Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Please be factual rather than try for most rhetorical effect

This clause is flawed in a number of respects: but charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and fabricating his evidence for genocide.

  1. Using the word "charge" and "fabricate" in each and every sentence reads badly, and just sounds like a badly written political speech. Especially when it doesn't even make sense in the context.
  2. What is specifically at issue is whether smallbox was introduced intentionally or not. Trying to stick the words "fabricating" and "genocide" in the sentence just because it sounds dramatic is just plain bad writing.

We get it, Pokey5945, that you dislike Churchill. But this is an encyclopedia, please. Let's state what is actually at issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The accusations against Churchill are specifically of "fabricating" a genocide, and that is a serious "charge to make in academia. That is what is going on. It seems like you are constantly trying to defend Churchill.Pokey5945 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, this edit comment is almost absurd to the point of laughable: Smallpox blanket genocide? -my version is more accurate. There is no other scholar who supports Churchill's allegations of genocide. It is misleading to suggest that there is a general debate. The allegations made by Churchill are very familiar in American history scholarship, I was well familiar with the debate well before Churchill ever wrote about it. I know if you take only the right-wing popular press as sources you can imagine Churchill is making some novel claim, but if you ever read US history, that's just silly. It may be that the specific incident, in the specific place and time Churchill alleges was not exactly as Churchill describes; but the general pattern of deliberate introduction of smallpox is incontrovertable. The town down the road from me, Amherst MA, is named after, Jeffrey Amherst, one of the first people to use smallbox as biological warfare against Native Americans (and no one even feigns to pretend otherwise). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick search:

  • Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
    ... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
  • There is historical evidence of its lethality as a biowarfare agent. During the French and Indian Wars, blankets from smallpox patients were given to native Indian populations by British soldiers, with subsequent epidemics killing up to 50% of affected tribes.[1]
  • General summary of smallpox epidemics in America, timeline: [2]
  • Plains Indian Smallpox Genocide by O. Ned Eddins: [3]
  • Mandan Indian Tribal History: [4]
  • Date: April 16, 1995; From: Betty Nuxoll <EMNQC@CUNYVM>:
    I have been reviewing the documents in the latest volume of The Papers of Henry Bouquet which has many interesting texts on relations with various Native American tribes, and on frontier warfare. A number of the texts deal with the decision to use small pox as a deliberate form of germ warfare against the Indians in the 1760s. I recall much coverage of the decimation of the Indians by disease during the Columbus anniversaries, but I am not familiar with the historiography on the deliberate use of smallpox or other diseases as a weapon--or indeed the historiography on the origins of germ warfare in general. Would any of you be able to inform me of sources on this subject? Thanks in advance. Elizabeth M. Nuxoll. The Papers of Robert Morris Queens College, CUNY
  • Encyclopedia of North American Indians [5]

So the most one can claim is subject of scholarly debate is whether that particular outbreak resulted from deliberate introduction or accidental exposure, both positions being widely held among scholars. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the only issue at stake here--this particular outbreak. Churchill cannot defend his fabrication of the 1837 genocide by bringing up eveidence of other genocides. He needs to prove his charge that the Army distributed blankets with genocidal intent in 1837. His own cited sources repudiate his claims, and "charge" him with "fabrication." That is what is happening, whether you like it or not.Pokey5945 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Pokey5945, the edit comments keep getting more absurd! revert to accurate version. The issue here is the Mandan epidemic of 1837, and no other scholar supports Churchill's version. Even his own cited sources repudiate him.) Yes, a couple sources disagreeing with Churchill were located by the RMN, our of the dozens or hundreds of sources Churchill cites in his books. It is absurdly ideological to fantasize that "no other scholar" supports this conclusion. Moreover, the reversion you keep making doesn't even relate to that issue directly, it's just a matter of writing clearly rather than putting in doggerel. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Lulu, your duty is to cite even one historian who agrees with Churchill that the US Army gave smallpox blankets to the Mandans in 1837. You claim that there is a general debate over this episode--now you need to prove it. Put the citations in the article, and I will accede. Also, your constant accusations of bias against me are getting tiresome. My edits are no more biased than your own, and are fully supoported by citations.Pokey5945

I don't understand why you consider using Churchill's own word "genocide" to be ideological, but "intentional introduction of infection" is not. They mean the same thing, and Churchill uses the word "genocide" freeely to describe almost anything he doesn't like, inlcuding the Mandan infection. In the intro to this piece you insist on using Churchill's own word--i.e., "technocrats." But here you don't want to use Churchill's own words, and characterize it as me being an "ideologue." Think about what you are doing, my friend. For someone who once wanted to be a philosopher, you often stray from logic.Pokey5945 22:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "genocide" is fine where it makes sense. But the specific issue in the sentence is whether infection was introduced deliberately. The answer could be yes, and the event not be genocide (it depends on both intent and effect). I don't mind using the word "genocide" in the same paragraph, if we use it to describe what Churchill actually claims, and in its actual meaning, not simply as some sort of monotonic repitiion ala Godwin's Law. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu, you need to study this topic before you edit

Because a lot of the time, you don't know what you are talking about. You keep writing that Churchill is charged with fabricating evidence, but you have not cited any source that charges him with fabricating evidence of smallpox genocide. He is charged with fabricatng the genocide and falsifying his evidence. You don't appear to comprehend the difference between fabrication and falsification, which means that you are not qualified to edit this section. I suggest that you do some studying. Read the web essays by Brown and Lewy, and the RMN article by Kevin Vaughan. Learn the basics of scholarly ethics and how they are defined and policed. Once you understand the issues involved here, then perhaps you won't make so many factual errors. Also, it is no secret that most of your edits are made from Churchill's POV, or from someone who is attempting to either exonerate Churchill or minimize the severity of his transgressions. You are in no position to accuse others of bias, given your own blatantly biased editing on this article.Pokey5945 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Y'know what: I've been an academic and scholar; I'm certain you have not. In any case, you keep inserting the awful doggerel "fabricating the scenario" which doesn't even make any sense (it's probably low-C material, if you were one of my students). The perspective in this article is getting to be absurdly one sided, towards a pretty direct violation of WP:NPOV; but that's not even my narrow complaint in the last few edits. At this point I just want the article to be in English.
Again, you do not understand the issues involved. You're not familiar with the evidence cited in this section, and you don't know enough about scholarly ethics to be able to distinguish between fabrication and falsification. Your claim to having been an academic is an argument from credentials, not evidence. If you could make your case on the evidence, you wouldn't need to resort to arguing from credentials and making ad hominem charges against me. Your resort to these reprehensible and decidedly non-scholarly forms of argumentation suggests that you are unable to marshal the evidence to support your claims.
The purpose of this article is to state the facts. The fact is that a number of scholars have "charged" Churchill with "fabrication" and "falsification." That is a fact, and well-documented by the cites in the article. You are attributing these words to me, but they are not mine--they are the charges made by the scholars named and cited in the article. But rather than deal with the evidence, you stoop to ad hominem attacks against me.
If you don't like the word "scenario," then fine--rephrase it any way you like as long as you retain the correct meaning. But do not continue to confuse fabrication with falsification. If you want to edit this section intelligently, then you need to educate yourself as to the difference between fabrication and falsification, and how it applies here. I've challenged you to come up with some evidence that Churchill has been charged with "fabricating evidence," and all you come back with is this irrelevant ad hominem nonsense. What does that say about your position in this debate?Pokey5945 10:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Unfortunately, editor Pokey5945 has imposed a delete-on-sight policy against any balancing material in the accusations against Churchill. The smallpox section is the worst, but the others suffer this as well. I've tried to be concilliatory since he has added some sourced material, but it's gotten to the point of being nothing but a poorly written screed against Churchill, and a complete misrepresentation of academic disputes (which by definition have more than one side to them).

At a deeper level, I was thinking about Pokey5945's problem. The thing is, he is utterly unable to conceive of the concept that Churchill can just be wrong about something. I'm not saying Churchill actually is wrong about any of these specific historical analyses, but I understand the conceptual possibility (and that being wrong is not "academic misconduct").

Instead, for Pokey5945 (presumably only in the case of Churchill, though who knows since he's obviously not an historian, academic or lawyer), the only thing Churchill can be is "fabricating" or "falsifying". And moreover, it's Pokey5945's automatic supposition that if some other scholar Jones claims X, and Churchill claims Y, then Jones is right, and therefore Churchill is "fabricating evidence" (rather than the explanation more consistent with Occam's Razor: Churchill is merely mistaken on the scholarly dispute... or heaven forbid, Jones is wrong).

The effect on the rhetorical tone is that when Pokey5945 adds anything, every person who disagrees with Churchill on anything "charges" fraud, etc. None of them simply "claim" or "argue" or "propose" or "disagree". Occasionally they can be allowed to "point out" or "observe" (i.e. because the actual historical fact is self-evident, so Churchill is falsifying it). And conversely, Churchill can never "claim", "argue" or "disagree", but only "fabricate" or "falsify".

And indeed, that's exactly right. You're so overwhelmed by anti-Churchill ferver that you are simply unable to write on this topic with a neutral perspective, as is required for Wikipedia.

The above is just a vague personal attack on Pokey. You need to specify precisely what in the article you want changed, and cite sources that will support your proposed changes.Pokey5945 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
To be precise, start acknowleding that academic disputes are academic disputes, and don't revert efforts to explain what is actually disputed. An enumeration of all the a priori presumed sins of Churchill in the most perjorative and biased language you can locate violates WP:NPOV. If you can agree to stop such destructive reversions, I can make an effort to rewrite the sections in more encyclopedic tone... or you can read WP:NPOV until it sinks in, then make such changes yourself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
But your "effort to explain" is erroneous. I've asked you three times to substantiate it with a cite or an explanation. And instead of doing so, you sling mud in my direction. If you don't like my use of language, I have no problem with you rewriting it. But you continue to make the same basic error. No one has accused Churchill of "fabricating evidence" for his smallpox genocide. Until you can cite evidence to the contrary, you should stop making that false claim.Pokey5945 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not quite English"?

The clause in question is perfectly grammatical, if not as euphonious as one might like. To say that it's "not English" is just hyperbole on your part. If you don't like it, then rewrite it. But please stop making the erroneous statement that confuses "fabrication" with "falsification." I don't understand your motivations here. Perhaps if you could explain we could arrive at a compromise.Pokey5945 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

I also don't understand your constant accusations that I am the one saying pejorative things about Churchill in this section, when I am simply reporting what other scholars have said about him. The fact is that these accusations have been made by a number of experts in the field, and no expert in this topic has supported Churchill's version of events. Furthermore, Churchill has been under investigation by his university's misconduct committee for nearly a year, and that investigation is ongoing. So it's not correct to say that this is just another academic dispute. It seems far more serious.Pokey5945 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. E.g.:
Another scholar who a friend of Churchill’s, George E. Tinker, said in an interview that he had not read Brown’s essay. He also said that he was not an expert on the period in question. But Tinker, a professor of American Indian cultures and religious traditions at the Iliff School of Theology, said that the charges “don’t ring true to me.”
“Ward has written 24 books, always heavily annotated, and we all write stuff that can be challenged. That’s part of the academy,” he said.
Tinker said that he has known Churchill for 20 years and found him to be “absolutely honest in every interaction.” He said that these new accusations are “an attempt at character assassination” and “part of the national right wing attempt to purge the university.” [6]
Of course, scholars who don't simply have a single purpose agenda of condemning Churchill "don't count", right? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If you think that Tinker's statement is relevant, then include it in the article. But it sounds to me more like a character reference--mixed with political rhetoric-than an informed opinion on the topic at hand. He hasn't read the works in question and has no apparent expertise on the smallpox issue. So he doesn't seem relevant to the smallpox section. Perhaps his quote would fit in the "McCarthyism" section.
But you still haven't answered my question about POV: Do you object to including an analysis of the charges made against Churchill? It seems to me to be a vital part of understanding why he is significant. To exclude these charges would seem even more biased.Pokey5945 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I object to any "analysis" that starts and ends with the assumption that everything Churchill ever did must be attributed solely to falsification and fabrication. To be neutral, we must also include the (much more plausible) possibilities that Churchill is either (a) Right; (b) Wrong, but as a non-fraudulent matter of academic scholarship.
Frankly, in real life (i.e. outside right-wing blogs), Churchill's notability has almost nothing to do with the charges against him made by extreme partisans recently. His significance is his two dozen influential books. There is not a single university professor at any university who couldn't be made to seem at least as "hinky" if the same degree of partisan micro-investigation was undertaken. No one who wrote 24 books got every single detail right, nor managed to avoid trivial errors in citation details or reuse of writing. It would be like devoting 3/4 of the article on Bill O'Reilly to the accusations of sexual harrasment against him, and moreover not allowing one single sentence suggesting that they might not be accurate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
But the smallpox section does not assume anything about Churchill's culpability. It simply reports the charges. Also, this is not an ordinary academic dispute. This is every expert on the Mandan smallpox saying that Churchill has fabricated the whole thing. This is Churchill's university taking its investigation of his alleged misconduct all the way through to the third and final stage. Such events are rare in academia. The Colorado spokesperson couldn't even tell the media the last time they'd done an investigation, because no one remembered one.
Also I would dispute your description of why Churchill is notable. I would bet that far more people recognize Churchill's name as a result of hearing it in the media last year than from eading any of his obscure books.
Finally, you have not proposed any alterations to the smallpox section. All you've done is sling mud at me. I suggest that you put something productive on the table.Pokey5945 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right than non-academics like yourself probably can't name a dozen historians. But academics can. Notability isn't simply "name recognition" by people outside of the fields where people do things. Probably more people recognize John Seigenthaler today for the story of Wikipedia misdescribing him than do for his actual professional life. So what?!
I've tried to write a less POV version of the smallpox section maybe a dozen times... but you've replaced it with something successively worse than your last version every single time. It can't be "on the table" if it's blindly rolled back, or replaced with something still more POV than the last tract. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed (?)

