Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 4

This material was moved to the archive without refactoring or editing by Grace Note 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No consensus

Okay, that seems to be a firm "no". I know you're having fun editing, but please do try to reach agreement on a version of the article that can be copied by an administrator from the sandbox (where nobody else sees it) to the main article. It wouldn't stay up forever, ideally I'd update once a day until the vandal gives up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Leroy Churchill

Just a heads-up that someone is trying to create an alternate version of this article at Ward Leroy Churchill. It appears to be extremely opinionated against Churchill. Rhobite 04:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

W.C. redux

Hi, I have removed most of TonyMarvin a.k.a. AcademicIntegrity's ill-informed changes to the Ward Churchill draft. What do you think of the intro now? If you want to add anything, go ahead, but if it creeps back up to three paragraphs, then it is probably too long. -- Viajero 13:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way that you Viajero and zenMaster talk to each other it is clear that you both have an agenda and you are going to ignore and crush anyone that disagrees with you. This is an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. You folks (Viajero and zenMaster) are poster children for the short-comings of Wikipedia. Neither one of you give a flying flip what those around you think, you talk among yourself and you make only the changes that you want to see. The style of both of you is not concensus, it is dominance.-----Keetoowah 20:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are wholly without merit. The only thing that is being crushed is valid information you and others are seemingly trying to exclude from article(s). NPOV means including both/all sides, not your side. zen master T 02:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero and I are the only ones making compromises (and extracting them from him has been slow and hard work I can tell you but he's doing it which I think should be congratulated) so I really find it unpleasant that the are people reverting/deleting my work without justification. It's unfair and is taking away from what could end up being a good article.

Can I encourage Keetoowah to make a contribution and not just criticize. And Zenmaster and Cberlet I think you are just ideological supporters of Churchill who unlike Viajero aren't interested in compromise of any kind. And that's very sad. TonyMarvin 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TonyMarvin, why did you remove all the External Links? Do you have any idea how much work went into making that section and how well crafted it was? What justification is there for that? Calicocat 03:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks very much like that was simply a software glitch rather than intentional. I have restored the truncated external links section. -- Curps 03:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know what happened there, certainly not intentional. I agree the links are good, we should put even more up, I found some good references from publications Viajero will love, the Weekly Standard, Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post etc. TonyMarvin 03:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need the entire colorado legislature resolution in the article? It seems out of place. Why does the early life section state "white blue colar family", that seems to be concluding he's not part native american which is disputed. zen master T 05:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Just to keep things rolling, unprotected this to see what happens. Please play nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The lead as it stands now is poor and does not follow a standard inverted pyramid style which would be most appropriate for this presentation and is very much missing the mark in terms of brilliant prose and it an example of misuse of Wikipedia, see what Wikipedia is not. Mentioning his ethnicity and it's dispute is hardly something that should be the very first sentence. I'm not going to edit this page, but will comment on it here in the talk pages. Calicocat 01:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The new version from Temp is full of opinionated propaganda. There was no consensus on most of this language. Who exactly is "the leadership of the Native American community"??? --Cberlet 03:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good question, the leadership of the American Indian Movement and the leadership of the tribe he claims membership of. There seems to be no question of the sincerity of their opposition to him, and their anger about what they see is a fabrication of ancestry. I think we need to be respectful of that view and I plead guilty to not listening to Keetoowah initially on it. It's a complex issue though which I think the rest of the article fleshes out reasonably well. TonyMarvin 03:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinionated propaganda is fine--it'll all come out in the edit. I'll only protect again if there is a serious edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The leadership of the American Indian Movement has been in dispute for years. I know and work with activists from several Indian nations who take different positions on the dispute and different positions on the matter of Ward Churchill. Therefore I am not challenging that some leaders in the American Indian community are disputing Churchill's ethnicity; I am pointing out that it is not universal. One of the political battles between the Colorado and Minnesota AIM factions is over the issue of racial nationalism, with the Colorado folks being critical of the racial nationalism of the Minnesota folks, especially their willingness to participate in conferences with Ghaddafy of Libya.[1]

I conceed I have a personal POV on this matter: I helped Churchill catalog and fact-check COINTELPRO documents for one of his books on FBI abuses; I briefly worked with Russell Means on an investigation for Yellow Thunder Camp in the Dakotas; and I am wearing a ring made by Bob Robideau--all with the Colorado AIM faction. I have not, however, worked with either AIM faction for many years, although I did work on a project on FBI abuses involving many AIM leaders before the split. But here at Wiki I try to be an encyclopedist, and find a fair and balanced way to portray controversial subjects. What I am objecting to is the attempt to turn the page into a series of personal attacks on Churchill; and "compromises" that places contentious disputes in the lead section, when they belong in the body of the text. Giving the criticisms (that remain unresolved) the same weight in the lead as Churchill's biography is simply unfair. Short mentions are one thing, but turning the lead into an attack is unfair.--Cberlet 12:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hasten to say that the version of the lead I just looked at is looking better and better. :-) --Cberlet 12:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the lead was too sanitized, so I added in some tiny hints of the other controversies. Also, Churchill does not use the term "Native American" to describe himself, since he is a nationalist.--Cberlet 12:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the recent changes look good, though I think "native american" is the prefered term there since we aren't explaining in the intro why Churchill prefers "American Indian". Shouldn't the article explain and describe this preference for "american indian"? zen master T 15:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churchill is active in a group called the "American Indian Movement," not in a group called the "Native American Movement." He prefers not to be called a Native American. It has to do with his position on sovereignty and treaty rights for Indian nations. I know people who prefer Native American, American Indian, indigenous, etc. I call them what they prefer to be called, not what others consider the proper term. --Cberlet 16:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still oppose this line in the first section:

According to Denver media reports[1] (http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3652344,00.html), several of Churchill's school classmates do not recall him speaking of any Native American heritage.

