Talk:Ward Churchill

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions

• Archive 1 (1 Mar 2005 to 4 Mar 2005)
• Archive 2 (1 Mar 2005 to 14 Mar 2005)
• Archive 3 (14 Mar 2005 to 19 Apr 2005)
• Archive 4 (19 Apr 2005 to 22 Apr 2005) by Grace Note 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Archive 5 (22 Apr 2005 to 5 Jul 2005) by Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
• Archive 6 (5 Jul 2005 to 5 Aug 2005) by Theo (Talk) 17:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Archive 7 (5 Aug 2005 to 5 December 2005)
• Archive 8 (5 Dec 2005 to 30 December 2005)
• Archive 9 (30 December 2005 to 27 February 2005) (unprotect → refactoring)
• Archive 10 (27 February 2005 to 6 April 2006) (refactoring → FAC)

Article name

(Deleted repeated post from Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about name change.)

I recently changed the name the related articles from Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy) to Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy and Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) to Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. For a discussion of the name changes, please see the discussion at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Improving

I haven't looked at this in a few weeks, but it is a lot better than it was. I'll do a read and comment more later.--MONGO 05:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also posting at FAC:

Okay, I know in the past I have agreed that unproven allegations shouldn't be in main articles, but instead should be linked to subarticles where the issue can be emphasized. I think we should bring about 5-7kb of information about his misconduct back to the main article. Basically, I see nothing wrong with a more through examination of the issue about his ancestry...the United Keetoowah Band simply stated that he was unable to prove to them his ancestry...but he may still qualify under Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma...I would expand slightly on this, and add just a bit to his rebuttal of this issue. I would snapshot the statement by the University that race there is self proving so anything about him claiming Indian ancestry is moot anyway, as all they require is a affirmation, given verbally or otherwise. I find the General allotment act issue and the issue over his claim that the U.S. government used smallpox to deliberately kill off Indians to be only worthy of a minor mention. I would expand slightly on the plagerism issue and his rebuttal. The artwork....I dunno, seems to me that if he is drawing from a dated image that was an original deacdes before, it seems it is almost in the public domain anyway...a little snippet n this may be necessary. Now bear in mind, I am not beholden to these points, but I do think they should be touched on with a little more detail in the main article...I think the essay controversy is what made him front page. I never personally heard of him before the news coverage of his comments about Little Eichmanns...etc. I think for FA criteria, this needs more embellishment in the main article, not because I disagree or agree with his comments, but because this is what brought him into the limelight...much of the rest of the "issues" seem to be the work of bloggers trying to further villainize the man, so I can't see how that needs mentioning. Lastly, more inline cites...especially linking to his writings is in order. The article overall though is much improved since I last looked at it a few weeks ago, so if we can get a few of these issues I have commented on corrected, I can see no reason it wouldn't be featured quality.--MONGO 07:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!! Most of these comments seem absolutely off point in hindsight, now that we know that Churchill is known and verifiable engager in research misconduct. Look at this comment: "I find the General allotment act issue and the issue over his claim that the U.S. government used smallpox to deliberately kill off Indians to be only worthy of a minor mention." He made of a total fabrication of American history and MONGO just wants to ignore it. Obviously, for MONGO, getting American Indian correct does not matter to him as long as Churchill is left alone. --- --72.177.223.95 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1987 Denver Post article

This article is being recruited to make a bunch of claims that seem dubious about Churchill's military service, or how he described it. Given that these claims see to be the sole provinence of extremely anti-Churchill partisans, it would be very helpful if there was something that editors could verify for themselves. I won't quite say I know the content of the article are being fabricated, but it certainly seems likely. LotLE×talk 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have access to Nexis or Westlaw? It's easy enough to check out for yourself. I don't have those services, but I do have a scan of the '87 article which is a human interest bio on Churchill and not at all critical. He did say those things. I will post a scan of the article if necessary. I don't think you should be saying that this stuff is "alleged" by Churchill's critics. He told the Denver Post this, and anyone can check it out.Verklempt 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary to post a scan. I've seen this article cited third, fourth and fifth hand by right wing bloggers, none of whom have ever actually seen the article, and each characterizing the claims a bit differently. I'd give the odds at maybe 10% that the 1987 article actually says what it's being used to support, either here or in the various blogs. More likely, it contains a tiny hint of similarity to the claims advanced, but if it were read in the original would support a very different characterizations. But I don't have easy access to the article; nor can 99.9% of WP readers "check it out" (outside Colorado, and maybe a few other major US libraries, even the microfilm isn't available), let alone in the rest of the world. I dunno, maybe you're right that Nexis has it, but that sounds like a guess to me rather than a known fact (I don't think Nexis has full text of most newspapers that far back). LotLE×talk 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit insulted by your assumption that I am a liar, and I don't really understand why I am on trial here. It seems to me that once the cite has been given then it is the doubter's obligation to track it down. But I will post the scan. Please tell me how to do that.Verklempt 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing personal. If there had been only one, or two, or three, or four editors who had posted specifically false claims to this article, I would have fewer doubts. But since I've been watching the article, I find that most of the time when a disparaging claim about Churchill is introduced, once the source is tracked down it winds up not saying what it is purported to say (or a few words are taken dramatically out of context to give a very different spin to the source as a whole). And almost all the time, those questionable claims are posted by editors with short edit histories, such as yours. It's not that I make an assumption, I just treat introduced claims with skepticism.

