User talk:DNGF

Ward Churchill
is a demagogue and a con-man (pretending to be a native american to get a job). That does not mean he is necessarily wrong all the time.--Radh (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your criticisms of Churchill may well be accurate, just pointing out that importantly he does appear to be right in this instance (haven't read his material on Hampton, so I'll only vouch that it seems to be right in its general outlines as far as the account of Hampton's death goes), and so if it's only Churchill's credibility (or lack thereof) leading people to dispute the NPOV of the Fred Hampton article then other more trustworthy sources can be given for the claims in question. DNGF (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No sure, but I am pretty sure I saw (most, half, all) way too much of the article word for word on one of the Black Panther Party sites. That is not even POV, that is sheer propaganda. ((I am always pissed off when I see a whole page simply lifted, this seems to happen a lot)) There is this essay (was available on pdf) from a Chicago pupil who also pro-panthers, but pretty fair, this kid did a lot of reading. If Churchill is correct on Hampton it would be there. I put the essay on the links pages to Fred Hampton a while ago, it may have vanished of course.

I also don' t know enough about Hampton to really write the article and what more can you really say now than that it very much looks like bloody murder. "Even" David Horowitz on frontpage (a so-called fascist, because he says some unflattering things about the left) seems to be on Hampton' s site.--Radh (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that just as much as some with a certain agenda might feel the need to justify his death, those with another quite different agenda might feel the need to valorize it. The risk of distortion exists from both the left and right here, and whatever the article ends up looking like you're right that it definitely shouldn't be cribbed from a BPP site any more than from the FOP. Just as you though I don't have the expertise to rewrite the article myself, so I'll be content if we can for now just settle and ensure that what appears is NPOV and true to the most objective sources of information we can find. DNGF (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, also nobody can be or should be without a point of view, its the stupid propaganda (also on Conservopedia and any number of rightwing blogs) that gets on ones nerves. And there are some topics that simply cannot be dealt with rationally like Abu-Jamal. See you.--Radh (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)