This is essentially meaningless; I would remember next to nothing about some kid I sat next to in class thirty-five years ago. -- Viajero 16:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Viajero and others, I have had Explorer crashes, edit conflicts, and up to two minutes to load an edit page today. I did not mean to delete any text on this page. Apologies.--Cberlet 17:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude upon a discussion among friends BUT "tiny hints" of controversies that have Ward notable in the first place is really inadequate in my view. And a rejection of "compromises" is not that encouraging either, Cberlet. Let's call a spade a spade here and not remove facts that are central to the story of this fellow's life. I commend Cberlet disclosing his friendship with Churchill and I can understand your desire to keep the article fair. I agree it should be fair but it must also be honest and not remove unpleasant things that are central, crucial facts. We have compromised quite a bit all of us, I really believe the reference to Eichmann to be important but agreed to its removal. And please note I want it in not to make Ward look bad. But to explain why there was such a big controversy in the first place. I have added a pro-Churchill reference again not to make Ward look good but to tell the whole story. PS I think it is particularly untoward to remove information (sourced) from the body of the article itself. That's the whole joy of using Wikipedia and why it is so much better in many cases than many other resources. There can be so much more data than you get in an Encarta/Britannica summary. Let's keep it that way and not delete sourced, legitimate, relevant information. Arguing something is "meaningless" is not appropriate without an explanation. He clearly wasn't brought up as a Native American and that's the relevance so please let us move on from that while we sort out the introduction. If the investigation does not pan out well for him this article will be a frequently used reference UNLESS it is ruined by pro or anti Churchill advocates. There is no place for such advocacy here. TonyMarvin 01:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting history is not a valid exercise and is the reason why I have indicated factual errors in this article. Read Ward Churchill's essay to see what he wrote of 9/11, not his remarks after the controversy about what he really meant to say. He referred to all not some of the victims. And yes he might have meant only some but he didn't write it that way. I believe this article should be protected AGAIN because of Zen-master's unexplained changes of this nature. Very disappointing. I certainly won't be changing it back and forth with him, I have better things to do. TonyMarvin 02:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove any facts. Check my edits. I argued that the details of the controversy do not belong in the lead. They remain in the body of the article. Compromises are a continual process on Wiki. Much of what posed as facts on the page when it was rewritten by anti-Churchill forces were not facts but a series of unproven allegations and personal attacks that have no place in an encyclopedia entry. I have no problem with the Eichmann quote if it is put in the context of Eichmann not being a rabid Nazi but a "banal" bureaucrat as described in Arendt's famous book Eichmann in Jerusalem. This "fact" was manipulated and misrepresented in many of the attacks on Churchill. Just because the right-wing attacks on Churchill are loud, does not make them factual. We mention the controversies in the lead, and detail them in the body of the article. That is appropriate. I would encourage ZenMaster and Viajero to be a bit more flexible and seek compromise. But let's keep allegations and facts in perspective. Something sourced to an unreliable right-wing attack media outlet or opportunistic political hacks passing a publicity-seeking resolution is not something that belongs in the lead. Any allegation of plagiarism must be investigated by a university body. That does not belong in the lead. If it is upheld, it moves up in importance. It's an old McCarthyist trick. Don't fall for it.--Cberlet 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to ZenMaster: Cut it out. Don't wreck the process. Your scorched earth editing tactics have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Your edits are unfair.--Cberlet 02:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how so, same exact content that has been rejected by others previously. How is it "scorched earth" exactly? Do you support Tony Marvin's version? Was my comparison with the intro of the Tom Delay article a good one? I think you are assuming what you have not taken the time to investigate. zen master T 02:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, this is just crazy. We were really not far off getting a consensus and you have thrown in a hand grenade to the whole process. I think we all have something to contribute I just wish you would without just immediately reverting anything I write.

If you have strong views about him that's fine by me but please respect what we're trying to do here. Thank you Cberlet, I would like to progress somehow and maybe we will if Zen-master contemplates his navel for a spell.

TonyMarvin 02:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if my checkin comments are inflammatory, but I stand by my claim that the content you are repeatedly trying to add has been rejected by many other contributors to this article in the past. How do you justify stating (mischaracterizing) in the actaul article about actions of other editors, you are repackaging facts that are already inside the article in woefully inappropriate POV word choices. That is disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point... zen master T 02:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to TonyMarvin. Now you play fair. No actual content is being deleted with the exception of a highly POV summary you seem to insist on inserting into the lead without discussion. What's up? --Cberlet 03:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's up is that it seems very very very unfair that make progress and one user stomps in and reverses it all. I don't wish to enter into back and forth changes so I'll just add material that clarifies the distortions in the Zenmaster's version. I will do everything possible to get to a compromise and I appreciate your attempts to get there too but I won't stand for propagandizing. The truth is that we were not far from a compromise until the unilateral changes ruined it. TonyMarvin 04:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have thought carefully about the best way to summarize WC's views and believe the reference to "he couldn't think of a better, more effective penalty" to be the best summary. I believe oblique references to "an essay" or a "controversy" without this is really quite silly. What he said was very provocative and ugly (probably quite deliberately so to make a point about how ugly he sees US foreign policy) and must be given prominence it deserves. The introduction ought not be stripped of meaning to accomodate those who like WC personally and/or politically. Think like Ward Churchill - an independent free spirit if ever there was one - and let's have an article that says what happened and why and not put up something so stripped of fact as to be meaningless. TonyMarvin 04:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mischaracterize the "compromise" version of the article even. Your version oozes POV. Fortunately most wikipedia users judge claims on the talk page and in checkin comments by the quality of actual edits to articles. zen master T 04:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly does it "ooze POV"? Please explain. TonyMarvin 05:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony Marvin, I believe you are intentionally mischaracterizing the debate on this article to try to squeeze your POV version in or just to frustrate people that disagree with your POV. I believe either Kelly Martin's or Cberlet's "compromose" version are vastly superior to your super POV version. The same exact POV word choices and lack of context you have added to the intro have been rejected previously, numerous times. Check archive3 if the explanation isn't available above. Oozes POV means intentionally poor word choices on a grand scale. zen master T 05:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no value in inserting such inflammatory "summaries" of Ward Churchill's "views" into the introduction of this article. Please stop doing so. Enough of Professor Churchill's writings are quoted in the article that the reader can conclude for herself what the professor's views are, or at least likely are; there is no need for the editor to do as well.