To upload a file, use the "Upload file" link that is probably to the left edge of your browser window (not sure if non-default CSS styles might move it). For a scan of text, please use PNG format (GIF is OK, just not JPG which degrades text and line art pretty badly). LotLE×talk 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got it uploaded successfully to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Churchill%2CDenverPost1987article.gif Verklempt 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting that my hunch was 100% right. I'll look over the article again later; but at first glance it is rather notable that although the article (indeed a bit of a human interest puff piece) says that Churchill was trained as a paratrooper (but not that he served as one; the claim that the right wing blogs and Fox News advance), it is not in the form of a quote from Churchill. The very next paragraph after that, for example, directly quotes Churchill, but the paratrooper paragraph has no quotes. One can speculate that the Post "must have" gotten that information from Churchill, but the article does not indicate what motivated the Post to give that description (whether Churchill's own words or some other source). In other words, the source supports something like "The Denver Post claimed Churchill trained as a paratrooper"... not "Churchill claimed he was a paratrooper." LotLE×talk 01:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Native American writers

Is this a fair category to include WC in considering his disputed lineage? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed frequently on the talk page. Whatever his "blood quantum", Churchill writes on NA topics, which is more than enoug for the category. LotLE×talk 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but everyone else on that list is a NA, whose lineage has not been questioned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The only other one on the cat who jumps out at me as having "questioned ethnicity" is Will Rogers (and his son). But I'm not terribly familiar with every name listed. It seems like a silly and pedantic issue to me, but if you can find anyone over at the NA wikiproject who agrees, I don't care if you remove the writer cat. Try the talk page over there to get some feedback. LotLE×talk 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ward Chuchill, anarchist?

I know that Churchill has described himself as an "indigenist", something that has some approximation to anarchist; however, I have never heard him or any other scholar call him an anarchist. Is there a source on this claim? He is currently listed as a "self-avowed" anarchist in the anarchism article. Is this characterization correct and if so, shouldn't it be mentioned in this article (and not just as a category at the page bottom)? - N1h1l 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "allegations" title

The title for the allegations section and child needs changing. Since CU's report, the most significant charges have been proven by a jury of Churchill's peers in academia. They are no longer mere allegations, but facts. I propose changing the title to "Research Misconduct." The renamed child could retain its sub-sections for the additional allegations.Verklempt 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the subcommittee report is quite damning of Churchill, but it's not a jury, nor are the charges criminal... nor, for that matter even "civil" in a judicial sense; the findings are administrative. Moreover, exactly what the University Regents and/or the faculty committee as a whole will do is not yet known; nor, for that matter, whether an appeals process and whether it will be pursued, is also not known.

Aside from that, the material covered in the section (and at much more length in the child article) isn't limited to the issues the subcommittee considered. For example, the stuff about whether Churchill has NA heritage, and whether he claimed to, was something that the subcommittee ruled out consideration of, as not relevant to academic fraud.

I was trying to think of a title that was more specific to the nature of the section, given the release of finding, but I really can't think of anything that remains NPOV. Saying something is an "allegation" does not mean that it is untrue... if anything just the opposite, it leans in the direction of suggesting its truth. LotLE×talk 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section title should be changed. CU's extensive report removes the academic doubt of the allegations, so for all intents and purposes they are now facts. What the University does about it is irrelevant. Also, if the material on his fake indian heritage is misplaced then it can be moved to a more relevant section. How about "Academic Misconduct", since that is what the Committee was tasked to discover (and did discover)?