Please specify what POV dispute you believe this page has here. This was just refactored from a parent article, and the tag was added during the very first pass at initially shaping it into an independent article. Is there some issue of dispute separate from what has been discussed in the parent, from which the text was taken? It's just copy-and-paste (from a couple parts of parent), with very slight rewording just to make it stand alone. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove the Tinker material

The difference between Tinker and Brown is that Tinker more-or-less is an expert, but modestly refrains from over claiming knowledge of very specific historical events. In contrast, Brown is an absolute nobody, and actual non-expert, who just wants to make a reputation by criticizing Churchill. That's the point, after all, of Churchill's somewhat crudely put dismissal of Brown. I don't think the particular Churchill quote is all that encyclopedic, but OK, fine, that's how he put it, so we can quote it. But the reason Churchill doesn't know if Brown is 7 foot tall or a dwarf is because Brown has never been at a conference or meeting relevant to the subject area, and hence Churchill has never heard of him or seen him before. Robertson and Lewy, though disagreeing with Churchill, are names in the right field, as is Tinker (and certainly Churchill). Self-appointment isn't enough basis for uncritical attribution of expertise, which is all Brown has. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis of Tinker's expertise in the 1837 smallpox affair, and how can he offer an expert critique of a piece he admits he hasn't even read? Also, Tinker's quote is clearly part of a political viewpoint, not a scholarly analysis.Pokey5945
It's not exactly surprising that Tinker doesn't bother reading every crackpot who pops out of the woodwork. Brown is not "scholarly analysis" by a long shot. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You haven't dealt with the issue: What is the basis of Tinker's expertise? Brown's view is echoed by scholars who have published on the 1837 incident. Tinker has never published on it and hasn't even read the piece he's criticizing. It's just not relevant.Pokey5945 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If you decide to remove all references to non-expert Brown, it might make sense to remove Tinker's (and Churchill's) comments on the poor quality of Brown's claims. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Brown is relevant because his charges are being considered by CU. The university takes him seriously, even if you do not.Pokey5945 06:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith discussion?

I've asked Lulu several times to provide some evidence of George Tinker's status as an expert WRT the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and haven't yet gotten a response.Pokey5945 07:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective on Brown

From http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/08/more-on-ward-churchill (the same blog where Brown published his unrefereed essay):

This “essay” by Prof. Brown is flat out false. Which is to say, Mr. Brown falsifies or deliberately misreads at least two notes in Ward Churchill’s work in order to accuse Churchill of academic dishonesty. Specifically, Brown accuses Churchill of misrepresenting sources in A Little Matter of Genocide (among other places). However, by simply looking at Churchill’s footnotes, one finds that the sources Brown attributes to Churchill and the sources Churchill actually cites are not the same at all. Churchill describes the incident on page 155 of A Little Matter…; Brown asserts that Churchill’s source is Russell Thornton’s American Indian Holocaust and Survival. Churchill’s description is tied to endnote #136; note #136, on page 261, reads thusly: “Stearn and Stearn, The Effects of Smallpox, op cit., pp. 89-94; Francis A. Chardon, Journal at Fort Clark, 1834-39 (Pierre: State Historical Society of South Dakota, 1932).” Nowhere is Thornton cited as the authority for the Mandans and the smallpox blankets. As a nod to “peer review” (if such a thing exists on the internet), I invite (indeed, request) other readers to look at the sources I’ve referenced here. It is 11:30 PM. I have a BA in History, a copy of A Little Matter of Genocide, and an internet connection. If I can find the relevant information in the relevant book in less than ten minutes and write a detailed post on it, it would seem that Dr. Brown, with the resources of Lamar University behind him and his years of training in reading academic sources, should be able to do the same thing. I haven’t seen the trial brief, but the preceding information would seem to discredit the entire sorry exercise. As an aside to Henry Farrell, who originally linked to this hit job, I must say that it seems the height of irresponsibility to link to work accusing an academic of falsifying his sources and committing perjury without actually evaluating the accusing work first. This is not hard to do, requiring only a copy of A Little Matter of Genocide, available at fine bookstores everywhere. As a professor, you of all people should know the harm that can result from even mendacious claims of academic dishonesty. Posted by Noah Schabacker · February 9th, 2005 at 6:40 am

Above quote found by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

DO you really think a blog post somehow disqualifies a sitting professor? If you had read further, you would have noticed that Schabacker admits he misread Brown, and retracts his criticism: (Pokey5945)
I must sincerely thank Timothy Burke for doing exactly what I requested; he is correct in his reading Prof. Brown, while I am incorrect. I respectfully withdraw my charges pending further review of Brown’s sources. At the same time, I can only amplify my aside to Henry Farrell* that it is irresponsible to link to accusations of perjury and academic dishonesty before verifying their accuracy. Posted by Noah Schabacker · February 9th, 2005 at 8:13 pm (quote found by Pokey5945))
Once again, regardless of Brown's expertise, he is part of the story, given his status as a complainant to the university. Tinker is merely an unqualified observer who happens to be a friend of Churchill. He does not meet the status of expert, and he is not a party to the dispute. Pokey5945
You are evading the issue by refusing to substantiate your claim that Tinker is an expert.Pokey5945 07:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Brown published his non-journal article on the very same blog. However, I had not seen the retraction by Schabacker. If so, the specific misrepresentations Schabacker claims are not supported. Nonetheless, Brown is a professor in a different field who has never published in this area, so trying to claim any expertise for him is absurd (in contrast to Tinker, who works in the same general field; but doesn't exaggerate his knowledge about a specific event on a specific date). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

I am confused by this section, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters appears to have edited/moved some of Pokey5945 words, so I am confused now about who said what.

Where exactly is this section found, which you both refer too: Brown published his non-journal article on the very same blog... Travb 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I figured it out.Travb 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is Henry Farrell?Travb 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Farrell runs crookedtimber, among other things (which is where Brown published his essay, and several other people criticized Brown). I'm not trying to make any point about Farrell one way or the other (at least not now), but Pokey5945 and I each found quotes that mentioned Farrell in the same breath as Brown. We copied those quotes to this talk page intact, rather than trying to edit out potentially unrelated parts.
In any case, from my POV, a lot of this minutiae really isn't very important (and certainly doesn't belong in the article itself). My general point is simply that Brown doesn't become a renowned expert simply by virtue of making anti-Churchill comments that Pokey5945 is sympathetic with. Everyone can be criticized by someone, if put under a microscope... including the "critics" of Churchill (whose credentials are largely weak to non-existent). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Blogs and personal pages are not considered to be reputable sources for Wikipedia articles. Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, I support you quietly because you generally seem to subscribe to my own POV and you invited me to join you on this page. I hesitate to criticize you because I have found on Wikipedia it is often uncomfortable to be attacked from both sides, and it is important to have allies on Wikipedia, but some of the arguments you present I find weak, for example: "Everyone can be criticized by someone, if put under a microscope..." I think Pokey5945 has consistently been a better debater and expressed his own POV better. Pokey5945 has been consistent in his repeated question about the small pox scandal, which you appear to intentionally ignore.
You and Pokey5945 seem to know more about Churchill then I ever will and ever want too, so I can't contribute anything to the debate.
Thanks for taking the time to write those clarifications Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. My comments have probably earned another lifetime ally. :)
I also think User:Jossi also has a good point.Travb 10:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really thin accusations

The more I look at the claims, largely in response to Pokey5945 adding these rhetorical excesses to the article, the less there seems to be to any of the anti-Churchill claims. Prior to really investigating it, I guess I might have guessed that there was some sliver of truth to some of the accusations. But the closer you look, the less substantial they seem. I honestly cannot bring myself to believe that Pokey5945 actually believes any of the stuff he's putting into the article is true, at heart. Sure, I'm sure the RMN managed to get some 3rd rate academic to say something that could be taken out of context enough to sound very anti-Churchill, and Pokey5945 can futher selectively quote that stuff. So it's true at the level that "someone said something". But all the fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and so on just seem to completely lack any substance underneath them. Which makes the motivations of the editor stand out in contrast, methinks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment seems almost comical in hindsight, now that the Commitee has found Churchill guilty of research misconduct. He just made up the theory that one-half blood quantum rules are found in the General Allotment Act. All you have to do is READ the General Allotment Act to see that Churchill made it up that the GAA refers to a one-half blood quantum requirment. It is NOT brain surgery. Either the GAA required one-half blood quantum levels or didn't. Simple as that. Also, Lulu's comment on Pokey5945's motives seems to be over the top, almost looney. It is as if someone does not agree with Lulu's viewpoint then their MOTIVATION is in question. Wow. Let's calm down a bit, huh? --- --70114205215 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that every time I catch you in a mistake and ask for evidence, you evade the issue and stoop to ad hominem? What is this, like the third or fourth error I've caught you in where you've replicated this pattern? Where is your good faith effort to negotiate, to substantiate your claims? It's becoming clear to me why you identify with Churchill. You have a lot in common with him.Pokey5945 08:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
So far I have not made any such mistake. But even if I had, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political screed against Churchill. Blanking of any material that you feel doesn't sufficiently condemn Churchill, is extremely POV. Moreover, most of the pro-Churchill stuff I've found—well, actually just pro-NPOV—comes from the very same URLs that you quote extremely selectively. Even the RMN feels vaguely compelled to let in a couple contrary opinions, but you definitely don't quote those, and delete them on sight. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be honest, Lulu. I have repeatedly attempted to negotiate with you in good faith, and yet you continue to smear me with ad hominem and untruths. There is still an issue on the table: You claim that Tinker has expertise relevant to the smallpox issue. What is the basis of his expertise on the smallpox epidemic of 1837?Pokey5945 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, as it contains excellent information on how to deal with these aspects. Some snipets below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.
  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material.
  • Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations.

Also read the guideline about Reliable sources. in which it is stated that (my emphasis):

  • Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.
  • A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still waiting for Lulu to provide requested verification

I have requested more than once that Lulu substantiate George Tinker's status as an expert on the 1837 smallpox epidemic. Each time, Lulu responds with ad hominem instead of verification. What is the basis for including Tinker as an expert observer in the smallpox section?Pokey5945 00:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed you repeatedly demanding "proof" of something I never claimed and that has no relevance here. It's some sort of silly verbal game like "when did you stop beating your wife?" that obviously has no meaningful answer.
Wow. Reading these old posts, it is like surreal. Lulu has used the same type of bob and weave routine with many a person who has attempted to connect the dots on Churchill. He just assumes that anyone, and I mean anyone that does not agree with every thing that he, Lulu, espouses is either: (1) a vandal, (2) a right-wing fanatic, (3) a POV pusher, (4) terribly ignorant, (5) focusing on relevant details, (6) long-winded, (7) has bad breath, (8) rude and violating Wikipedia's rules of polite debate. The final one is the funniest because he engages in all types of rude behavior, but he will not tolerate anyone even referring to him as "Dear Lulu." He sic'd MONGO on me. Nothing and I mean nothing that disagrees with Lulu can be tolerated. --- --70114205215 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There are probably a half dozen living people in the world who have looked with specificity at events at Ft. Clark in 1837. Lewy is not one of them. Brown is not by any stretch of the imagination one of them. And likewise, Tinker is not one of them. Churchill is one of them, and Thornton is another. So we have an academic disagreement between two actual experts, with some onlookers who are more-or-less in the right field providing their general opinions about likely facts and comparative reputations. Tinker is much closer to being in the right field than is Brown, or probably Lewy, but still only at the level of "right field", not a researcher on a single very narrow fact. FWIW, LotLE and Pokey5945 are probably even farther from relevant expertise than anyone mentioned except Brown. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion on the relevant expertise of the various authors is not adequate to validate or invalidate their status. What we need to see instead is evidence that the experts quoted in the article have indeed published on the topic in a relevant venue.
Your insistence that the Tinker quote belongs in the smallpox section implies that he has some expertise on the topic. But he appears to write about Indian theology which has nothing to do with the 1837 smallpox epidemic that I can see. If you cannot verify his status as an expert on the topic through reference to his publication record, then his quote should be either moved to a different section or excised altogether.
Lewy has published a number of books on genocide, and has published specifically on the 1837 epidemic. Please specify why you think Churchill has more expertise on the 1837 epidemic than Lewy. Part of Churchill's defense on this issue is precisely that he has _not_ looked at it closely.
I agree that Brown's status as an expert is not well established. But then he gets only one sentence in the Churchill article. That sentence needs to be there, because Brown is the complainant at Churchill's university. That the university took his status as a complainant seriously enough to initiate an investigation gives him some degree of credibility. But unless Brown has published on the topic in a respectable venue, then I agree that his charges probably don't deserve any more than the single sentence.
In your list of experts, you left out RG Robertson who wrote an entire book on the 1837 epidemic. He agrees with Thornton that Churchill seriously misrepresented his data. His opinion is deserving of note in the article. The RMN also quoted Evan Connell, who wrote a book on plains Indian history including the smallpox. His quote should also be included here.Pokey5945 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good refactoring

I think the moving Tinker to another section as Pokey5945 has done looks very reasonable. I think maybe the "responses" might make sense to occur before the governor's statement/fragging section, since it relates more closely to those. But I can also see a certain sense for "responses" to come after allegations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual honesty, academic debate and the role of the state