The current introduction is the result of a considerable compromise effort; your edits are disregarding that process and most definitely lack consensus. Kelly Martin 05:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the free advice which was worth what I paid for it. It is crucial to give an indication of the controversy that brough him to national attention. I doubt this article existed prior to the controversy illustrating rather powerfully that it needs to be included. TonyMarvin 06:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, on the advice of one of the editors I reviewed the Tom DeLay article in which it says Tom is known for his conservative views. Why is it accepted in one as good form and not in this one. Please explain yourself, "Kelly". TonyMarvin 06:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unresponsive

I have repeatedly asked why various facts and sentences were being deleted. Instead all we hear is the Sound of Silence as anything that makes the introduction relevant is quietly deleted. Click.

No one has answered the challenge about the relevance of the material I've suggested. I have re-written it, thought it through, changed things. And yet no one really argues the case, they just click. Delete. Is this appropriate? It certainly isn't likely to build support for consensus. There are two consensus versions apparently which may prove that there isn't any. TonyMarvin 08:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add is worded inappropriately and already covered later in the article. And everything you are trying to add was already mentioned in the intro, just not with the biases word choices. I actually reverted to the "wrong" consensus version, may fix that or just do massive clean ups. You've been reverted by multiple editors to this article over the last couple of days, in my opinion, you are on a POV mission. zen master T 08:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American author known for radical views whose claim of partial American Indian descent is rejected as false by the Grand Governing Council of the American Indian Movement.

He is currently a tenured Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, pending an official investigation of charges of academic fraud, ethnic impersonation and plagiarism.

Churchill came to national attention in 2005 for an essay he wrote about the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In the essay Churchill says that he could not think of a "better, more effective penalty" for the victims of the attack who were not entirely innocent because of their role in supporting what he claims are the United States' imperialistic global economic and foreign policies.

Every Democrat and Republican member of the Colorado House of Representatives supported a resolution condemning Churchill's views.

Churchill claims that the charges of misconduct against him are motivated by a desire to suppress his right to free speech and academic freedom.

I have put up each sentence separately so that any issues of accuracy or neutrality can be discussed. I look forward to the discussion to build a consensus. Saying generically something is inappropriate etc is just not going to cut it. If there is an error, point it out. If there's biased language, point it out. I don't want any of either in the consensus version. TonyMarvin 08:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silence is deafening, ZenMaster. You too have been reverted by multiple editors over the last couple of days. I make no judgement about your intentions although I wonder why you won't identify the factual errors or biased words in the above sentences given the trouble you've gone to delete them so often. Please respond. TonyMarvin 08:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll gladly put my history against yours if you want to pursue arbitration? The colorado legislature info is POV, was passed at height of the controversy, not relevant in the intro now. The intro should summarize the 9/11 essay controversy, not quote it out of context. "radical" is POV, "is rejected as false" is POV since that claim is still disputed, you can't say "is rejected as false" because that implies that is a fact, at best you can say is his disputed unproven claim of american indian heritage. Only one other author has alleged "academic fraud" against Churchill and really that is "allegations of fabrication", not enough to be put in the intro. And anyway the university of colorado is investigating him for charges of plagiarism exclusively so that sentence of yours was also wildly inaccurate. zen master T 08:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have no idea what arbitration is but am pleased for the article to be reviewed by impartial outsiders if that's what you mean. You still haven't responded systematically to my challenge to identify problems with my consensus version. Why? The unanimous bi-partisan resolution is an unusual event that perfectly captures the community's anger about what he said. It would be passed again tomorrow I suspect. I believe strongly that no academic should be dismissed for expressing unpopular views (except for racism/sexism etc) but it doesn't mean I'm against acknowledging the fact that his views were unpopular. The Tom DeLay article you referred to me says he is "known for his conservative views". That's where I got the words from. Tom DeLay is known for his conservative views. Prof Ward is known for his radical views. Why is this POV? Why is one POV and the other not? The sources show many allegations (all unproven at this stage) of academic fraud/plagiarism. Please read them before saying otherwise. Again the sources show a wide-ranging investigation into Research Misconduct including his original job application and its contents. Again please be familiar with the material.

TonyMarvin 08:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TonyMarvin, I believe your mischaracterization of this thread, myself, and other editors is designed to trick third parties into thinking you have valid claims when you don't. I have shown your changes to be false above, yet you continue to persist. "radical views" does not equal "conservative views", apples vs oranges. The university is only investigating him on charges of plagiarism, you repeatedly errantly try to add in "academic fraud" and "ethnic impersonation". "Research misconduct" is the claim that he lied about his heritage to get a professors job, that is already covered under his "disputed" claims of ethnicity (since it's impossible for him to be fired if he can't "prove" his ancestry and there is no evidence that he lied directly [he always believed he was partial native american]).

In one paragraph you accuse me of

• Mischaracterization
• Trickery

Can you keep your insults to yourself please? I don't need them. Nor do I need to be accused of:

• Masturbation
• Sorcery

before you attempt to so accuse.

Radical views is indeed the exact opposite of conservative views. Why do you say otherwise? Please read the dozens of references to the broad nature of the inquiry in the Denver Post, some are listed in the article, and try a Google search. The issue of his job application has been vaguely dealt with by the Denver Post but it really depends on what he claimed and can now prove to back it up. Maybe he didn't claim anything, there hasn't been much public domain on that so I don't know but it is certainly being investigated, as one would expect. You have not pointed out a single factual error or biased word in what I have written. Not one. I'm still waiting. TonyMarvin 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberal is opposite of conservative. The job application issue falls within claimed ethnicity, it was already covered. How is what his schoolmates remember way back in the day relevant? Here you quote Churchill out of context [2] Here is where you are disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point (you inject references to the edit war into the actual content of the article, Cberlet reverts you fortunately) "although Churchill is not without defenders, as evidenced by the multiple edits to this article which seek to remove all reference to his white background" [3] The "white" blue colar family growing up is disputed (you are trying to sneak in something that is disputed as a fact subtle, already covered under his disputed claim of partial native american heritage), also the intro doesn't generally state exactly who has "rejected that claim" nor state it using such POV word choices [4] here is where you try to claim you are making progress after Kelly Martin reverts you for POV (this same content you are claiming is "making progress" was rejected previously and you knew that, so at the very least inaccurate/intentionally mislead checkin comments) [5] zen master T 09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to 1st Para

I was recently pointed at this edit and I say the tagline "the consensus version might be shorter, less to argue about". However, I was most disturbed not the find, the consensus version on the talk page. It is my experience that such versions are hashed out on the talk page, and then rolled onto the article.