A further explantion of the Committee's "academic misconduct" should also be listed, specifically 'four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” '--CReynolds 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

This article seems to fit all the criteria nicely. However, one thing I notice about this article is although its broad, I sort of hoped that it would be a bit...more broad. I mean if he hasn't done much notable stuff then that's ok, but if you can find anything more on this person then I think it would help alot. CReynolds suggestions also seems like good ideas. Homestarmy 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Academic"

I wouldn't call Churchill a scholar or academic but rather a polemicist. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill, ACTA and Public Opinion

An interesting article from Inside Higher Ed, published this week - "Ward Churchill, ACTA and Public Opinion". - N1h1l 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Recommenation of Churchill's Firing

Editor Lulu believes that the FACT that the CU Committee recommended Churchill's firing should not be in the introduction. I however believe that it SHOULD belong in the introduction. Now, Lulu has consistently and repeated accused me of POV pushing, but as far as I can tell the FACT that a tenure professor at a large state university is being recommended for firing because the University has found him guilty of plagarism is a FACT that should be prominently displayed to the Wikipedia reader. The reader needs this information to make an intelligent decision about the comments and behaviors of Churchill. Now, it seems to me that Editor Lulu wants to HIDE the FACT that Churchill has been recommended for firing, just like Lulu attempted to hide the fact that there are serious allegations about Churchill lying about his American Indian heritage and his plagarism. Let's review some the comments that Lulu has made in the past where he blindly defended Churchill from the allegations of Churchill's plagarism. These attempts to hide information from the reader concerning Churchill's lousy academic record and wild political beliefs must stop. Lulu has a history of attacking me personally for attempting to bring balance to the article and that must stop. For some reason Lulu believes, mistakedly, that he is the ONLY editor whose opinion on the article counts. When he can't get his way then he sic's MONGO on those that disagrees. Please Dear Lulu edit in good faith. I haven't seen it yet. Not only your opinion counts. This is Wikipedia and you need to learn how to work cooperatively. -- --70114205215 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this article. As a biogrpahy, we must not allow potentially libellous information to be posted here unless it can be accurately referenced and discussed. My protection does not favor a particular version, only helps to prevent an edit war and is an effort to open a discussion if contencious arguments are to be added.--MONGO 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted below the comments that MONGO has posted on my talk page. I find these comments to be threatening in that: (1) there is no specific mention of anything that I have done wrong and (2) MONGO simply does NOT agree with the editing decisions that I have made concerning the Ward Churchill Wikipedia article. This is a very good example of how Wikipedia has its short-comings. MONGO does NOT agree with my point of view concerning the how the article should be written and instead of debating the merits of the article he decides to WARN me on my talk page to stop me from making the edits that I believe that should be made. I believe that MONGO should review the rules of WP:CIVIL. He is acting as a bully and I have not done one thing that violates Wikipedia policy. --70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Personal attacks ==