I think this topic ought to be discussed here on the talk page. Academia has structures which enforce a broad tolerance for different perspectives, and simultaneously check against the proliferation of unadulterated trash. By publishing in academic journals subject to peer review, academics carve out an insular space in which they debate the merits of ideas and theories. Bad ideas, and false theories, are attacked and refuted within the journal structure. These attacks and refutations are aimed at the quality of a professor's scholarship and ideas; if successful, they damage a scholar's intellectual reputation; but they don't strive to prove moral and legal failings on the part of controversial thinkers. The peer review system allows for a safe space, because discussions are highly technical and obscure, and are therefore sheltered from criticism by outsiders: outsiders who often do not share the value system of academia, which prizes flourishing of conflicting expression, and who are not plugged into the system of rewards and punishment distributed by academia from within; and who therefore employ attacks on a scholar's motives, morals, patriotism, lawfulness etc. these attacks aim to break and silence a voice, rather than qualify it. I feel that the peer review system is praiseworthy for the way in which it protects free expression while allowing for positive and negative judgment, such that not all free expression is equally worthy. I think that attacks from outside academia are positive in that they break through a sometimes incestuous protective circle: i.e. when the peer review system has failed; but they are problematic because of their vicious intent. I'll expand more on this later, but I think it ought to have a role in thinking about the way we characterize Churchill's detractors and supporters, and Churchill's controversial work itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.117.74 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure how you intend your comments to affect editing this article. Almost none of Churchill's controversial works are published in refereed, scholarly venues.Pokey5945 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quote from Barsamian interview

Please justify the inclusion of this long quote. It is not in any way responsive to the charges of ethnic fraud, because it does not offer an alternative means of substantiating Churchill's claim to Indian identity. It simply replicates the criticism already summarized in the GAA section. What do you think this quote adds that is not in the GAA section, and that is relevant to a discussion about Churchill's claim to Indian identity?Pokey5945 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(Just as an aside, I also removed this quote earlier for exactly the same reasons, and am interested in hearing what it adds...) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add it in the first place. Part of my defense of it is a desire to assume good faith for the editor who did, rather than automatically delete anything that is quoted from Churchill or that can be read to support him. However, I think the quote has a different quality than what is in the GAA section; in large part by being directly responsive to the criticism (unlike the verbatim copy of LaVelle that Pokey5945 duplicated from one section to another). Despite Pokey5945's desire, it is not within a stone's throw of NPOV to try to re-frame every issue in the terms least favorable to Churchill, as his above comment does: if Churchill (along with a great many other people, in this issue), think the existing criteria for tribal membership fail to capture the idea of Indian identity, it doesn't work to proclaim that, "Nope, identity is defined only as whatever Churchill's critics call it (but pick a critic for each paragraph, since they don't actually agree with each other either)"
By analogy, it would be like cricizing me (an athiest) for failing to follow the Shariah in some technical detail, or likewise so criticizing a Christian. Islamic law is simply not the standard by which I judge my actions, so insisting that the only possible question is whether I really did perform the right dietary rituals completely misses the point... especially if followed, as here, by an insistence that the only answers are "yes" or "no".
That said, I'll take a look at the GAA more carefully, and see if we can remove some material that is duplicative of the Barasmian comment. I believe the editor who added it had a good point in putting it near the ethnic identity claims, since it helps explain Churchill's position on what it means to claim Indian identity (and in this, he if very, very from from alone... regardless of how GAA in particular is analyzed). Still, if some of the GAA section can simply refer to the early section rather than reproduce an idea already covered, we could trim that way. Give me a day to look at this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I too am willing to assume good faith on the part of whoever inserted this quote, but that does mean that the quote should stay. Whoever wrote this section is either unfamiliar with Churchill's defense of his identity, or doesn't understand it. Lulu's reflex accusations against me show that he is also unfamiliar with Churchill's defense and, as usual, he doesn't understand the issues that he undertakes to edit. The fact is that this particular quote is a very poor representation of Churchill's defense of his own claim to Cherokee identity. There is more to his argument, and more that is on point. This particular quote does not even address the issue. There is no blood quantum requirement that would prevent anyone from enrolling as a Cherokee if he were descended from Cherokee. Churchill's criticism of BQ here is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. I recommend that someone undertake to rewrite this section. It needs to address Churchill's actual defense of his identity. The tangential issue of bq should be relegated to the GAA section.Pokey5945 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting that there is an edit conflict of sorts (no, not involving me; though I've made some fixes to typos and whatnot) going on over at United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians on precisely this, with a Cherokee editor being quite insistent that a blood quantum standard does exist. However, I think I might agree that the Barsamian quote is not the absolute best expression of Churchill's opinion. I'll move it back into a footnote... I had done so, and only put it back into main text because it seemed to conflict with this silly {Quotation} template I was playing with.... that's OK though, a footnote can use regular blockquote.
I think it's unlikely to happen, but if you could tone down the extremes of your abuse and insults, Pokey5945, that would certainly make editing more pleasant (and compromise more likely no doubt, as much as I try to remain neutral in the face of the personal attacks). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out that you don't know much about the issue at hand is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. The Keetowah and Eastern Cherokee tribes do have a bq, but the main band--the CNO--does not have a bq. Churchill does not qualify for enrollment in any of the three federal bands, because he cannot document a single ancestor who was Cherokee. You should know such basic facts if you are going to undertake to edit this topic. When I point out your ignorance, you accuse me of POV-mongering, when it is obvious to everyone that you are rabidly pro-Churchill in your work on this article. Your constant accusations of POV-mongering are at the root of any unpleasantness on this article. Lose that, and everyone would get along a lot better. I accept that you have a POV on this issue, and I don't mind that in the least. I do mind your incessant and hypocritical accusations that others have a POV.Pokey5945 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you continue these personal attacks, I will probably need to pursue a user conduct RfC; or find an administrator willing to block you for continual violations of WP:NPA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I would point out to such a net-nanny that you made the same complaint about arguments from ignorance only a few days earlier. But what say we put this petty sniping aside, eh? I propose that we both take the following pledge:
1. I promise to refrain from arguing from credentials or specialized knowledge. I will never bring up my personal history or other qualifications to avoid debating the evidence at hand. I will not question the credentials or knowledge of my interlocutors. I will instead limit myself to debating on the basis of reason and evidence alone.
2. I promise to promptly provide empirical substantiation for any factual assertion in one of my edits that is challenged by another editor. I promise not to evade this elementary requirement for intellectual debate by engaging in any of the diversionary tactics proscribed in this pledge.
3. I openly acknowledge that I have a POV, and that my POV may on occasion influence my edits, whether consciously or not. Because I understand and admit this about myself, I promise to refrain from accusing other editors of POV-mongering, because such accusations do nothing to further the cause of intellectual debate, and only increase the level of acrimony.
4. I promise not to invoke WP policy or procedures to win or evade a debate on substantive issues that arise in the editing process.
5. I promise to negotiate in good faith. I promise to never engage in knee-jerk reverts of substantive edits without first opening a negotiation on the talk page, and participating in the discussion in good faith.
6. I promise not to indulge myself in ad hominem arguments. This includes accusations that other editors are POV-mongering and the like.
So what say you, David? Will you pledge to abide by these elementary rules of intellectual debate. I do so pledge. I think that if we both abide by this pledge, then editing this article will be far more pleasant and productive in the future.Pokey5945 12:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I hereby so pledge. Thanks for the gesture. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC). Sorry, I have to revisit this, since Pokey5945 construed this comment as a promise to disregard WP policy, which I obviously am not willing to do. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I noticed that Doug Bell describes himself on his user page as an "exclusionist" editor, meaning that he puts a high priority of removing inessential material. I'm not an "inclusionist" in the sense of wanting absolutely everything vaguely related, but I suspect I'm closer to the middle position on this than Doug Bell is (so it's odd that I program in Python while he programs in Java (*wink*)). As what I think is a compromise with Doug Bell and Pokey5945's concern that the Barsamian quote is duplicative of the discussion in the GAA section, I moved the quote out of the main body and into a footnote. That way, readers who really want to pursue the quote can find it; but someone generally skimming the content won't need to read the extra admittedly somewhat duplicative material.

Does this compromise seem fair to other editors? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Exclusionists are the middle position between inclusionists and deletionists, so I would have to disagree and say that I am in the middle position while you are somewhat to the, let's say, left of middle. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Inclusionists Expansionists? Exclusionists Deletionists
Wikipedia is not paper LotLE Doug Bell The Grinch
Yep, looks like the table proves it, I'm to the left of middle :-). But the table also seems to show that Doug is to the right of middle. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jokes aside—or semi-aside—did you notice that some of these names wind up redirecting to other names, depending on whether it's an -ism or an -ist? And actually, most of the descriptions wind up having more to do with deleting or keeping whole articles than paragraphs or sections within articles. Oh well, not important, just rambling. Contrast: Deletionist and Deletionism, for example (they are quite different in meaning). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian identity

Just to put in my two cents about alleged ethnic fraud. I've reviewed most available material on the web plus my own background research into American Indian identity:

  1. Self-identification: Evidence suggests that Churchill self-identified back in Illinois, that it was part of family lore. Thus signing the EEOC form in 1978 was not fraudulent.
  2. Geneological: There are investigations by RMN and Jim Paine at pirateballerina.com. Churchill has stated in e-mails that there are other relatives to be vetted. Plus the difficulty of assigning ethnicity to past relatives.
  3. Community/Tribal recognition: Churchill does have an Associate Member of the Keetoowah. It's significance is in dispute. He claims to have a videotape of the discussion and ceremony, which was listed in his initial response to the CU committee.
    1. A key component of this part is whether or not Churchill approached the Ketoowah or they approached him. It is common in American Indian circles that one is approached by the group/nation/band/tribe, etc. I have an acquiantance who is adopted Huron, and is now a member of the Canadian Meti although he is blue-eyed of Irish descent. He became known through his activities.

The difficulties of American Indian identity is discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Current_status

Just because you have a relative who is an adopted Huron that does NOT mean that your relative is a member of the Huron tribe. There is a distinct difference between an adopted member and an enrolled member. An adopted member status confers honor and enrolled member status confers citizen rights, such as voting rights, child benefits, etc. Churchill has NEVER been able to take advantage of the enrolled member rights of the Keetoowah tribe. The tribe itself stated on May 18th, 2005:
Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) that Ward Churchill continues to promote himself as a Keetoowah member in order to substantiate his claims of Indian ancestry. The UKB is also aware of the apparent lack of understanding that the larger society has regarding Native America's enrollment policies.
The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990's because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry. However, the associate rolls were discontinued shortly after Churchill received one: "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.
Any records of past affiliations with the UKB are non-existent, and Churchill does not appear anywhere on our membership rolls.
Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.
The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree."
All of Churchill's past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so.
The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill's assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.


At this point, with several revised statements from the Keetoowah, Churchill's claim to evidence, lack of evidence to the contrary and the inherent difficulties of American Indian identity, the article needs to show the dispute, not take sides. Hoosier 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There has never, ever been a "revised" statement from the Keetoowah. They have categorically disowned Churchill. Both statements on their website and they have not reputiated either one. The second statement does not contradict the first statement in anyway. We are NOT asking that the article take sides. We are asking that the facts be presented fairly.
Excellent comments, Whosear. I think it gives interesting perspective on the different meanings of identity claims. I also 100% degree that the article should show the dispute, not take sides... that's the meaning of WP:NPOV. I think that a little bit of these very issues you discuss would really help out the article, though obvious they need to be referenced to some degree rather than presented just as your/our own conclusions. But actually, your comments are more illuminative than is Churchill's quote to Barsamian: I think he's meaning to state some of the same issues, but it's more by way of historical background, but Churchill's own style of "analysis under indignation" (which is a lot of what makes him controversial; other folks might claim effectively the same facts in less provocative ways... about lots of things, including about the 9/11 attackers). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with the spirit of Hoosier's suggestion, I think there are some issues with it.
  • First, geneological—your argument can be used to justify a claim of Indian ancestry by everyone who cannot directly trace all of there ancestors to non-North American roots. I'm no expert here, but I thought the point of the geneological requirements was positive proof, not positive disproof. These are entirely different things, so it is important that the proper context be established for Churchill's claims.
What do you mean by "geneological requirements"? There's no general requirement for all (US) persons to prove their ancestry. There is, for example, a requirement to prove geneology to qualify for tribal benefits (at least in some tribes); but there has never been any evidence (or even suggestion) that Churchill ever received any tribal benefits (except of the "honorary" sort; i.e. no check to him or housing allowance). Specifically, if you are thinking of the AA university form that Churchill signed: that neither carried any legal benefit with it, nor had any geneological requirement (the University is quite explicit about ethnicity being "self-proving" for AA declarations). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Second, according to the Keetoowah's repeated statements, Churchill is not an associate memeber, and apparently only was for a couple of months. Yes, it would be good to add some more information concerning how this associate membership came to be and then was abruptly dissolved, but where is the evidence to support your claim above that he is an associate member?
It's not clear exactly when the UKB "revoked" honorary memberships. They stopped granting new ones in 1994, but it seems not to be until later that they declared the old ones "void" (whatever that means). It's also not clear what the revocation might indicate: if I were to join some other ethnic-identity group like Knights of Columbus, B'nai B'rith, MEChA, but then to have my membership lapse or be revoked, would my ethnicity change? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Third, this all seems to ignore the apparent fraud of Churchill's direct claims in his writings on Indian affairs to be "an enrolled member" of the Keetoowah, since he never was granted this status.
– Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Churchill was writing carelessly, or for dramatic effect, when he claimed in an old Socialism and Democracy article that he was "enrolled" in the UKB. That's clearly not true, and wasn't at any point, since tribal enrollment has a specific meaning. A lot of people outside of tribal politics and BIA legal regulations don't know the exact distinctions, but Churchill as a scholar of Native American legal history cleary did/does. I agree that his comment deserves a definite wag of a finger.
On the other hand, the brief autobiographical introduction in a journal article doesn't come within a stone's throw of any sort of "fraud" (which also has a somewhat specific meaning in academia). Lots of biographers get a little carried away without it being much interesting. If Doug Bell claimed that "Dungeon Master (which he was lead developer on) was the 'most important and best selling role-playing game of the 1980s'" I would suspect a bit of self-interested hyperbole was involved. Possibly even a minor stretch of the truth. But it sure wouldn't be fraud.
Of course, not being given to Churchillian levels of self-promotion, I've never made such a claim... – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's good of you, certainly. I'm absolutely not claiming you've engaged in any such modest excesses of self-promotion. But if you had it would have risen to the level of wagging a finger at you, maybe rolling of eyes if it got really extreme. All of this ethnic stuff alleged against Churchill just barely attains the severity of a faux pas, even if it is 100% true. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, Churchill's stretch might be minorly self-serving, but in a completely incidental manner (S&D sure as heck didn't only publish his article because of this claim; they probably actively sought Churchill's article contribution, since Churchill's reputation is somewhat more prominent than that of the journal). Of some relevance though is Churchill's own critical comments about "enrollment" laws: I'm not sure you should demand he be precise in advancing what he believes is an unjust legal framework. It's not exactly an "I am Sparticus" moment, but his comment wasn't made in a vacuum either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
But Churchill presents himself as a Keetowah in nearly every recorded speech and many other writings. There is a pattern of misrepresentation here. There is also a genealogical fraud on Churchill's part, when he sent reporters on a wild goose chase after Julia Churchill and Reuben Tyner, two Cherokees that he is not descended from.Pokey5945 23:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
What manner of reversal is this? Pokey5945 claimed earlier today that Tyner was "white" and was an ancestor of Churchill... an hour later Pokey5945's stance is reversed to Tyner being Cherokee, but not an ancestor of Churchill. I guess whatever it takes to exclude any Cherokee ancestors is the tact of the moment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no reversal. Pay close attention. I know it's hard to follow, because Churchill is deliberately throwing up a smokescreen. Churchill is descended from Joshua Tyner, who was described as a white man on the census and other documents. However, after Churchill was confronted by a skeptical reporter back in 1993, he challenged people to link him genealogically to Reuben Tyner. Reuben was a white man married to a Cherokee woman, and thus shows up on a Cherokee roll. But Churchill is not descended from Reuben. Churchill threw Reuben's name out as a distractor. This is evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead on Churchill's part.Pokey5945 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geneology categories