As a second note, I don't feel that the edit actually does reduced the "amount to fight" about. I have refrained from reverting it, as I feel should be, but wish to discuss this further. Burgundavia 08:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue to raise or does it displease you in a way you cannot specify? Either way happy to discuss, but I find that very few are willing to justify/debate their positions. I don't mind a long or short consensus version but I suspected a short one might make life easier. I am keen to resolve this as soon as we can. TonyMarvin 08:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Three points:
• 1.To me, the use of highly, before disputed seems a little POV, but I don't know the background. Also, why remove what his is a professor for? And why remove that he is tenured? Everything after the words "in the essay..." is simply a statement of what was in the essay. To me, the number of victims in not really that necessary, nor that they were civilians. (I am not saying that the attacks were a good thing or anything of the sort). I am simply saying that the edit seems to make it more POV, by emphasizing the deaths, over the content of the essay). And the last sentence, are those two facts true? If not, then remove them.
• 2.On another point, such a large edit makes it hard to change small things
• 3. Your edit summary, to me, is not entirely accurate of the situation. Can you point me at a "consensus version" that looks like that? Where was the sandbox to play with a title paragraph before it went live?
• I merely kind of concerned about this specific edit, not anything related to you specifically. Burgundavia 09:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Burgundavia

• 1. Highly disputed is on the money I think, you should read the statement by the Grand Governing Council of the American Indian Movement. There is a very serious dispute with some serious allegations against him, esp. re his ancestry. Happy to drop the word highly if it causes concern but I think it's accurate.
• 2. Not troubled about removing/keeping his area of study. I think tenure is worth keeping too as it will become a very important issue if the authorities attempt to dismiss him which seems likely.
• 2(a) 3000 civilians were killed, and Churchill says it was justified. It adds context which Zen-Master was demanding, I think it helps us understand why so many were pissed off about what he said.
• 3. The "consensus version" started off being Zenmaster's description of his version. I thought well if he can have a consensus of one, so can I. I was careful I think to identify "my consensus" version. I won't accept Zenmaster's assertion of that or of what he says others think as a basis for forcing acquiescence to his POV. Ward Churchill/Temp, it was
• 4. Likewise. I'm pleased someone is actually discussing the issues and not just throwing insults. TonyMarvin 09:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The previous version above

I think the best version to date is the one above. I posted it to get some specific objections and haven't got any. I will put that up as the consensus version if there is no disagreement/further debate. Please let me know.

TonyMarvin 09:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The essay

I can't help feeling that if you're going to introduce Churchill alongside his controversy, you should point out how it came to light. After all, the controversy happened a long time after he wrote the article, because O'Reilly muckraked. Actually, didn't some rightwingnut blog it?

As it stands this article is a bit of a slagging. It recapitulates a lot of the spiteful shit that has been slung around about the guy but doesn't really give a balanced view. Just my 2c. Grace Note 09:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A kid e-mailed O'Reilly, O'Reilly turns on the flames of hate to attack an academic with "left-wing" views, rather than a dicussion of the deep questions Churchill's essay asks...and so it goes. Threats to Churchill's life, threats of violence to Hamilton; it's a wedge issue to make Churchill a "bad man" so that any and all who are not in lock-step with the right wing fascists, like O'Rielly can be called "Ward Churchills'." The whole thing is thick with utter hypocricy...Interesting to be posting this comment on Hitler's birthday... Food for thought: "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." --Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Calicocat 02:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right that it's a beatup by the rightwingnuts but we can't really include interpretation like that. Now, if you can find guys on the web from "reputable sources" who give that analysis, we can include it. The "deep questions" Churchill asks, which he posed in much more measured language than his opponents make out, the "little Eichmanns" thing notwithstanding, are not likely to get a fair hearing in an appropriate article here on WP, given the provenance of most of its editors.Grace Note 03:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Tony Marvin version

Come off it. This is totally unacceptable and POV. Okay, you don't like the guy. You don't like what he said. Wikipedia is chockers with guys we don't like. Let's not go mad here! The intro introduces him. It doesn't go into detail. Let's stick to who he is and why he's known.Grace Note 09:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It came to light when he went to speak at a college. And someone there at their student newspaper wrote about the essay. O'Reilly picked it up. But let's be honest, O'Reilly didn't invent it, it was WC's own words that got him into 'shit' as you might put it. Opposition to WC's words was bi-partisan, even unanimously so. Big difference of course between opposing his words and wanting a tenured academic terminated for saying unpopular things. I have wanted the first paragraph to say exactly that but have met resistance.

It is probably inevitable that a review of WC's life does not read like his own CV. He's a deliberately confronting, outrageous guy. I don't agree with most of what he says but we need academics to speak their mind, unless it's racist/sexist etc. If they get rid of him (which seems likely from what I've read) then who will be next?

TonyMarvin 09:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS As for long-hand or short-hand version, I really don't mind but it needs to be pro/con on such a controversial subject. I am inclined to go with the short version but there doesn't appear much support for that model. And as it happens, I don't like him but that won't stop me defending his tenure. It's a very important principle TonyMarvin 09:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Grace, think of this an academic debate, not a bar fight. I have pasted what I think is a better new title section below. Please make changes to it, not the live version, until we can come to a consensus. Burgundavia 10:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I don't think of it as either. We are only at the muttering into our pints stage and as academic work, I'm afraid we're only going to get D grades. I think of it as editors' discussing a project they are working on. I appreciated Tony's answer. Very constructive. I'm just disturbed by how POV this article is. Yes, he has made the news because of controversy, and yes, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon to slag him off. We need to cover all of that, I agree. But we can still be evenhanded about it.Grace Note 10:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for changing to the less involved version. I think it's a lot better. And thanks Burgundavia for your work. I still think we should mention very briefly how the controversy arose, because it was very long after he wrote the piece and had had the same stuff very well received in a book. Grace Note 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Title Section

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American academic who became nationally known for his extremely unpopular views about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His essay on the topic became known when talk show host Bill O'Reilly, took him to ask. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder facing investigation for research misconduct. He argued in an essay that the United States had provoked the attacks through its foreign policy and that the victims of the attacks were legitimate targets because of their own contribution to those policies which he equated with Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi mastermind of the Holocaust.

