alcatraz demonstration was stated incorrectly. It took place in '64, not '68. The correction was made by User:Carolmooredc.--JayJasper (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Means' attack on the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation to save his own skin?
Means challenged the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation to enforce its laws on its supposedly sovereign reservation, in order to save himself from the consequences of his assault on his 80-year-old father-in-law.

Pretty stunning hypocrisy and worth mentioning in this hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.177.163 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that support this assertion, or least verify the existence of such an accusation in secondary sources? If so, it could be added to the article, provided it is done in a manner compliant with WP:NPOV. WP:RECENTISM would have to be considered as well.--JayJasper (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)