Lulu, regarding the geneological category, there are two geneologies (RMN & Paine) that show no evidence of ancestry. Then there is the emails between Paine & Churchill at www.pirateballerina.com. Finally, Churchill asserts that the membership committee reviewed his ancestry and granted the associate membership. In my quest for brevity I did not mean to imply that non-proving geneologies qualify, only that Churchill disputes the two geneologies.

As for "geneological requirement", while I don't recall using that phrase, I do think that Churchill is arguing that his Associate membership required geneology. What I am stating is that the questioned ethnicity boils down to what status the, "Associate membership" had at the time Churchill enrolled. The RMN article below is useful, as it was written early on in the, "imbroglio" and quotes the band chairman at the time of the membership.

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/cherokee.html

I know this is not a good primary source, but it is a copy of the RMN article.

In Hawaii, Churchill asserted three criteria for his American identity: self-identification, (tribal recognition),and community recognition. He stated his membership for the second. No source states that he lied or fabricated self-identification. On the contrary, I read one source (newspaper) that interviewed high school classmates who said he self-identified back then.

In this article, the Keetoowah's statement references Churchill's claim to having geneology. Churchill's statement to CU's investigating committee has a section referencing a videotape of the meeting of the elders concerning his membership, and his initiation ceremony.

RMN has articles on Churchill's statement to the committee, Keetoowah's statements and stand, and Churchill's response. Type in, "Ward Churchill Keetoowah" to get the most relevant.

Right now, I have no comprehensive source to explain the associate membership, the tribal position, and Churchill's position. The imbroglio must be kept in mind while reviewing the statements and quotes. It is our job, in my opinion, to be as fair and impartial as we can reasonably be. Let the sources speak.

I do have sources for articles and comments from tribal members. I can forward them to one of the editors, or post them here.

Finally, reviewing the postings since my last one, we could parse and argue about the geneology/tribal/community recognition until the cows come home (I am a Hoosier, after all). But we should perhaps think of clarifying as much as we can.

Hoosier 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I again think your comments are very nicely expressed and thought out, Whosear.
I guess after the whole thing I'm still trying to see why any of it is notable for this article. I'm sure there's an extent to which Churchill "went native" fairly early in his life (i.e. by high school), and identified with Native American culture; this identification clearly wasn't as simple as being born on the rez, and was largely volunteristic. And he probably believed he had some small number of NA ancestors, which he may not, or he may have thought he had more such ancestors than he does. And he may even have overplayed the matter in various statements. I suppose it makes Churchill something like the blue-eyes Huron of your mentioned acquaintance. After that, other than splitting hairs to build a convoluted accusation, what on earth difference does any of it make? Why would readers of this article care even one whit?
By way of analogy, over in the talk page for the main Churchill bio, Pokey5945 makes the claim, for reasons unclear to me, that I am of German ancestry. I guess it's because of my last name 'Mertz'. He further claims that there would be some great fraud in me becoming a German citizen and engaging in German politics. The claim is interesting mainly only because it happens that I'm actually not German "by blood" (my dad had a step-dad with the name). But what if I did decide, for whatever reason to start strongly identifying with German culture (maybe I'm a big fan of sauerkraut; or of the melody of Deutschland Über Ales)? Or became a citizen, or even a German nationalist? So what? Identities are largely voluntary... and push-come-to-shove, I could probably dig up a German or two among all the dead white people I'm descended from.
Hell, what if I started yammering on to everyone I know about the distant Cherokee ancestor I may or may not actually have (but was told I did by my grandmother)? Or started identifying in a slightly obsessional way with one of the other cultures I find interesting—Arab, Japanese, Malian, etc. that I genuinely find fascinating (but most likely don't really have any ancestors from, at least not for a large number of generations... go back far enough and you find human worldwide migrations, of course)? I know I'm not nearly as notable as Churchill, as a general matter, but even if I were, why would that be interesting to anyone other than those friends who might roll their eyes at my suddenly affected style of dress or hair style?
None of the long digressions on geneological accusations really makes sense at all if you don't simply come in with an agenda to "find dirt" on Churchill. And the "dirt" that all these folks winds up being about as meaningful as the possibility he exaggerated his sexual prowess while on a date. Or talked trash about his ability to dunk a basketball. It's less than nothing when you look at it all... and the something some editors try to make of it mostly just involve bringing in other scholars who disagree with Churchill on historical questions, and hoping the readers will cross their eyes just enough to get the illusion that that has anything to do with Churchill's great-great-great-...grandmas ethnicity. Indian "blood" doesn't make him right, and European "blood" doesn't make him wrong... it's just racialist ranting. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, Indians take great exception to white people claiming the right to "voluntarily" adopt an Indian identity. Tribal Indians see being Indian as being an enrolled member of a sovereign nation, not as a fashion choice. And when white people claim to be Indian in order to engage in Indian politics... well you don't want to get any Indian started on that topic. You'll get an earful. Churchill's major offense here is not his lying about having a Cherokee ancestor. Because even if he did have a Cherokee ancestor, that would not make him a Cherokee in the eyes of most Indians, not until he becomes a citizen of a Cherokee nation.Pokey5945 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Indians, being people, vary widely in opinions and attitudes. And likewise as humans, they hardly all share the same notion of what "Indian identity" amounts to. Try sitting Russell Means and Dennis Banks in the same room... and even supposing you could prevent fist-to-cuffs, what do you think the chance is of getting them to agree on anything (including on Churchill's Indian identity)? Somewhere between zero and "maybe hell is going to cool down quite a bit". The more humbly non-notable Indians I know are hardly any more unanimous (though none are quite as pugilistic as Means or Banks, I reckon). However, all the people most vociferously bitching about Churchill's "ethnic fraud" come in various shades of lilly white. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't know many Indians, do you? I mean people who are enrolled in a federally recognized tribe. There is a surprising consensus on this particular issue of unenrolled white people, if not on other issues. And you are dead wrong about "all the people" complaining about Churchill's ethnic fraud. He's been roundly criticized by many AIM members, and throughout the Indian press. Some of those Indian critics are even quoted in the article. How is it that you don't know about them?Pokey5945 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, of course... on every part of the last note. But it would be nice to get some more eyes here from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America; probably a good chunk of those editors are tribal members (but of course, there's no "blood quantum" or "enrollment rules" for working on the Wikiproject; and any identification anyone makes there is entirely self-proving). I've listed this article (and the siblings) as ones where evaluation is desired. Of course, editors do what they decide to do. I'm certain new eyes would help cut the... umm... fog. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Every part? Really? You think that the Bellecourts, Suzan Harjo, Hank Adams, Paul Demain, are all lily white? Can you name even one prominent Indian activist other than Russell Means who supports Churchill?Pokey5945 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I stayed away too long. Look, I went to the Keetoowah entry in wiki and read both Lulu's and Pokey's postings. I, like Pokey, have numerous quotes in a variety of aricles from members of the Keetoowah's concerning Churchill's membership. What I am striving at is, "What does an, "Associate Membership"mean?

There are statements, and revised statements from the UKB,but until I have a clarifying statement/article from a verifiable/reputable source as to the nature of what is an Associate membership, then the only fair thing to do is to write about the dispute between what UKB says, and what Churchill says.

It really seems to be a waste of time to discuss Indian identity and the broader questions when the issue is,"What gives between the UKB and Churchill? Because, at the core, that is the question. Churchill states his membership as part of his identity, and the UKB states their position.

Anything, else, in my opinion, while highly interesting, is not pertinent to the article.

We owe our readers (actually yours) fairness.

Hoosier 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The UKB has the sole right to detemine their own membership. Churchill doesn't get a say in it. Churchill has attempted to distract unknowledgeable observers by making a tempest in a teapot about the distinction between associate and honorary. But that distinction doesn't matter in the least, and may not even exist except in Churchill's rhetoric. The only relevant point is that the UKB has clearly stated that Churchill is not enrolled, that he was given his "honorary associate" membership in exchange for promised help that he never delivered, and that the "honorary associate" memberships were discontinued about a month after Churchill recieved his. The UKB has made all of this perfectly clear. If Churchill disagrees with the outcome, that's his right, but his opinion carries no weight whatsoever in determining his status with the UKB.

What makes Churchill an impostor is the fact that he has continued to present himself as a Keetowah for the past 12 years, even though he was never enrolled. He is still doing it, even after he's been told off by the UKB last year. Among Indians, this is known as "disrespect," and a repudiation of tribal sovereignty. That's one reason why he has basically no support in Indian country.Pokey5945 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


A little more, please! In Hawaii, in front of the press, Churchill laid out the criteria for his identifictation as, "Native American". There were three criteria, Self-Identification, Tribal Affliation, & Community recognition. I have conceded #1, & 3, and would argue from the evidence. #2 is the sticking point. Is he, or isn't he a, "Keetoowah"? Not full, obviously, which he has repeatedly adknowledged, but in some way?

That is, in my opinion, the, "alleged misconduct".

Hoosier 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sturm reference

I left in this reference, but cleaned it up a little to use the nice citation templates. But this type of thing is really going off on a tangent. We needn't accompany every instance of "Churchill claims" (in an article about him) by every single source that can be found that disagrees with him... it's obvious that Churchill's claims are, well, claims made by Churchill rather than automatic consensus. The dispute is interesting, certainly, but it's more appropriate for an article like blood quantum or the like. What the heck though, one more footnote is merely irrelevant, not disruptive. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the interesting thing here is that Churchill does not attempt to prove his ancestry claims, but instead attacks an entirely irrelevant issue as a distracting technique. It's really to show that Churchill is the one going off on a tangent. He wants people to think he's unenrolled because of the racist US government setting unjust blood quantum laws. But the truth is that the tribes themselves set those laws, not the govt, and that his own tribe doesn't even have such a requirement. Sturm is not a source that disagrees with Churchill. In fact, she cites Churchill's GAA nonsense without criticism. She's cited simply as a validation of the fact that the CNO does not have a bq requirement for membership. There are a thousand other ways of verifying that fact. I put her in ther because it's a good book.Pokey5945 07:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't really believe any of that, I'm quite certain. Indian tribes have hardly acted in setting laws outside of a lot of coersion by the Federal government. The issue Churchill raises is only irrelevant if you have a particular ideology of "racial blood taint" in mind; and Churchill's point is to critique that very ideology. It's missing the point on a rather grand scale... though certainly this is shared by a lot of the racialist critics at the RMN and the like. Anyway, all of that stuff is interesting enough... but there are Wikipedia articles that are actually about this stuff, blood quantum being one of them. Maybe editing some other article than just this one would be a good idea. There are other topics in the million articles on WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's very difficult to follow your line of thought here. It is a simple matter to look up the CNO's enrollment requirements. If you think that bq is imposed on tribes by the feds, you are simply wrong. Ask some enrolled Indians about the matter. Two things that are crucial to know. 1) Tribal Indians take great exception to white people attempting to define their identity. The problem of white people claiming an Indian ancestor, and then jumping from that to claiming that they are "Indian" is endlessly annoying to tribal Indians. 2) Tribal Indians see being Indian as a political identity, being a member of a sovereign nation. It's not something that you can just "feel in your heart" and then claim. You have to be an enrolled member of the nation to legitimately claim the identity. Because of these norms among tribal Indians, there are very few people in Indian Country who accept Churchill as a real Indian. There are very few people in AIM who accept him. Churchill's defenders are overwhelmingly white leftists. Russell Means does support Churchill, but the widespread rumor in AIM is that Churchill gives Means money in exchange for his support. Other than Means, Churchill has almost no support from real Indians.Pokey5945 06:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are an investigator in Indian Country, I don't know who anyone can say whether or not Churchill is accepted in Indian country. I can reference a Usernet posting in which a member spoke in defense of Churchill and the others listened and deferred opinion. It is problematic for me to determine whether or not Churchill is accepted in Indian country. I can find verifiable sources of members of AIM who dispute Churchill's identity. I cannot verify that they speak for, "Indian Country".