Changes:

• 1. added "and author" as he also one of those
• 2. removed radical. I am uncertain about a good word, but radical is not really it
• 3. Added info about his tenure back in as it is currently where he works. Stating where someone works in NPOV, IMHO.
• 4. added "in an essay", as that is where the views came from
• 5. removed quotes from around provoked. I am uncertain about this one.
• 6. added ", which he viewed as imperialistic," - which I assume he did in the essay. This can be removed if he did use that SPECIFIC word.

Burgundavia 10:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think the addition I've put in italics (with proper details that I was too lazy to fetch from the article ;-)) would be useful. If you agree, then that would be good; if not, cool too. Grace Note 10:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 7. added "extremely unpopular" preceding views although I think radical is probably better.
• 8. he's an academic first and foremost, I deleted author, he's also an activist, he's also a smoker, let's just keep it brief.
• 9. added "facing investigation for research misconduct". Important to keep this in, he is likely to lose his job later this year, this is going to be very topical and very controversial.
• 10 deleted "imperialistic" bit, don't see any reference to it in the essay
• 11 added the bit about Eichmann so readers understand the full dimension of the controversy and why this was such a big deal.
• 12 remove the bit about O'Reilly, who cares when it came to attention? How is that relevant to anything. I'm sure O'Reilly gave it a big run but Democrats and Republicans condemned his statements.

TonyMarvin 10:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 13. Clean up link to tenured
• 14. Added comma after Eichman
• 15. Added "His essay on the topic became known when it was mentioned on The exact name of the OReilly show escapes me" to talk about when it became known

12:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• 16. Merging in edits from the working copy.

Burgundavia 16:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• 17. Fix oreilly link to bypass redirect

Burgundavia 16:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I care about the O'Reilly thing. Because there was no controversy about the original essay. None. No votes in the Colorado legislature. Not even a mention. Nothing. The essay was more than just out there. It's the thesis of his book. The controversy has just as much to do with O'Reilly and other rightwing demagogues' stirring the *word excised by angel on Grace Note's shoulder* as it does with what he actually wrote. Hmm, and he didn't equate people with Eichmann. That's just this side of not true. He said they were like "little Eichmanns". His point was not that Eichmann was the "mastermind" of the Holocaust, which rather implies he invented it, or even that he "contributed to the policy", but that he facilitated it, made it happen. Please rethink these two points at least.Grace Note 11:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show is the O'Reilly Factor, host is Bill O'Reilly. Also, if you read the external links on this, you'll find where O'Rielly first got wind of the essay and from whom...it should be included as a point of information. Also, the intro here is very POV attack of Churchill and I would find it very unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Calicocat 01:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kelly's intro

Thanks to Kelly for her recent edits; this particular formulation works well for me:

This kicked off a media frenzy which then expanded to include an inquiry into Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his other activities as a Native American activist.

That being said, the intro as it currently stands is still missing essential information, i.e. that he is an established and prolific writer, that he is a professor at UC, part-Indian background, AIM Colorado, etc. It seems to me that this information was agreed up in earlier versions but has fallen by the wayside for reasons unclear. As Chip will attest, Churchill was also a well-known figure, at least in some circles, before the 9/11 essay controversy, and the article should reflect that, not solely reflect the recent media flap. -- Viajero 14:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more information; however, I did not have time to formulate a reasonable styling this morning. Perhaps I'll have more time this evening to address it. Kelly Martin 15:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please make the above changes to our working copy above, rather than the live, as we are proactively trying to work out the issues, rather than get into revert wars. Note: I have no emotional stake in this article, I just starting trying to work through a solution today. Burgundavia 16:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is exactlly the kind of lead I had proposed weeks ago on this and it was rejected by Viajero and others. Regardless, it's the most intersting thing about him and really is the nub of the article. See inverted pyramid. I'd like to see it be: '"Who"' he is, (proff./author/activist), 'When' (2001 wrote essay, 2005 attacked by O'Rielly after student informed O'Rielly, with threats against Churchill's life and to Hamilton). '"What"' about him (prolific author/essay controversey/maybe ethnic purity issues). '"Why"' (academic freedom/freedom of speech/disputes with Native American groups/univerity positions/outcomes for churchill). Good luck, it seems a rather hopeless article, but good luck to all. I'm watching, but not editing -- it's too crazy... Calicocat 01:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amended suggested lead section

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an outspoken and controversial American academic who became widely known in 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly took him to task for his views about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This kicked off a media frenzy which then expanded to include an inquiry into Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his other activities as a Native American activist. Churchill's extensive writings are very critical of American policy toward Native Americans and of American foreign policy. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is a part of the leadership of Colorado AIM (formerly the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement). His claim of partial Native American descent has been disputed by some American Indian groups.

I strongly recommend leaving out the Eichmann comment as it is inflammatory and debatable (the interpretation of "little Eichmanns" is disputed; since it is disputed one such interpretation should not be presented as summary fact). [Kelly Martin]

I agree with the contents and I agree on the Eichmann quote. I would just reorder it slightly to set up the context for the 9/11 issue:

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, academic, and activist of part American Indian descent. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author of many books and essays, Churchill is highly outspoken on Native American issues and US foreign policy. Churchill became nationally known in 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly lambasted him for an essay he wrote about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This kicked off a media frenzy which then expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his activities as a Native American activist.

-- Viajero 17:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "took him to task" is borderline POV (implies he needed taking), how about something to the effect of "strongly criticized" or even "publically rebuked" would be better. zen master T 17:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have a point. How about "lambasted him"? -- Viajero 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nah, too POV, "extremely criticized" or something like "encited media frency" or "encouraged continuing criticm of Churchill". I think "publically rebuked" is the best. zen master T 18:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "lambast" is a step down from "extremely criticise". It's precisely what he did and it's a good, solid word. I don't think it's POV. O'Reilly would probably agree that he "lambasted" Churchill. That intro is a great deal less POV than it was. Great work, Kelly and Viajero.Grace Note 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I had proposed weeks ago, this is the only kind of lead that will work for this article and I'd proposed similar language. See inverted pyramid as a gude and good luck to all. Calicocat 01:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Billoreilly.jpg

The lead is now beyond Bill O'Reilly's nasty spin.

And can someone explain why the hell he is in the introduction.