I strongly recommend that you review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This will be a polite reminder to remain polite and civil, no matter how much you may disagree with someone else.--MONGO 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice in this statement MONGO does NOT give one example of the behavior that I engaged in that violates Wikipedia policy. MONGO is engaging in bullying behavior. MONGO was orginally brought to this article by Lulu to provide Lulu with a second person to agree with any changes that Lulu made. That is a fact and it is in the Wikipedia edit history. This attempt to intimidate and stop me from editing--when I have NOT violated one Wikipedia policy--is in the edit history and cannot be disputed.--70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, MONGO states that the information that I posted on the Ward Churchill article is "potentially libellous information," which is simply NOT true. The information that has been posted has been sourced and referenced. MONGO is creating a red herring to HIDE factual information about Ward Churchill from the Wikipedia reader. MONGO has NOT explained how the information that was taken from independent third party sources, newspapers, is potentially libelous information. MONGO needs to focus on the FACTS of argue the merits of the issue and he needs to stop engaging in bullying behavior.--70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? "You must stop your POV pushing behavior", apparent threat of an edit war, condescending tone, attacking contributors and not content, borderline personal attacks, obvious personal attack, condescending tone, "dear sweet MONGO"?, among other things, and using your IP address only, before you simply created a user account that is your IP address [1] I can dig up more later, if you really want me to.--MONGO 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. These are all behaviors that Lulu has been engaging in, I actually learned the terminology from Lulu, and yet you are NOT asking him to quit. -- --70114205215 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed to understand how simplifying a sentence in the lead amounts to some big censorship thing. I don't like the awkward diatribey tone of a lot of Dr. 70114205215's additions; but I did put in a more mellifluous clause about "committee recommended firing" in my last edit. Actually, even that clause isn't exactly correct (though "news.yahoo.com" used that headline): they actually split in their recommendation, but firing was the majority recommendation... it's close enough to true that there's no point splitting hairs in a biography lead. LotLE×talk 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I put in an edit which pointed out that the CU Committee recommended that Churchill be fired and you removed it. That is a fact. It is in the edit history--along with all of the personal bullying tactics that you and MONGO have been engaging in--you can review where you reversed my sourced and reference material here: [2]. This the material that MONGO is claiming is "potentially libellous" sic. It is NOT potentially libelous at all. It is the official recommendation of the CU Committee and MONGO is stating that it is "potentially libelous." I am asking that you and MONGO edit in good faith. When you call an official recommendation from a University of Colorado committee "potentially libelous," then you are pushing the bounds of good faith. --- --70114205215 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I added a paragraph break! I retained your added citation (though I did simplify basically duplicative consecutive sentences). LotLE×talk 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was retained, for the most part, yet you continue to single out editors and not the argument. See, for the very last time WP:CIVIL. Excuse me if my spelling is not always perfect...so long as it is in article space, that is the most important thing. This is a biography and I don't care what it says anywhere else, no matter how well referenced an issue is...you should discuss adding such potentially libelous items with other editors...Wikipedia is not a free for all to try and use for what may be libelous additions.--MONGO 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT potentially libelous. It was an Associated Press article by Daniel Elliot, dated Tuesday, June 13th, 2006. The article was entitled, "Panel recommends firing Colo. professor." It was picked up off of the AP newswire with same title by the Washington Post [3], Yahoo [4], CBS News [5], Washington Times [6], ABC News [7], Forbes [8], Netscape/CNN [9], Salon [10], and many, many other respected news outlets. These large, well-known, well-respected news outlet sets to rest the carnard that the information that I put in the article is "potentially libelous." -- --HouseByTheLake 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see...as I stated, your edit was retained...what the heck is your problem? Look up libel in Blacks Law Dictionary. Substantial truth edits are retained, if they utilize reliable sources. Recommending by a panel=what? So what if he has been recommended to be fired...has he been fired? No. If they don't fire him, then the recommendation to do is about as notable as a blade of grass. Time will tell.--MONGO 04:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As an attorney, I looked up libel in Black's many, many years ago. The information printed in the newspapers that I quoted is NOT libelous. You are wrong. For it to be libelous, the newspapers would have to be reporting something that is not true. Truth, as they teach in law school and is upheld in common law courts, is the ultimate defense against a claim of libel. One of the elements of the many required for a cause of action of libel would require that something UNTRUE be stated about Churchill. Now, the information you are claiming is libelous does not have libelous information in it. You are pointing to an Associated Press article that simply states that the CU panel recommended that he be fired. Now, there is nothing, absolutely nothing untrue in that statement. For Churchill to up-hold a cause of action against the AP (or by extension any of the many, many news orgainzations that repeated the story, word for word), then Churchill would have to prove (since Churchill would be the one bringing the cause of action, he would have the burden of proof) that the CU panel did not recommend his firing. Now, since the AP has pictures of the news conference where the CU panel announced the recommendation, it is not possible that Churchill could maintain a cause of action for libel under those circumstances--unless Churchill could somehow prove to a judge (because this cause of action would never make it to a jury) that the news conference did not happen, regardless of the existence of TV and still cameras. Now, from a practical standard we know the claim that the information is "potentially libelous" is false because the AP has staff of many, many lawyers that would never have allowed the AP to print such a simple little article if they believed that the contents were libelous. Also, the University of Colorado has a team of lawyers working the Churchill case and those lawyers would never have allowed the CU panel to hold the news conference in the first place if they believed the news conference was libelous. And finally from a practical point of view, Churchill's attorney would be filing a libel suit against the AP if the information in the article was not true. That is the legal issue. As to whether the recommendation is notable, well that is a whole different issue. It does not have anything to do with the legal issue or Black's Law Dictionary. It is a subjective decision based upon the opinion of editors. I believe that the recommendation is notable in that this article is a biography and Churchill has held basically the same job for several decades--a major part of his life, the topic of a biography. Now, that is enough reason to consider the recommendation notable because it concerns Churchill's livelihood. However, it is notable for many, many other reasons. One reason Churchill has been in the public spotlight for a couple of years now is because of his 911 comments but also because many, many people believe that he is being unfairly singled out because of the 911 comments, a violation of academic freedom. (That is not true, but it is not the topic of this discussion.) Since the CU panel has recommended his firing then those people who are interested in his particular case because of the so-called academic freedome issue are going to be interested in the panel's recommendation. So from that perspective, the recommendation is notable now and in the future. Why? Not many tenured professors get recommended for firing, much less actually fired. So to sum up, the recommendation is notable because the of importance in Churchill's life and also because of the academic freedom aspect of the case and finally libel has nothing to do with any of this discussion on notability because it is a legal issue and there is not even a prima facie case for libel involved with the AP article, reducing that argument to a red herring. --- --HouseByTheLake 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)