I have certainly found sources that claim Churchill uses, "the Indian Identity" to advance his claims. I can find other verifiable sources that says he overstates his UKB affiliation. What I cannot find on the net (or otherwise) is a, "smoking gun" that gives verifiable, credible evidence that he has fabricated or lied about his identity. The only issue that I have left is whether or not his, "associate membership" as an, "honor" is an, "honorary membership", meaning not in ancestory or blood, but in works or spirit, or is an extension of band membership extending outward from the federal definitions.

Sorry, I may have my own interpretations and evaluations of the various claims made about Churchill's identity, or the corrollary arguements about Native American identity, but for the purposes of the imbroglio or controversy, I believe staying within the parameters stated publically by Churchill works well for this article.

Sorry, but for my level of acceptance, I need better evidence.

Hoosier 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Hoosier 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Links

Seems like you all have a fair compromise. Sorry for not contributing, but doing background info check. Just a few notes:

  1. Many of the links under them "Rocky Mountain News" section don't work. Either I get the ads, but no text, or it doesn't exist. I noticed that several go through an addy, "insidedenver.***. When I go to the RMS website directly, I can access the article.
  2. The, "citation needed" is the same as (10). In the past, "ibid" would suffice. But I don't know if still used. I'm trying to catch up on the citation styles, but don't have time now.

Sorry I couldn't take time to make changes. Will be back later. Hoosier 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The broken Rocky links are fixable. All of those articles are still accessible without registering, but they've changed the URLs. It will take some work to bring those up to date.Pokey5945 21:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to fix some links, but have taken others out where I could not. I started editing to use the new <ref> style... you can see that I made it about halfway through the article. So everything converted is also checked, and everything after that isn't. Notice that when we convert, we want to provide full citation detail on a cite rather than just a bare URL (author, publisher, title, etc). I know it's a big project... I'll complete it eventually, but if anyone else wants to contribute, please, please do so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I saw User:Doug Bell just changed the name of this article to remove the parentheses. That seems reasonable, given the usual use of parens on WP to resolve ambiguities among things with the same name. But I'm not sure this new name really reads right either. It's not really a proper noun phrase. I'm thinking maybe:

What do editors think? (WP:BEANS "violation" removed) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current names are fine and more direct. I think they are also more likely to match what somebody looking for the subject would type into the search box. However, my preference for the current names vs. your proposed names is not particularly strong. (And I think the WP:BEANS warning is unnecessary and prejudicial.) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tee hee :-). I had not seen WP:BEANS before... I really like that guideline (and it may well apply here, as you suggest). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest
As these are spinout articles (See WP:FORK) linked from the main article, I see no problems in using these article names. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Those look decent.--MONGO 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Ward Churchill misconduct allegations" googles[7] 37,100 "Misconduct allegations against Ward Churchill"[8] 35,900 "Ward Churchill misconduct"[9] 78,300 (probably too assuming an article heading in the last example...may not conform with NPOV). I prefer "Ward Churchill misconduct allegations".--MONGO 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um..."Controversies around Ward Churchill's 9/11 essay" googles[10] 63,100 "Ward Churchill essay"[11] 365,000 hits, "Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy"[12] 75,300, "Ward Churchill 9/11 essay"[13] 173,000 "Ward Churchill's 9/11 essay" [14] 165,000. I personally prefer "Ward Churchill on 9/11"[15] 504,000 hits which is the same as the most likely google query, "Ward Churchill 9/11"[16] 505,000 hits.--MONGO 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Something like "Ward Churchill on 9/11" misses much of the focus of the article, I think. It's not just (or even really primarily) about Churchill's opinions on 9/11, but about the public reactions to the fact the essay was written, most of which are only distantly related to the direct content of the article. I do rather like Jossi's idea of using the actual essay title though.
I guess it looks like the misconduct allegations one has rough consensus around Doug Bell's modest change to my earlier version. Jossi's "criticism(s?)" is OK too, but it doesn't strike me as overwhelmingly better. Let's see if more ideas or opinions come in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
To remain in NPOV territory, we ought not to add any side's POV to an article title. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell if your comment is meant to imply that there is a POV in the current names or not... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is Jossi's point, but I think "misconduct allegations" has a little bit of POV. Certainly it's not like the article is titled "Ward Churchill's misconduct", which would totally bias things. There really were "allegations" made in this regard. But I think Jossi's "criticisms" is more neutral.
Some of what I've wrestled with in this article is for editors critical of Churchill to try to extend every such criticism into being a sort of misconduct by Churchill. For example, it's fair enough to say that Churchill is wrong about the GAA. Heck, even to claim that Churchill is badly, intransigent, fundamentally, and idiotically wrong about the GAA is certainly in the realm of reasonable opinion. But even that claim falls far short of reaching any kind of misconduct. There's nothing ethically wrong with an academic being professionally wrong, as such. Just to pick an arbitrary example from my field (well, one of them, whatever I actually do): I think Daniel Dennett is badly, intransigent, fundamentally, and idiotically wrong about Darwinian evolution. He ought to have his philosopher-of-science merit badge revoked :-). But I don't for one millisecond imagine that Dennett has engaged in some sort of misconduct just by being wrong. Not even if I angrily wave my copy of Theodosius Dobzhansky in front of him, and insist he deliberately ignored it! It's the same with much of the criticism of Churchill: it's one thing to claim he's wrong, or even to claim he's a hack, it's a far different thing to lump it under "misconduct". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill's Libelous Comments About Other Professors Should NOT Be Allowed in the Article

There are direct quotes from Churchill where he criticizes his critics and MOST of the criticisms are just flat out name-calling. They have nothing to do with substance of the charges against him. In hindsight, Churchill WAS engaging in research misconduct. That is verifiable fact now and Churchill's slanderous (originally slanderous, but now libelous for being printed) MUST be taken into consideration. This article simply quotes Churchill about his critics's personally, not about the specifics of the charges (which now are facts) and then the article quotes Churchill about himself (he pounds his own chest). These comments do NOT in anyway add to the debate and discussion about the Dawes Act, etc. They are just slanderous/libelous gratutious attacks on professors that had the guts to stand up to this bully. So in summary, there are two main problems with these attacks on his critics: (1) they do NOT in anyway add substance to the discussion and (2) they defame professors who have NOT been taken up on charges of academic misconduct. The Wikipedia article simply repeats these libelous/slanderous comments without any context and the statements do NOT speak to whether the professors in question are telling the truth. Now, in hindsight, these attacks on the professors should be removed because these professors have been vindicated by the committee at the Univ. of Colorado. Lulu, please response in respectful way to these comments and stop summarily reversing my edits. I have been reading tons of your comments and you want to be factual and not try for rhetorical effect, well if this is true what do these obnoxious and argumentum ad hominem or personal attacks? The only answer that I can find toward leaving in these horrible comments is to create a new section entitled, "Examples of Ward Churchill's Bullying Tactics on Colleagues" --- --70.114.205.215 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Churchill's slander should not hang out there without at least being contextualized. I would also note that the CU committee criticized Churchill for his unwillingness to engage in scholarly debate with his critics, and his refusal to correct his errors, and instead responding with ad hominem. I suggest that we either remove Churchill's non-responsive ad hominem from this article, or else juxtapose it with the committee's criticism of his behavior in this regard. I would prefer to remove the ad hominem altogether, because it doesn't add anything substantive to the debate.Verklempt 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that the anonymous blanking editor had commented here on the talk page, since the comments were not placed here at bottom where new comments belong. Apparently s/he decided it would be good to vandalize my user page with these same comments.
In any case, the comments about the citation index relative to LaVelle vs. Churchill are extremely germane. Churchill's criticisms of Brown possibly less so, but the anon editors approach of mass deletion of anything that Churchill himself (or Churchill's defenders) states borders on vandalism.
I agree that the landscape changes after the subcommittee report was released. If Churchill makes some newer comments along the same lines, those newer ones might replace the existing Churchill comments. But a "debate" doesn't consist of all critics of Churchill, with his only comments in his defense removed because editors don't like the tone of them. FWIW, if I were Churchill, I would certainly not have phrased any of the comments in the tone he does... but I'm not him. We report what he actually writes, not pre-judge that his tone his unacceptable (even while putting in equally, or more, vitriolic comments from his critics). If anything, if Churchill's own comments are so self-evidently inappropriate, leave them in and let readers judge that for themselves. None of Churchill's comments are by any stretch of the imagination "libel" (nor slander, of course): that's a word with an actual legal meaning, and that meaning isn't the same as "intemperate", "hot-headed" or "rude".
Certainly the CU subcommittee has a certain sort of "official" weight that should be highlighted, as I think recent edits by Verklempt and me do. But keep in mind that these findings are still administrative... they are not the same thing as a criminal, or even civil, judicial proceeding; nor are they even final administrative action, which has to filter through a few more levels. LotLE×talk 03:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with your general assessment of Churchill's comments on Brown, I do not agree that all of his statements (particularly those on citation indexes) are libel. NPOV requires that all relevant facts be presented. Churchill's comments are "on the record." Whether or not you find the comments offensive and/or irrelevant, I do not see that you have met the burden of proof necessary to censor Churchill on the issue. - N1h1l 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, dear Lulu, I have not engaged in any vandalism whatsoever. It is unfortunate that have chosen to take that position based upon the fact that I merely engaged in some reasonable edits to the article with which you simply did not agree.
More accurately, what you engaged in was repeated, mass blanking of large sections of the article without first discussing them in any way on the talk page. If not outright vandalism, these edits were within a hair's breadth of vandalism. Doing that sort of thing isn't the way to win a lot of sympathy; nor a good basis to claim indignation about your innocence. LotLE×talk 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No. Once again, there was NO vandalism. That is just your attempt to discredit my edits. It is not a substantive argument, just a simple attempt to call my work a name and therefore throw away my clear valid points. You hurt your position by engaging in throwing around the word vandalism without any support for your conclusion. It is unfortunate that you attempt to beat that horse. --72.177.223.95 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That is shame and I would hope that you could be more willing to engage in open, free discussion without attempting to minimize and disregard and ignore my edits by simply calling it vandalism, especially when it clearly is not. Second, just because Churchill made a statement and it is "on the record" does not mean that it should be in the article. Why is Churchill's opinion about LaVelle's academic reputation relavant to the article. I know that you say that it is, but you have not given a reason why Churhcill's opinion of LaVelle's reputation is important and relevant to the article. LaVelle is a well-respected academic that has a stronger academic record that Churchill and he has better education than Churchill.
Apparently not, based on the citation index. However much hot air you might want to blow, Churchill really is right on this issue. The numbers of citations is a pretty darn good correlate of the relative prestige of different academics in a field. Churchill is definitely crotchety—even more than I am, which is a bit of an accomplishment :-)—but apart from not liking his tone, the point he makes is rather central to appraising the weight of different sources. LotLE×talk 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, the CU subcommittee is highly relevant here too, now that it has released its findings. Juxtoposing the subcommittee against Churchill's claims is definitely relevant. But it's foolish rhetoric to treat the subcommittee as some final word either.... if you were to read the findings, you'd see for yourselves just how clearly they eschew that. In particular, they are very explicit in pointing out that they are addressing academic conduct, not the truth of the underying issues. I suspect that in the next weeks or months we'll see a variety of scholars who opine on the subcommittee findings: probably some agreeing and others disagreeing. It's annoyingly ideological to treat the one (albeit very important) source as "the word of god", and start pretending that no other source is germane the moment the subcommittee findings are released. LotLE×talk 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
LaVelle has never been found to guilty of academic misconduct (and of course Churchill has been) and most importantly LaVelle criticised Churchill on Churchill's work and stated it was academic misconduct and it has turned that LaVelle was correct and Churchill was wrong. So, if you believe that Churchill's childish comments about LaVelle's reputation are relevant (even though you haven't given a REASON why you believe them to be relevant) then we need to compare fairly the backgrounds of Churchill and LaVelle. LaVelle is a Harvard educated lawyer who is an ENROLLED member of the Santee Souix Indian Tribe. Churchill is an academic that NEVER earned a Ph.D., but he did get an undergraduate and master's degree from a fourth rate school in Indiana and he is NOT an enrolled member of any Indian Tribe. LaVelle edits the Handbook on Indian Law, the definitive reference for all Indian law issues and Churchill writes rants and has been proven guilty of academic misconduct. The comparison is stark, but the article does NOT show this because all the reader gets is the biased, self-serving comments of Churchill. And, of course, the reader gets to read Churchill's own opinion on himself--in which he weirdly describes himself as the greatest Indian academic in the world. What is the point of this discussion? That I believe keeping Churchill's slanderous/libelous comments about other academics is off topic (the topic is Churchill's academice misconduct, not Churchill's opinion about his critics academic reputation) and not only is it off topic it is not presented in neutral manner.
This utter foolishness about repeating your misunderstanding of the word "libel" is simply making you look bad. I know you like an emotionally charged word, but other than the Godwin's Law sort of speechification, it has no relevance to any of this whatsoever. Nothing that had been in this article even vaguely resembles libel; let that dead horse be. LotLE×talk 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that our anon has a rather fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV here. If I, LotLE a WP editor, were to advance the claim that "Churchill is more reliable than LaVelle based on the citation index", that would certainly be original research. It's not our editorial role to make that judgement (nor the reverse judgement, as all the anon's stuff about prestige of various schools does... FWIW, I personally agree that Harvard is an excellent school, better than U.Illinois, but my opinion isn't citable on WP). What is NPOV, and is not original research, is the fact that Churchill makes an argument from the citation index. Maybe it's a good argument, maybe it's a bad argument, but it's the argument advanced by the main party to the disputes this article addresses. Readers can judge themselves as to the weight of that argument deserves. LotLE×talk 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no balance concerning LaVelle's reputation, for example. All that is given is Churchill's slanderous/libelous comments. There is no presentation of LaVelle background therefore the reader is not getting the full story, just Churchill's biased, self-serving version of it. Churchill does not point out that LaVelle is probably the leading scholar in Indian Law in the country (or at least number two or three). Churchill does not point out that LaVelle is an enrolled member of an Indian Tribe and that no one, but no one has questioned his ethnic background (unlike Churchill). Churchill does not point out LaVelle has NEVER been questioned as to his veracity as a scholar, there is NO academic misconduct charges again LaVelle, but of course there has been academic misconduct charges against Churchill and Churchill has been found guilty of academic misconduct. All of this lack of balance in the article leads to a non-NPOV presentation of the debate. The slanderous/libelous comments of Churchill should be removed. --- --70.114.205.215 19:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) ---
What is POV is what you are pushing: presentation of criticism only, while deleting any presentation of differing opinion in a knee-jerk way. If you want to write an editorial, write it somewhere other than Wikipedia. I think N1h1l possibly goes slightly too far in claiming that something is relevant simply because verifiable, or expressing the concerns as "censorship"... but in essence, his points are on target. Quoting Churchill addressing the specific issues on which he is criticized is largely the most germane way of giving balancing material. Other sources (that you also previously blanked) where 3rd party scholars defend Churchill are also relevant; but clearly Churchill's own words are the most direct source. LotLE×talk 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... "censorship" was perhaps an assumption of bad faith on my part. Apologies to Anon. - N1h1l 00:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I wasn't even really thinking of the good faith issue, but just of the meaning of "censorship". The word "censorship" means government restriction of publication. Mass blanking might be POV-pushing, or even vandalism in the extreme cases, but it's not really censorship. LotLE×talk 03:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the word censorship merely implies an organized effort (which is perhaps overly conspiratorial for this circumstance). Also, for what its worth, the Wiktionary definition of censor is "to review in order to remove objectionable content" [17], which seems fairly apt... But we digress :) - N1h1l 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second investigation