The reason why WC is infamous is not because of O'Reilly, it's because he says nasty, nasty things. No reason to remove his tenure admittedly but let's not hide the viciousness of what he said behind an attack on O'Reilly or behind some allusion that because O'Reilly publicized that that makes it all different.

O'Reilly should not be mentioned in the introduction but I have decided not to remove him because it amuses me. By tomorrow the joke will have worn off and it will be deleted.

TonyMarvin 03:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You would never have heard of Ward Churchill had it not been for O'Reilly.Grace Note 03:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This lead is getting worse and worse.

Are you sure? You mean as it is on the page or as we have it here under discussion?

Eichmann was not a rabid Nazi and was not the architect of the Holocaust.

We have removed that from the lead. See Kelly and Viajero's suggested lead above I agree with what you say and have said so myself. It's extremely misguided to say that Churchill compared anyone with the "mastermind" of anything.

That's just screed. Arendt's whole argument was that Eichmann embodied the "banality of evil" because he was just another bureaucrat doing a job.

Please find a single written work by Ward Churchill that consistently uses the term "Native American." He does not call himself a "Native American," and it is factually false to continually rewrite his chosen wording out of some bizarre sense that it is the "proper" term. Not if you are a sovereignty activist and nationalist. That's why the group he is in is called the "American Indian Movement," get it?

Our page on American Indian redirects to Native American. Using the term simply reflects our practice.

The lead is simply a bad piece of writing. It is awkward and fails to make sense of Churchill's body of work. What on earth is the meaning of -- "and also his perceived pathology of liberal non-violent groups."  ??? It is a nonsense phrase based on a misreading of a title.--Cberlet 03:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please focus on the proposed lead above, and not the one on the page as it stands. We're trying to work out a consensus version here.Grace Note 04:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoid revert warring

Please. Let's put our concerns here, and sort them out here, rather than spend days, weeks fighting in the article. It's fairly neutral at the moment, so let's not try to make it one thing or another. Let's accept on one side that you cannot fill the lead with accusations and on the other that you cannot ignore them by making out he is just another author.Grace Note 04:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebuke?

This is the kind of thing O'Reilly says about Ward Churchill (apologies for not being able to find the original transcript of the show he began this stuff on). If you think this is a rebuke, I would hate to be on the end of a lambasting! Grace Note 05:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Many American Indian groups"

Kelly, I take your point about the disputed descent, although I don't entirely agree with it. The text does explain that it is often difficult for people who have been raised believing themselves to be American Indians to get themselves enrolled in tribes (particularly if Bill O'Reilly is describing you as someone who should be "shunned"). However, I don't feel strongly that you're wrong. What I do wonder about is the "many" American Indian groups. I think that is POV. How many are many? Can we just say some? I won't change it myself. I'll leave it to you if you agree.Grace Note 05:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Grace Note, you comments above are outrageous. American Indian groups have been questioning WC's fake Indian story for over 20 years--long before Bill O'Reilly came along. You have so distorted facts in your statement that it is hard to take anything else you state seriously. Look at all of the communications from the American Indian Movement over the last 20 years questioning WC's fake Indian story and you are pointing to a comment made by Bill O'Reilly about one year ago. What a joke!!!!!--Keetoowah 13:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to "some", although I think listing the groups mentioned by TonyMarvin below in the lead would unnecessarily clutter the lead. Keetoowah has documented quite a list of groups that object to Churchill's claim, enough to reach the level of "many" in my opinion.

In any case, I do not believe that his ethnicity should be presented as Native American or American Indian without also noting the controversy; doing so pushes a POV. Kelly Martin 12:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

He is rejected by the Grand Governing Council of the American Indian Movement and by the 'local' tribe he previously boasted of being a member of. He grew up in a white family. He is as Indian as General Custer. Ask Keetoowah who has contributed much to the article and is outraged by Churchill's false claims. You may want an article that whitewashes all of that out but I won't accept the deletion of crucial facts from an introduction.

This is the same reason why O'Reilly comes out. It's just not relevant particularly which media outlet gave him an initial round of prominence. He was covered on every network, mag and newspaper in the end, it wasn't O'Reilly. TonyMarvin 07:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"He is rejected by the Grand Governing Council of the American Indian Movement and by the 'local' tribe he previously boasted of being a member of." In my world, two is not "many".

The O'Reilly thing is of crucial relevance. You're fighting a losing battle, Tony. You know why? Because you're trying to push an agenda. You'll think you've won because you grind every other editor down but I'll come back in a month when you've forgotten, and revert all the POV you stuffed into it. And if I don't do it, someone else will. Until then, enjoy your editing.Grace Note 08:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like Grace Note, I also take the long view; In the nearly two years I've been contributing here, I've seen other POV warriors like TonyMarvin pass through here. In the end, they never win. If Grace, or zen-master, or Kelly gets burnt out, others will pick up the slack. The Wikipedia process may not be perfect but it is largely self-correcting; extremism of any flavor doesn't flourish here. -- Viajero 10:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New lead discussion redux

Current draft:

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, academic, and activist of part American Indian descent. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author of many books and essays, Churchill is highly outspoken on Native American issues and US foreign policy. Churchill became nationally known in 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly lambasted him for an essay he wrote about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This kicked off a media frenzy which then expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications and other writings, and his activities as a Native American activist.

This lead & 2nd graphsidesteps the issue of ethnic terminology and adds a bit more detail.

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, academic, and activist in the American Indian Movement of Colorado. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author of many books and essays, Churchill's major work has focused on political repression and the FBI COINTELPRO operations. Churchill is highly outspoken on indigenous issues, US foreign policy, and political activism on the left.

Churchill became the center of widespread media attention in 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly lambasted him for an essay Churchill wrote claiming the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in part were prompted by aggressive U.S. policies and actions. This kicked off a media frenzy which then expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications, and his leftist political philosophy.