Verklempt has added several references in this article (and I think also in the main bio) that mention a "second investigation". I can't really find a citation that indicates that in the article. There is one mention of the Daily Camera with a publication date, but not even any article title or author, let along any link to the text. If there is a second investigation ongoing, we should find more specific details of this. It may well be so, but I noticed that the subcommittee report (and the news conference audio) were pretty explicit that the subcommittee had concluded its work. Perhaps there is some other committee or group conducting this addition investigation? LotLE×talk 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that the committee is not permitted to talk about this publicly. The only reason that info on the second investigation emerged is because Churchill himself put it out. The Ernesto Vigil charges, specifically. I'll look for more newspaper cites, but there is not much detail available.Verklempt 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's just gossip, we shouldn't report it until we have a referencible source. If it's Churchill's own statement, it's possible that's a misunderstanding or misstatement, but even if so we should cite something specific. Depending on the date and details of such a statement, it may have been superceded by more recent actions. LotLE×talk 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not gossip, and it is reported in some of the newspaper stories already cited. The university confirmed the new investigation after Churchill had already publicized it.Verklempt 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
We need proper citation evidence for contentious comments. If we just add things in that are somewhat libelous, then it is mandatory we cite our sources. Wikipedia does not support slanderous commentary...not that what you add was, but it needs references from third party sources, otherwise it violates our no original research policy--MONGO 00:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely want to see the specific citation about a second investigation. I have no knowledge that it's not true, but neither have I seen anything indicating it. Given how much prior claims (such as the paratrooper thing) have gotten seriously distorted after multiple repetitions (friend-of-a-friend and so on), I have to wonder whether this second investigation isn't some sort of "should happen", "might happen", "could happen" or something like that. What we need is a citation. LotLE×talk 03:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The cite to the second investigation is at the end of the misconduct section. Mongo blanked it for some unexplained reason.Verklempt

As I suspected: Once the cite was provided, it actually does not support the claim that a second investigation is underway or ongoing. The citation says the the university is "reviewing" additional allegations, which is a quite different thing. Such a review could lead to a second investigation. It could also lead to a conclusion that the charges are not appropriate to investigate. At this point we do not know, and we must therefore only report what is actually currently factual and verifiable. LotLE×talk 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between "reviewing" and "investigating" seems to me to be merely procedural, not terribly substantive, but I don't oppose using the university's own word. Good catch.Verklempt
"Reviewing" and "investigating" are quite significantly different. Hypothetically, imagine that the faculty committee received some entirely loony-toons complaint against Churchill, without so much as a shred of plausibility (or against any other faculty member, for that matter). The committee would still need to review the submitted complain before arriving at a decision not to investigate it. For example, this is exactly what they did in regard to the issues of ethnic identity. Not decide it was loony-toons per se, but decide that it was entirely outside the committees purview, and not a proper subject of investigation. A review would generally precede an investigation, but there's no reason to assume a review will lead to any investigation. LotLE×talk 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this rumour of a 'second investigation' not just confusion with the deliberation by committee on Churchill's forthcoming reply and subsequent recommendations to the University heads? - max rspct leave a message 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No. There are new chargees brought by Ernesto Vigil, and apparently some unnamed other complainant. Verklempt 22:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring the page?

Would anyone object to altering the page structure to the following:

1 Questioned ethnicity
- 1.1 Churchill's criticism of Indian "authenticity"
- 1.2 Effects on career
2 Allegations of research misconduct
- 2.1 Was there a smallpox blanket genocide?
- 2.2 The General Allotment Act
- 2.3 Plagiarism allegations
- 2.4 Allegations of copyright infringement and art fraud
3 The University of Colorado's Investigation
- 3.1 Responses to the Investigation
4 References
5 External links
- 5.1 Rocky Mountain News

Although I agree that the UC investigation is not an "ultimate" authority, it does seem to carry enough weight to warrant its own primary section header. Also, isn't "Responses to the Investigation" a subsection of the Investigation itself?

Another issues is that there is currently little or no room for reaction to the investigations findings. Instead, we currently have lots of speculation on the nature of the investigation from prior to its completion. For example, the final (lengthy) quote from Peter Hoffer. I'd propose thinning this section out and adding more current, relevant commentary. Any objections? - N1h1l 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Have at it. I agree that some thinning would be appropriate, since a lot of the original stuff was written in a mode of speculating about the final findings. LotLE×talk 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is what I've done... if you disagree with anything, feel free to say so and we can discuss...
  • rmvd Colorado Governor statement... this belongs in Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy and isn't about the UC investigation.
  • mvd George E. Tinker's comments to the smallpox section as they relate to Brown's accusation directly.
  • added Churchill's response, as published at counterpunch.org
What do you all think? Have there been other, more recent responses from involved parties? - N1h1l 13:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use full citations

Apart from the recent increase in editing, with somewhat contentious content, there has been the introduction of less formal referencing. There was probably an incomplete conversion to the m:Cite.php style and citation templates to start with, but all of the new notes have been an informal style.

To improve the quality of the article, I would strongly urge editors to provide full citation details. There are actually two aspects, one more important than the other:

  1. Putting citations/footnotes inside <ref> (so-called m:Cite.php format) in order to group the list of citations in the "References" section at bottom. This is the less important detail, in a way, but consistency in reference style is still very desirable.
  2. Of greater importance is providing full citation details, which I believe is best accomplished by use of citation templates. This ties into the above question inasmuch as full details disrupt flow of main text if left inline, so are better relegated to the "References" section. Specifically, rather than just give a bare URL where some quotation or fact may be found, it is helpful to readers to provide information such the author, publication, title, etc. of the source where the fact appears. Templates let you make sure the presentation of these details is consistent across sources; it also helps remind editors about the details to fill out. For examples, see other sources in this article, or consult WP:CITET. Most of the sources here seem to be {{cite web}} type, but where relevant the {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, and other templates are also useful.

LotLE×talk 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Try to remember article topic

Our anonymous editor seems prone to distant digression into topics only barely connected by a string of free associations. I thank N1h1|for scaling this back in a much needed way. Please, please try to keep in mind what the topic of this article is. Just because we mention someone—e.g. LaVelle or Porter—inasmuch as they comment directly on the Churchill misconduct allegations, that doesn't mean that everything that person ever said or did is suddenly topical to this article. I was almost utterly dumbfounded by the weird rambling about whether Porter and/or LaVelle had taught in South Dakota. Honestly, I haven't the foggiest idea what the complete employment history of each person has been; it is not implausible that either or both might have held other jobs than wherever they currently teach, but it's not even remotely relevant to this article no matter what the fact is. I guess the purported sliver of connection was that Churchill said they had been on the same faculty at some point, and I guess it's supposed to mean something nefarious if he's wrong... but it doesn't, no matter whether true or false. It's just uninteresting and irrelevant trivia.

If anon wants to write a bio on LaVelle, or on on Porter, or whatever, I'm sure their complete CVs can be presented there. No doubt both scholars are people who deserve biographies here, and I'd welcome the opportunity to read more about them. But each article on WP should be about the one particular topic listed in its title, not about any distant topic one might get to be random steps away from the actual topic. LotLE×talk 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that much of this article is unnecessarily detailed and overly long. I think it needs serious weeding out. But every time one removes something, one is accused of "blanking" and the edit is reverted.Verklempt 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The committee's take on BG

There are several problems with this quote. First, the committee's opinion of LaVelle's thesis is irrelevant to the issue of what Churchill wrote. Second, the committee is criticizing a straw man, attributing an argument to LaVelle that he did not make. Third, this quote misleads the reader, by making it seem that the committee found for Churchill against LaVelle. In fact, the committee found Churchill guilty of fabricating a BQ and falsifying his sources. The committee ultimately agreed with all of the charges that LaVelle actually made, this straw man quote aside. The only rationale I can see for including this quote is to try to have some pro-Churchill POV in the section. This article is already too long and overly detailed, and this quote seems a good place to begin weeding.Verklempt 08:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you were to actually read the committee report, you'd see that they dispute LaVelle about as strongly as they possibly can within their mandate (which is obviously investigating Churchill's scholarship, not LaVelle's). They make a really explicit point that Churchill is not wrong about the BQ issue (or is wrong only about the very narrowest version of the claim, i.e. it's in the Dawes Act itself, which Churchill generally himself disclaims); rather Churchill is extremely sloppy with his citation of sources.
They dispute a straw man version of LaVelle. They agree with what LaVelle actually charged Churchill with, and find Churchill guilty of fabrication and falsification. That is rather worse than being found "sloppy". This quote is an attempt to frame the committee as supporting Churchill over LaVelle, whcih is the opposite of the actual outcome.Verklempt 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
When editors like yourself or the anonymous poster put in such blatant mischaracterizations of various claims, it unfortunately becomes necessary to go into slightly torturous detail of presenting what sources actually say. E.g. just in your own case, Verklempt:
  • The repeated insertion of the convoluted circumlocution about the number of votes in the silly "best teacher" award. Of course such awards (at any school, and every year CU has done it) are a matter of a small number of student voters. If a couple dozen students had nominated the second place teacher, none of it would be a topic of discussion. But the whole tortured effort to insinuate: "See 54 votes isn't very many!" is what makes otherwise superfluous explicitness necessary. Likewise, it takes maybe a couple hundred votes to be selectperson in my town (during off-cycle elections), and in the unusual case it's contested at all, the difference probably amounts to a dozen votes... but it would be irresponsible reporting to try to make that into an implicit denial that the winner didn't "really" win.
I keep putting in the 54 votes, because it contextualizes the later quote stating that Churchill was elected "overwhelmingly." Take that out, and I could not care less about the 54 votes. In fact, I think the entire teaching award issue is trivial and should go altogether.Verklempt 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Where was that? I agree "overwhelming" is silly. The whole contest has far less than enough students to be "overwhelming" no matter what the specific count. I don't think the teaching award issue is trivial though. It would be trivial if it was just awarded as normal—if it were just something Churchill won and was given with no fuss, it would not even come close to being significant enough to mention in the articles. The place where it becomes relevant is in just how far some people (like the alumni association) will bend over to go along with political censorship. By way of analogy: perhaps Churchill has a parking permit as a faculty member (I have no idea if that's so at CU, but it's plausible enough): such a fact, if it is one, is completely non-notable. But if the university were to withdraw his parking permit on the grounds he was "politically undesirable", that would rise to being an extremely notable fact. The teaching award is a lot like the hypothetical. LotLE×talk 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Your directly false, and repeated, insertion of the claim that a second investigation was underway. Once we finally managed to pin you down on a citation, it turned out to be entirely untrue (currently, it may become true in the future, but we don't have a crystal ball). Which again suggest the need for torturous precision.
What nonsense. They are investigating him. Try consulting a dictionary. I don't mind using the word "review" instead, and I have not reverted that. I was the one who tracked down the cite, after your repeated blanking. Where do you get off criticizing me for doing the actual work, when all you do is come in here and try to blank anything that makes Churchill look bad?Verklempt 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's no great virtue to "track down" a cite for a fact you introduce without having one. It's terribly inappropriate to add something in the first place lacking one. You can't just add claims without support, then complain of "blanking" your inventions from a WP article. Seriously, try editing something other than this article, and see how far invented claims get (actually, it will go farther than it should, since lots of nooks of WP are poorly fact checked). And apparently I know quite a bit more about legal nuance than you seem to, given that I recognize the wide gap between "reviewing" and "investigating" (and apparently I have a better dictionary also). LotLE×talk 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you make of the fact that Churchill and his lawyer describe this second "review" as an "investigation"?Verklempt 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Your directly false, and repeated, insertion of the paratrooper thing into the main bio. Likewise, once we finally got the source, it proved not to say what "critics" were claiming it did. I.e. there was no direct quote of Churchill claiming such a thing back in the 1980s. This claim got some "buzz" among the right-wing blogs, so it's not your invention of the error, but it turns out to be incredibly sloppy mischaracterization by the critics. Now in honesty, my guess is that Churchill really did say some bullshit to a Post reporter in the 1980s (probably sort of performing to their stereotypes)... but that's just my own guess, not something anyone (either here or on the right-wing blogs/Fox News/etc. has actually shown).
Again, I was the one who obtained the original and scanned it. I have never written anything false on that topic. You're thinking of someone else, maybe. You owe me an apology for this false accusation.Verklempt 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read the edit history. You inserted a false claim about the paratrooper thing in the main bio, about a half-dozen times. It doesn't do much good to deny it since WP keeps an edit history. LotLE×talk 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What was the false claim that I inserted? Can you actually point it out? Of course not.Verklempt 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And most lately, the just dead wrong mischaracterization of the subcommittee findings that were tempered by actually quoting them. I think the mischaracterization was initially inserted by the anonymous editor who refuses to register, not by you Verklempt. But whoever put it in, putting it to rest unfortunately requires a tortured explicitness with quoting the actual sources.
I do agree that the article could use some weeding. All the tenuously relevant stuff you added to the plagiarism sections wouldn't matter if it were deleted. But I leave it in as a sort of attempt at "balance". Unfortunately, you and a couple other editors (all of whom joined WP with the apparently sole purpose of putting anti-Churchill schtick into these articles) seem to think these articles are just soapboxes to rant against Churchill, and want to eliminate the idea that there are different perspectives out there. If you ever actually work on WP beyond this single-purpose agenda, you'll learn what the differences is between multiple-perspectives and POV-mongering. The too are very different things, and very few editors in these articles have ever pushed a "pro-Churchill" POV (in the rare cases where they have, I've also toned it down; but those editors have always been more reasonable in accepting the need to work towards NPOV than the anti-Churchill ranters are... at least so far, and hopefully that part at least will stay true). LotLE×talk 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Porter quote