On the left of what? This is an international encyclopedia; please avoid using terms such as "left" and "right" to describe political positions. Kelly Martin 12:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The terms political left and political right have actual meaning all over the world. This is especially true when people like Ward and I openly identify as being on the political left. One of the major criticms of Churchill by the political right (people like O'Reilly) is that Churchill is on the political left. We can't just brush this aside.--Cberlet 13:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That aside, I think Churchill's politics are so radical that he's gone off the (left) end entirely. He has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the United States government, after all. I would omit "on the left" from the first paragraph and replace "leftist political philosophy" with either "radical political philosophy" or just "political philosophy". Kelly Martin 12:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Major work" suggests that he has one book which focused on the named topics; I don't think you mean to say that. I would phrase that differently. Perhaps "many of his works" would work here.

How about "major books"?--Cberlet 13:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't use "US" as an abbreviation for United States; either use American, United States, or U.S. Kelly Martin 12:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK.--Cberlet 13:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has the inverted pyramid lead and a following paragraph on the current controvery. Less tabloid, more encyclopedic.--Cberlet 12:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This process will go on endlessly unless "Kelly Martin" and "Grace Note" are willing to justify their blatantly POV edits. And explain why Bill O'Reilly should be in the introduction of an article on someone else. This is mad. TonyMarvin 15:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Various of us appear to agree that mentioning O'Reilly is acceptable, myself included. What exactly is your objection to it? -- Viajero 15:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note version is POV

My objection is RELEVANCE. If you wanted to list the journalists who covered the WC story, you'd be filling one hundred paragraphs. It was a big story. The truth is that the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News seem to have covered it most comprehensively. I don't watch "the Factor" as I find O'Reilly obtuse but I doubt he gave it anywhere near the depth of coverage as those two newspapers. So why not mention them. And Rush Limbaugh. And Hannity. And Medved. And the whole lot of right-wing radio screamers. This is self-evidently mad. "Various of us" doesn't cut it, it is clear the users are either 1) the one person or 2) in complete agreement that the WC article should be sanitized to delete anything inconvenient. I reject both the content, the writing style, the process which certainly did not include any discussion with me. TonyMarvin 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Kelly Martin POV intro:=

• Uses inappropriate informal language "kicked off a media frenzy", "highly outspoken", "lambasted"
• Calls him an author/writer twice unnecessarily
• Mentions Bill O'Reilly for reasons completely unknown
• Unnecessarily asserts he wrote an essay "immediately" after 9/11, why is this relevant to anything?
• Fails to mention American Indian Movement and his tribe

It doesn't cut it, isn't good enough, is written badly and will not stand. TonyMarvin 15:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It "will not stand"? What kind of language is this? You have an authoritarian streak which is entirely inappropriate in a collaborative editing environment. -- Viajero 15:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please. You and your offsiders who make massive deletions of material they don't like without even a word on Talk, sanitizing an article to the point of it being meaningless, you demonstrate authoritianism so emphatically that it does not require the label. I have made so many attempts at compromise, debate, adjustment, etc. that your accusation is rejected as another attempt to get your own way through intimidation. Behavior entirely consistent with authoritarianism if you wish to indulge in name calling. I generally don't. Justify terms like "kicked off" "media frenzy" etc in an encyclopedia article and you might have some credibility on this. You haven't. You can't. So don't. TonyMarvin 15:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Consensus Version

And while one of the WC spindoctors is trying to think of a response to the above. Can you analyze my consensus version and justify the deletions you propose. I think it reads OK but am willing to compromise to get to an end result. TonyMarvin 15:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus version. You are (at the moment) the sole objector to the consensus version that has been hammered out through discussion amongst the other editors on this article. Please stop reinserting the same rejected language over and over again and respect the consensus rather than declaring your private edition as "a consensus version" when it is not. Kelly Martin 16:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ask Keetoowah, someone who knows much more about Churchill than any of us. My consensus version was created over dozens of edits in collaboration with several users as this talk page demonstrates. We kicked off with different versions and arrived at something like on the Temp page while it was being protected. When the unprotected version was kicked off, it all changed again. I fear your actions will lead to protection being kicked off again. To use your like minded soul's term, you are guilty of authoritarianism. I would like to kick off a frenzy about this but really don't care. TonyMarvin 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've read this talk page quite thoroughly and I see no evidence that your edits are in furtherance of any consensus at all. At this point I am inclined to believe that you have a consensus of one, and that's not a consensus. Again, please discontinue editing the main article until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Kelly Martin 16:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Outrageous, disingenous, erroneous. This article was a battleground between fanatics pro and anti Churchill prior to my edits. It was protected. Then improved. Then unprotected. Your determination to get your way between "like minded souls" is turning the article into propaganda replete with inappropriate language like "kicking off" "media frenzy", language you wouldn't see in a grade school newsletter. TonyMarvin 17:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Like minded souls" seize control of Ward Churchill article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grace_Note Interesting] TonyMarvin 15:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone actually like to discuss changes here. No one has responded to a single point made. "Like minded souls" are too willing to revert and not at all willing to justify what they're putting up. TonyMarvin 15:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stable version pending dispute

Despite accusations to the contrary, I don't have a horse in this race; I was invited to look at this article by someone who thought that an outside view would be helpful. Can we please decide on a version from the history that is acceptable enough to leave it alone on the main page while the major disputes are settled out?

It would also be helpful if someone could identify the major points of contention so we can work toward a resolution. A major point of dispute seems to be whether Bill O'Reilly should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Another contended point is how Churchill's claim of Indian ancestry should be characterized in the lead. And I believe there is dispute over whether Churchill's family and school classmates opinions as to Churchill's ancestry is relevant to the article.

If someone could develop a list of the more contentious points and lay them out here, I think that would be most helpful to resolving some of the worst disagreements and perhaps put an end to this pointless edit war.

I would ask that everyone refrain from editing the main article, other than to revert undiscussed changes back to whatever version we decide is to be the stable version, until this has been done.

Your cooperation will make this a far less painful process for everyone. Kelly Martin 17:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pleez dont edit my stable version or it could be painful. LucioMamio 19:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't threaten other users or act like you own this article. It may be painful. ugen64 19:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I share your pain. But the sword is mightier than the pen as we have seen in Iraq. Ugen you are a patriot but also a pain in the a. Ramondelrio 19:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment - it must be my sexy new haircut. ugen64 20:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppets

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson, use of sockpuppet accounts to make reverts (in particular, in violation of the three revert rule) is strictly against Wikipedia policy. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently. And so here we are, once again. -- Curps 20:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New lead discussion redux / redux

Another draft:

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American academic and an activist in the American Indian Movement of Colorado. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author of many books and essays, Churchill's major works have focused on political repression and the FBI COINTELPRO operations. Churchill is highly outspoken on indigenous issues, U.S. foreign policy, and progressive political activism.

Churchill became the center of widespread media attention in 2005 when talk show host Bill O'Reilly lambasted him for an essay Churchill wrote claiming the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in part were prompted by aggressive U.S. policies and actions. The controversy then expanded to include examinations of Churchill's ethnic heritage, his academic qualifications, and his radical political philosophy.

Comments?--Cberlet 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Preferred synonyms to "lambasted": assailed, castigated, denoucned, rebuked, impugned, criticized, disapproved, condemned, disparaged, chastised, reprimanded, verbally scolded, chewed out, excoriated, tongue-lashed, scathily criticized, fulminated. zen master T 22:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful list. I like "castigated."  :-) --Cberlet 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Castigated is probably best, fulminated is the best definition clarity wise but isn't common/sounds odd. Instead of "when talk show host..." the article should say "after talk show host...". zen master T 22:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He is not in the AIM of "Colorado" it is referred to as the Denver chapter, the national movement rejects him not only as an activist but as an Indian!
• Why is Bill O'Reilly mentioned? Is there a valid reason for this?
• Asserting "political repression" as a fact
• Irrelevant reference to COINTELPRO, I know we like to promote each other's articles but that seems unnecessary
• Why is he controversial? Can we put a reference to that in the introduction please. His reference to the victims and their guilt is imperative, HUNDREDS of people said US policies prompted the attacks. ONE person said the victims had it coming. It must go in the introduction for it to have any meaning or validity.
• The rest of it I can live with.

I believe the pro and anti Churchill factions are out of hand here. I can't imagine any progress being made until there's a sincere commitment to edit in good faith. No more propaganda guys of either side. TonyMarvin 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this include no more sock puppets? zen master T 22:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is included because it wasn't until he "castigated" Churchill that the issue reached national attention, it's good to give a timeline of how the controversy "exploded" (fulminated). COINTELPRO is a relevant reference summary of what Churchill has been criticizing for many years (and likely why he is being attacked). "political repression" should be cleaned up, or caveated perhaps. I don't believe Churchill is saying the victims "had it coming" definitively, I believe, and his clarification statement seems to indicate, that he meant "we should not be surprised, and we can't feign ignorance or innocence because U.S. policies and actions are at issue too". zen master T 23:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe there are many sockpuppets (and vandals like today's outbursts) involved with this article yes. I don't know who is puppet and who is puppet master and I have no way of identifying the difference although I believe it is possible so be warned. I have already asked about an investigation of this and I believe it is imperative that those sockpuppets acting in concert should be banned from this article. Permanently preferably. Nothing online is secret with IP addresses and such so those responsible should be aware of just easy it is to be apprehended. Just ask those "clever" hackers who are sitting in jail.

As for Bill O'Reilly, he is just not the issue. There were many people who "excoriated" Churchill for his sledging of victims. 100% of the Colorado legislature for example. I imagine it's rare for every Democrat and every Republican to agree on anything.

His clarification statement is not relevant either, what is relevant, what gave him the attention he has was the essay itself, in which he made no distinction at all between shoe shine attendants and bathroom janitors and investment bankers. Not that I think anyone this side of sane thinks that investment bankers are legitimate military targets! He said they were not "entirely innocent" victims. That's what got people angry and it should be noted in any article that purports to be neutral. I am very pessimistic about this with the likes of Kelly Martin inserting unencyclopedic opinion and inappropriate language into an article that was taking shape quite well until "her" arrival. TonyMarvin 23:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you just described is the essence of quoting someone out of context, he subsequently made distinctions and clarifications in order to clear up prevalent misinterpretations of what the essay was about. Are you seriously arguing his post controversy clarification statement is not a clarification of what he meant in the original essay? zen master T 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebut TonyMarvin claims...

O'Reilly, by many accounts, started the Churchill controversy.

The American Indian Movement of Colorado is the name of the group, Denver is a chapter. see: http://www.coloradoaim.org/.

The name of the two major books cowritten by Churchill are:

Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. (1988). Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Boston: South End Press.

Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. (1989). The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent. Boston: South End Press.

Churchill is a recognized national expert on political repression of dissident groups by government agencies. The phrase "political repression" is not POV, it is what Churchill and I research along with many other authors. It is also a phrase used by Churchill in his books. It is used in the context of the FBI COINTELPRO operations, (another page where TonyMarvin has been disruptive and engaged in revert wars and page vandalism).

I am not aware of any sockpuppets editing this article. Kelly Martin seems to be trying to forge a compromise. What evidence exists?

The details of the Churchill essay controversy do not belong in the lead. Leads, by definition, are lean and pithy.--Cberlet 23:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wrong version

At least it's protected on the right version. This intro does not satisfy either the leftist view or the rightist view. That is as it should be! It's too neutral for either side. Each wants its POV pushed strongly in the intro but sadly, all we have here are the facts: he's an author who came to attention because O'Reilly slammed him and who has as a consequence had a lot of mud thrown at him for various things. I know that that doesn't include his good work as an activist, Chip, and I know it doesn't explain how he's a fraudulent Indian and traitor, Tony, but it's enough for interested readers to want to know more. To insert either viewpoint really would involve putting in the counterviews etc etc, and we'd have an intro that is longer than most articles.

BTW, to return to "lambasted". It sounds like a big word, zenmaster, but it's not really. It has a nice, Elizabethan sound, that's all. It means no more, no less than to scold someone in quite strong terms. Fulminate against is very good though, because O'Reilly is, par excellence, a fulminator. Grace Note 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually think the protected version is a fair compromise.--Cberlet 23:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so do I. I have to say that I think that anyone who wants major changes from that really isn't looking to compromise at all.Grace Note 00:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually think the protected version is a fair compromise.--Cberlet 23:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not 100% satisfied with the protected version but its flaws are minor and can hopefully be worked out with civility.

I am going to come back to this page this weekend, review what progress has been made, and provide my input at that time. This is partly to keep my Wikistress level down, and partly because I have a lot of other stuff to do right now. Hopefully y'all will have left me with nothing to do but agree with y'all. Kelly Martin 00:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)