The Porter quote should go, and so should Churchill's ad hominem about LaVelle's citation. All of this is irrelevant to the core issue. This article is too detailed because both sides are POV-pushing, and neither will give up an inch. Here is a place where we can satisfy both sides by removing both the Porter ad hominem and the Churchill ad hominem.Verklempt 08:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, if Churchill's ad hominen attacks on LaVelle stay then Porter's comments need to be put in context. If Churchill's ad hominen attacks on LaVelle go then there is no need for the Porter information. In the situation where Churchill's ad hominem attacks from the Counterpunch article and Porter is quoted, incorrectly by Churchill, then Porter's comment must put in context. Why? Because Churchill is deliberately spinning the comments of Porter about LaVelle. -----70.114.205.215 08:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, in the Counterpunch quote, Churchill makes several incorrect comments. Porter NEVER worked directly with LaVelle. It is a FACT that Porter worked at the University of Kansas, not the University of South Dakota as Churchill claims. This is just one more example where Churchill just does not get his facts straight. Also, in the article, if you read it (it is on the University of Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy's website), Porter clearly states his respect and admiration for LaVelle. The Counterpunch quote is Churchill making up facts and spinning Professor Porter's comments incorrectly. -----70.114.205.215 08:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this absurd posturing. Of course the citation index is a relevant factual question. And of course everything quoted from Brown and most of what comes from LaVelle are empty POV-pushing.
As to the complete employment history of both Proter and LaVelle, I have no idea... and I'm 98% sure that anon doesn't know either. But Verklempt was right to edit it in a way that avoided the silly digression. If Porter's current job is at KU, that certainly is not proof in either direction about whether he ever worked at USD; which is what anon's claim seems to amount to. Of even less conceivable relevance to this article is whether Porter "respects" LaVelle. For god's sake, try to pay a little attention to the topic of this article! LotLE×talk 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! Dear Lulu. I have given you the links to places where Porter and LaVelle have worked and currently work. You don't read them. You or NH1 just delete them without reading them. Porter's cv can be found here: [18] LaVelle's cv can be found here: [19] If you were to read them, instead of just blanking them, in a non-NPOV way, you would see that Porter and LaVelle have NEVER worked together. Yet, Churchill states that they have. Just another example of Churchill NOT getting his facts straight and Wikipedia article repeating Churchill's lies. Also, if you READ the KU article that Porter wrote he clearly states that he respect LaVelle. It is in the article try to READ it instead of constantly blanking it because it does not fit into your pre-conceived non-NPOV view of defending Churchill. You are quoting Churchill from a left-wing rag called Counterpunch, and I am quoting the actual article that Porter wrote, the original source, not a politically-motivated rag, and you just keep taking out the sourced contradictory information because it does not meet your POV pushing agenda. ------70.114.205.215 09:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, now that I have given you sourced information about the employment history of Porter and LaVelle, then you are 100% wrong, even though you used to believe that you were 98% right. How funny is that???-----70.114.205.215 09:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, my confidence that anon doesn't know about the irrelevant issue of LaVelle and Porter's employment history has gone from 98% to 99%. The fact is utterly irrelevant for this article, no matter what. Neither link is a CV or chronology, but the link anon gives for LaVelle contradicts anon's claim that he never taught at USD. The similar faculty blurb for Porter does not exclude his possible prior employment at USD—as these things work, it probably means that if he had, it was only a temporary adjunct position, not a tenure-track position, but even that is only likely not stated. But again, it has not the slightest whit of relevance to this article where either law professor has taught thoughout their careers. LotLE×talk 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe getting into the 3 sigmas level here. The fist clause of Porter's KU article is: John LaVelle, my colleague at the University of South Dakota,.... It's possible to read that as: "LaVelle is my colleague, and he's at USD (but I'm not)"; the most obvious reading would be that they were both at USD, but it's a slight amphiboly.

Whoa! Dear Lulu: You are absolutely WRONG. The link goes directly to Professor Porter's web page at the University of Syracuse and it gives a long rundown of his work history. He is from New York and he once worked in Kansas, far far away from South Dakota. He is member of Seneca Tribe, a New York state tribe. There is absolutely no truth to the claim of Churchill that Porter worked with LaVelle at the University of South Dakota. Please do not make up facts to fit your argument. Once again, Porter worked at the Seneca Nation (NY), Buffalo (NY) College of Law, Tulsa (OK) College of Law, Univ of Kansas School of Law, Sac & Fox Nation (MO) and then back to Syracuse (NY) Univ School of Law. At NO TIME did he work in South Dakota, as Churchill claims. Also, the other link goes directly to Professor LaVelle's web page at the Univ of New Mexico. Once again, he has NEVER worked directly with Porter, as Churchill claims. LaVelle has worked as an attorney for several Indian civil rights organizations and then he became a law professor, first at Univ of South Dakota and then at Univ of New Mexico. LaVelle never worked at any of the places that Porter did. And finally, Porter states in his article that hardly knows LaVelle. If Porter and LaVelle were on the Univ of South Dakota law faculty together they would know each other. So, once again, you are 99% certain that you are right, but you are 100% wrong. Sorry, let's just put this one to bed because you have been shown to be absolutely dead wrong, 100% dead wrong.-----70.114.205.215 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable, Lulu. When you get locked into a position there is absolutely NO talking you into another position. I believe that is part of the problem with this article. You want the article to read just as YOU have written it and you do NOT in anyway want to concede any changes brought by me or Verklempt. In 2002, when the article was written and when the debate took place, LaVelle was a Professor of Law teaching Administrative Law at the [University of South Dakota] in Vermillion, South Dakota and Porter was a Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law & Government Center at the University of Kansas, in Lawrence, Kansas. You are just absolutely wrong about your interpretation of Porter's statement in the article. But you can't seem to concede such a simple little fact: They have never, ever worked together. Why is that important? For two reasons, it indicates that Churchill was absolutely wrong, just like you. And since you are unwilling to admit that you were absolutely wrong then all of the reversal of my changes and Verklempt changes need to be put in that context. You seem to have an agenda to grind and you are will not allow anyone to find you incorrect, much less even consider the opinions of other Wikipedians. This is an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. You are clear wrong and it you can be proven wrong and you have been proven wrong and yet you continue to fight, argue and make outlandish claims about how I'm vandalizing the article or make outlandish claims that I'm not editing in good faith or I'm somehow or other violating Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is supposed to based upon cooperation and discussion, but you are unwilling to discuss and debate. What you are doing, instead of discuss and debate, is reversing changes and ignoring clear and convincing arguments (such as Porter and LaVelle NEVER, EVER worked together, they just know each other from American Indian law conferences). It is behavior like your in this situation that hurts Wikipedia. Please work with me and admit that Porter and LaVelle NEVER, EVER worked together. It would be start toward fixing what is wrong with Wikipedia and getting this article correct. --- --70.114.205.215 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the content, the first section title after "Introduction", on the first page, is the phrase that anon denies occurs in the article: "Putting a happy fact on the colonial experience". The specific phrase is used as a heading, rather than in the narrative, or in a whole sentence. If anything, I think Churchill would have been better off quoting some other pithy descriptions Porter gives, such as: "The inevitable consequence of his “faith” in America is that Professor LaVelle is locked into the paradigm of Indigenous-colonist relations developed by the United States." I hadn't known Porter's work, but I'm impressed with his quality as a writer, actually... all of this might make a different interesting article. In any case, despite the contortions anon goes to to try to pretend Porter's article isn't actually the criticism of LaVelle that it is, Churchill's summary of the intent is obviously correct; every line on every page of the Porter article aims at the same basic criticism of LaVelle, it's not some obscure out-of-context line. Again though... that discussion is for some other article, since picking apart the subtleties of Porter is a far away digresssion. LotLE×talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, dear lulu you are attempting to make the argument that I am only pointing out the incorrectness of Churchill's facts on the employment that is a false argument. Not only have proven that Churchill was wrong on the employment issue I AM arguing that Churchill has taken the words of Porter out of context and he has spun them to get the impression to Counterpunch readers (and now Wikipedia readers thanks to you) that Porter thinks LaVelle is a professor of Indian law that does not deserve respect. That impression is clearly given by Churchill and now you and it is false and if you READ the KU article that Porter actually wrote then you would see that Porter's argument is NOT consistent with Churchill's spin and, of course, your repetition of Churchill's slander. You have NOT read the article. I have linked to it several times. It is located here: [20] Clink on "Past Issues" it is Spring 2002. Once again, I have sourced the original article several times and you keep removing it because it does NOT agree with Churchill's false comment in Counterpunch and it does not conform with your obvious POV pushing agenda.-----70.114.205.215 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
IP:70.114.205.215...please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I find the comments such as "dear lulu" and "obvious POV pushing agenda" not acceptable...thanks.--MONGO 09:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, MONGO. That is not true. If it was then Lulu would be violating the same policies. Lulu has been calling me a POV pusher since the beginning of the debate. Not only on this talk page, but when he has changes in edit summary and on the talk page of NH1. Thanks for your input though on that issue, but it does not apply. Also, the word "dear" is a polite word. Now as to the substance of the debate. It is clear that Churchill was made incorrect statements and he spin the words of another person and I have attempted to correct these items and neither Lulu, you or NH1 have given any substantive reasons for refusal to leave in the balancing information. It is clear that the only reasonable answer to this debate, based upon the refusal of lulu, you or NH1 to allow the balanced material, is simple delete the ad hominen attack on LaVelle. Please respond to the substance of the debate.-----72.177.223.95 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, I strongly recommend you create a username and use only that name when editing. It simply adds more respectability to your postings. Secondly, this article is not the place to quantify in detail who LaValle is...the article has nothing to do with him, it is about Ward Churchill. It appears you are digging for dirt deliberately and non notable opinions from non notable others is not very helpful. It is simply nothing but a nonnotable opinion.--MONGO 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear MONGO: That is not the way that Wikipedia works. It is based upon collaboration. You, Lulu, and NH1 are NOT working with me or Verkempt in any way. You are simply summarily deleting our contributions. You are only providing Churchill's side of the matter. For example, once again, and I repeat, it has become clear that Churchill simply made up the scenario that Porter and LaVelle worked together. That has been established. Yet you, Lulu and NH1 simply choose to ignore this FACT. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, instead of discussing, in a substantive way all of the changes that I and Verkempt have suggested, you focus on small, insignificant issues such as whether I have a name and not a number. Also, you provide conclusory responses on this talk page, such as the direct comments of Porter, the person that Churchill misquotes, as non notable, etc. You don't explain why it is non notable for the person being supposedly quoted is quoted by himself, Porter, or through a third party, Churchill, who has an obvious axe to grind. You don't deal with issue. You just wave your hand at in and state that it is "non notable." That is NOT an argument it is a conclusion. It is time that Lulu, you and NH1 start providing reasoning for your apparent deletions of the changes put forward by myself and Verklempt. This is not a difficult thing to do. Yet you and Lulu have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to reverse any changes that we put forward. You and Lulu are not editing in good faith. That is unfortunate. Finally, you state above that this article has nothing to do with LaVelle. Ok, I will take you at your word. Since it does NOT have anything to do with him then I believe that Verklempt's suggestion to remove Churchill's ad homemin attack on LaVelle should not be issue with you. Otherwise, if you and Lulu want to leave in Churchill's ad homemin attack on LaVelle then we need to put that personal attack in proper context for the readers of Wikipedia. As it stands now, the article has a personal attack by Churchill and no context around it and you and Lulu refuse to allow in the balancing information. For some reason, you and Lulu refuse to allow that information in the article. I don't know what your motivation is but it seems that you and Lulu are attempting to push your non-NPOV on to the article.-----70.114.205.215 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, MONGO your comments toward Porter and LaVelle are completely disrespectful of two the leading American Indian lawyers in the United States. This is the kind of comment that Churchill himself would make. The main reason that so many Indian people are not happy with Churchill is because he is so disrespectful of other Indians, especially Indians that ARE fully enrolled members of Indian tribes, which Churchill is not. Churchill is disrespectfully of Indian people and he is disrespectful of Indian tribal organizations. Please stop your personal attacks on these individuals. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is not respectful. The opinions of the principals in this article IS important and should be brought forth. Why do you believe that their opinions are non notable? Churchill believes they are notable he is the one that brough Porter up and Lulu is the one who quoted him in the article. Not me. Also, why is LaVelle's opinion non notable? He is only the most vocal critic of Churchill and one of the leading American Indian lawyers in the United States. His reputation far, far out-shines the ragtag education and scholarship of Churchill. Why are you so disrepectful of the opinions of these two American Indians? Why are you so respectful of the opinion of Churchill, a person who has been found guilty of academic misconduct??? Please respond to these issues with substance and don't just attack me personally.-----70.114.205.215 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as using this article to bolster who they are, that is not in keeping with summary style...we don't need to use this article to determine their credibility...do that in articles on them. This article is about Churchill, and he is not someone I always agree with, but that doesn't mean we use this forum simply to discredit him...it is undue weight to do anymore than mention these two figures briefly. Their views on Churchill are only notable in summary, not in long winded quotes.--MONGO 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and undue weight

Our anon seems to misunderstand the meaning of the word "notable" as used on Wikipedia. To say—as is true—that, e.g. Porter's broad assessment of LaVelle's work, or LaVelle's detailed employment history, are non-notable is a fact about this particular article. The topic of this particular article is "Ward Churchill misconduct allegations"; anything else is not the topic of this particular article.

Non-notable is not some kind of inherent value judgement on LaVelle or Porter (or whoever) as human beings. Nor is it a characterization of the quality of their academic work. Or about anything else other than the focus of this specific article. I think it would be absolutely great if someone wrote a good biographical article on LaVelle, or one on Porter, or one on any person, place, or thing passingly mentioned in this article (well, there are some limits to "general notability", but certainly all these well-published academics make the cut in my mind). But all of that is different articles.

All the non-notable attempts to praise LaVelle each and every time he is mentioned in the article is more of this same error. It's just not done! Take a look at any other article on Wikipedia, on any topic. When some external person is mentioned as a source of a quote or a fact used in the article, that person is characterized as concisely as possible simply to identify who they are in relation to the fact presented. We don't say "So-an-so, who got all these academic honors, and wrote these fabulous books, and who is all-around a really swell fellow, writes: 'blah blah'". Rather, on first mention only of a named source, we present a brief characterization of why they are relevant as a source: E.g. "Geology professor Robert Vasquez" (presuming the article has something do with geology); or "Novelist Miranda Ugbotu" (if the article relates to literature). Sure, those people (invented names for my examples) might have written really great books or whatever, but that's a topic for discussion in their own WP biographies, which we can wikilink to.

None of this is about Churchill or his critics, or POV, or balancing perspective, particularly. It's just the bare requirements of professional writing in an encyclopedic style. An article on something non-contentious (or less contentious, it's weird what editors will fight over) obeys the same rules. If we write about, say, soil bacteria or Vedic sanskrit grammar, we are contrained in exactly the same way to keep focus on the particular topic at hand. LotLE×talk 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear lulu: And I mean that non-sarcastically as MONGO implied earlier. I appreciate your comments on non-notable. I have understood those priniciples all along. So let's get down to the real issue here. I understand your wish to put in the comments of Churchill concerning the number of times that LaVelle has been cited. As this goes back to what is appropriate for the article and what isn't. When Churchill takes Porter's comment and spins it to make it sound like that LaVelle is NOT a serious academic then that is simple ad hominem. We need to balance that comment. We need to either take out that particular reference or we need to balance it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is providing Churchill with a larger audience to his ad hominem attack without the opportunity of either Porter or LaVelle to respond to it. It is unfair. I have already pointed out with absolutely certainity that Churchill did misspeak in the 'Counterpunch' article (in another context). And he mischaracterized Porter's intention. He was NOT blankedly condeming all of LaVelle's work and he WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT in the article cited by Churchill. Ok, so let's say that number of citations IS a valid piece of information that such be in the article, but the misuse of Porter's article to discredit LaVelle is non-notable. Now this is the conversation we should been having all along and you and MONGO and NH1 should have been participating in it and not merely deleting anything that we say because your opinions (meaning MONGO, you or NH1) are NOT more important than the opinions of either me (an anon number) or Verklempt. I think keeping in the mischaracterization of Porter's quote to take a cheap shot at LaVelle is off-topic and non-notable. And you and MONGO and NH1 are NOT the only arbitors of that decision-making process. Now, Churchill has mischaracterized Porter's comment to condemn LaVelle. Porter was NEVER, EVER talking about the General Allotment Act. The topic of the section is about the GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT. You and MONGO keep focusing on what it is NOTABLE, yet you and MONGO want to keep in the article a comment by Churchill where is quoting Porter and Porter was commenting on THE ROLE OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAWYERS IN THE LARGER AMERICAN SOCIETY, not LaVelle. You claim that I want to put in the article information to boost the biographies of Porter and LaVelle. NO. I want to try to balance out the inappropriate (obscure, off-topic, and a mischaracterization of the original speaker) quote that LULU put in the article. Now, if I take out that particular clearly inappropriate quote then either you or MONGO or NH1 will come along and put it back in the article and you will state in the edit summary that I was engaging in inappropriate censorship or, and I like this one, "mass blanking." And then you will take it a step further and state, I believe that "mass blanking" is vandalism. Now, if I put in the sourced information that Churchill misspoke in the 'Counterpunch' article (which I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt), then either you or MONGO or NH1 will remove it and state that it non-notable, off-topic and too obscure (or I'm just trying to boost the biographies of either Porter or LaVelle). However, when you or MONGO or NH1 delete information, notice that you or MONGO or NH1 DO NOT CALL those actions "mass blanking" or "vandalism," etc. When one of you delete the work of either Verklempt or myself then it is perfectly fine and there is no problem in minds of you or MONGO or NH1. I believe that this phenomenon, in the world of science, be called "researcher bias." You all have a point of view and want to make sure that your point of view is presented in the best light possible. For example, in the section we are talking about, the General Allotment Act section of the article, there is way more space dedicated to the defenses raised by Churchill than the ultimate outcome of the investigation on this topic. Churchill was clearly found guilty of research misconduct as it concerns the topic of the General Allotment Act and the section is entitled the General Allotment Act. However, the amount space dedicated to Churchill's response always outweighs the ultimate conclusion. Now, I understand that you and MONGO and NH1 feel complelled to make sure that Churchill's side of the story gets told. That is totally legitamite; however, from my experience I have learned that folks that do not come from Indian Country and have not lived through the mistreatment that Churchill has thrown upon actual, fully enrolled members of Indian Tribes, then are more sympathetic of Churchill's arguments. I have learned that it has become an emotional issue for both Indian people, most of whom have feels of anger toward Churchill, and for non-Indian liberals who feel, somewhat fairly, that Churchill has been targeted for intensive criticism because of his ultra-left-wing political views (and to protect the academy from outside forces that might undermine academic freedom). However, we need to set aside our various prejudices and debate this topic in most professional manner. Ok, I look at the deletions and changes that have been made in the last few days and I can see some of an argument, that you, MONGO and NH1 have made, for the quotation of Churchill when he focuses on the number of citations (I believe that he is dead wrong because 20 years from now the academic reputation of LaVelle and the academic reputation of Porter will outshine the academic reputation of Churchill by a good Indian Country mile), but the mischaracterization of Porter's quote from the 'Counterpunch' article is too obscure for the article. Remember you pointed out that the article needs to be limited in scope and pulling obscure quotes from a left-wing rag, where one person quotes another person is just downright heresay. Let's agree to remove Churchill's mischaracterization of Porter's article in response to LaVelle. If you don't then you have proven to me that you are focusing on proving to me that you can force only your vision on the article (which is an ego thing, refusal to collaborate--or better yet only collaborate with people that agree with you such as MONGO and NH1) or you are simply not interested in being fair and you simply want to continue the edit war for sheer grins. I have reached out to your side or the divide on several times. Please don't give me a lecture on the proper use of Wikipedia (I have not been rude, unprofessional or vandalizing--the claims in the past coming from either you, MONGO or NH1) or the proper way to edit a semi-professional publication (I have a doctorate degree, just like yourself, so I know the protocol), so the ball is in your court. We have gotten past all of the off-topic complaints about my editing and now we are down to talking about actual issues. Let's see if you are willing to meet half way or you are going try to muscle me into submission with false claims of vandalism, rudeness, or other red herrings. Also, I take your lack of response to my last post about Porter and LaVelle working together as 100% proof that you have come the conclusion that you were 100% wrong on that topic. I have come to understand that you just don't like to admit it when you are wrong, so when it happens you just don't speak and hope that no one points out that you are no longer pounding your chest and stating that you are 99% sure that your are 100% right or 98% sure that I'm 100% wrong or you are 95% sure that you are 45% certain maybe you are 55% right or whatever percentage that you threw out there. As for me I'm 100% sure that Porter and LaVelle never worked together and 84.567% sure that you have figured out that you were wrong on that topic, but you are only 35.87430% sure that you want to admit it out loud. --- --70114205215 10:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I promise to spend more time posting on this talk page when comments here stop resembling essays. More direct comments would be easier to respond to.
It sounds like your main concern comes down to, "...we need to balance it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is providing Churchill with a larger audience to his ad hominem attack without the opportunity of either Porter or LaVelle to respond to it." If so, I disagree. Porter and LaVelle have the same opportunity to comment that Churchill has.
On another note, I do think that four (or five, depending on how you count) quotes by Churchill in the The General Allotment Act section is be excessive. I would suggest thinning things by removing the "final solution" quote (which seems to be an emotional repeat of claims made immediately above). Also, the last quote could, perhaps, be cut-down as well. - N1h1l 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No. I disagree. Yes the last post was definite long, but not all of my comments are. However, it has been experience with this particular article that my comments have been ignored and my edits have been treated as less than thought worthy; therefore, I have responded with longer and longer comments so that it would be next to impossible to ignore them and treat them with less than the respect that they deseave. Also, in the earlier format of making short comments I noticed that I would comment that no, my work, for example, is not vandalism and then there then appear more comments from either you, MONGO or Lulu that my edits are paramount to vandalism. I decided to end that falsehood by refering to it above so that red herring would be put to rest once and for all. Also, I can't control your behavior so for you to comment that you going to spend more commenting on this page when I (an anon number) stops doing something is simply an illogical comment. Only you can choose to comment here or not, I can't control it. As a matter of fact, I take this comment as an attempt to control my behavior, limiting my right to air my concerns (I wouldn't call it censorship, but that word has been incorrectly used in previous conversations). If I have something to say then I will say it. And if that something to say takes pages or one word then that will be up to me and my decision-making process. And by the same token, if you want to comment then you will decide when and where that will be, not me and I will feel no compulsion to limit my comments to somehow win your approval as you stated when you said this: "I promise to spend more time posting on this talk page when comments here stop resembling essays." I do agree, however, that more direct comments would be easier to respond to.
No, not at all. Wikipedia is not based upon original research. Neither Porter or LaVelle can make comments about Churchill's mischaracterization of Porter's comment about the role of American Indian lawyers in America, which, of course, was mischaracterized as an attack on LaVelle's legal understanding of the General Allotment Act. Of course, the article NEVER, EVER talks about the General Allotment Act and it only discusses the role of American Indian lawyers in America, but it is presented by Churchill and then repeated in Wikipedia as if the comment of Porter is about the General Allotment Act. It NOT about the General Allotment Act in any way. Go ahead. Track the source of that Counterpunch quote down it to original source and tell me that it about the General Allotment Act. Go ahead. You can't and you won't because the WHOLE article in which it was lifted NEVER, EVER talks about the General Allotment Act. But Wikipedia has the quote in the section talking about Churchill's mischaracterization of the General Allotment Act, as if the quote even or the article even speaks to the General Allotment Act. Porter has NEVER, EVER written an article about the General Allotment Act. But some reason, that does not matter to you, Lulu (who put it in the article in the first place) or MONGO (who keeps putting it back in, but will NOT give a reason for its inclusion--I still have not, with all of this writing on the talk page--read an affirmative defense of the quote from MONGO). I'm waiting. I have worked through red herring attacks on me and my editing that I am rude, unprofessional, I don't understand the editing process, that I am engaging vandalism, that my comments are long-winded, but I am still WAITING patiently to hear an affirmative reason for the inclusion of Churchill's mischaracterization of Porter's comment concerning the role of American Indian lawyers in America in the section concerning the General Allotment Act.
Once again, I would like to hear just ONE affirmative reason for the inclusion of Churchill's mischaracterization of Porter's comment concerning the role of American Indian lawyers in America in the section concerning the General Allotment Act. --- --70114205215 14:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't break up my posts (it makes me look crazy! :)
So far as I can tell, your concerns about the Porter quote have been addressed at length by Lulu. With regards to your claim that you were being "ignored", my memory is that your initial comments appeared at the top of the page where no one could find them. - N1h1l 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWard_Churchill_misconduct_allegations_Archive_1_2c0f.html"