Talk:Ward Churchill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Good articles Ward Churchill has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Contents

[edit] Previous discussions

[edit] Article name

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

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

[edit] Improving

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

Also posting at FAC:

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

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

[edit] 1987 Denver Post article

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

Do you have access to Nexis or Westlaw? It's easy enough to check out for yourself. I don't have those services, but I do have a scan of the '87 article which is a human interest bio on Churchill and not at all critical. He did say those things. I will post a scan of the article if necessary. I don't think you should be saying that this stuff is "alleged" by Churchill's critics. He told the Denver Post this, and anyone can check it out.Verklempt 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's necessary to post a scan. I've seen this article cited third, fourth and fifth hand by right wing bloggers, none of whom have ever actually seen the article, and each characterizing the claims a bit differently. I'd give the odds at maybe 10% that the 1987 article actually says what it's being used to support, either here or in the various blogs. More likely, it contains a tiny hint of similarity to the claims advanced, but if it were read in the original would support a very different characterizations. But I don't have easy access to the article; nor can 99.9% of WP readers "check it out" (outside Colorado, and maybe a few other major US libraries, even the microfilm isn't available), let alone in the rest of the world. I dunno, maybe you're right that Nexis has it, but that sounds like a guess to me rather than a known fact (I don't think Nexis has full text of most newspapers that far back). LotLE×talk 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit insulted by your assumption that I am a liar, and I don't really understand why I am on trial here. It seems to me that once the cite has been given then it is the doubter's obligation to track it down. But I will post the scan. Please tell me how to do that.Verklempt 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing personal. If there had been only one, or two, or three, or four editors who had posted specifically false claims to this article, I would have fewer doubts. But since I've been watching the article, I find that most of the time when a disparaging claim about Churchill is introduced, once the source is tracked down it winds up not saying what it is purported to say (or a few words are taken dramatically out of context to give a very different spin to the source as a whole). And almost all the time, those questionable claims are posted by editors with short edit histories, such as yours. It's not that I make an assumption, I just treat introduced claims with skepticism.
To upload a file, use the "Upload file" link that is probably to the left edge of your browser window (not sure if non-default CSS styles might move it). For a scan of text, please use PNG format (GIF is OK, just not JPG which degrades text and line art pretty badly). LotLE×talk 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Native American writers

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

This has been discussed frequently on the talk page. Whatever his "blood quantum", Churchill writes on NA topics, which is more than enoug for the category. LotLE×talk 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but everyone else on that list is a NA, whose lineage has not been questioned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The only other one on the cat who jumps out at me as having "questioned ethnicity" is Will Rogers (and his son). But I'm not terribly familiar with every name listed. It seems like a silly and pedantic issue to me, but if you can find anyone over at the NA wikiproject who agrees, I don't care if you remove the writer cat. Try the talk page over there to get some feedback. LotLE×talk 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like Churchills views, but the Native lineage issue is not as simple as it has been portrayed. I am not a big fan of Ward Churchill but I can tell you that there are a lot of Americans (including myself) who have Creek heritage who find it difficult to 'prove' it. The U.S. government in the mid to late 1800s (and also the government of Oklahoma-- where most Creeks were relocated) had policies of systematically denying tribal membership to Creeks who lacked the right 'papers'-- the reason is that at the time, Creek tribal membership meant the right to private (individual) land claims in Oklahoma (homesteads). The federal and OK state governments where able to keep Creek individual land claims to a minimum by denying many Creeks tribal status. Given that many Cherokee where also resettled in Oklahoma, I wouldn't be surprised if this practice also affected many descendents of that nation. This tribal disenfranchisment has been a subject of discussion in my family going back at least three generations that I am aware of-- my grandfather used to talk about it when he was alive. I am revulsed by Churchill's comments about 911 victims and don't think he is much of a scholar either-- but the attacks on his Native heritage make me uncomfortable.
Sincerely, Phil Murray 168.103.82.104 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but what you are discussing is quite different than the situation of the Fake Indian Ward Churchill. Churchill's parents do NOT even claim to be Indian. Proving Indian ancestry can be difficult, but at a minimum the person claiming Indian heritage usually has parents alive that are willing to support the claim. Churchill does not even have the support of his own parents. Also, Churchill has made claims to be a member of a SERIES of tribes over the years. He has claimed Creek, Cherokee and Metis These tribes are not related and he is clearly Tribe shopping, similar to what attorneys do when they are looking for a sympathetic judge or jury, venue shopping. He has defenders, some are even editors on this website, that claim that the Indian heritage thing is not important because, well, Churchill himself denigrates Indian blood quantum rules. But that is just BS. If Churchill does not believe in Indian blood quantum rules then why has worked so darn hard over the years to try and find a tribe that will recognize him??? Also, if you review his various claims (that have changed over the years) you have to be very, very sceptical of Churchill's ancestry claims. Why? Well, one day he claims that he is Creek on one side of his family (even though his mother does not support the claim) and that he Cherokee on the other side of his family (but that side of the family does not support that claim). And then there is the Metis claim that just came out of the blue, years later, after he was turned down by both the Keetoowah (Cherokee) and Creek tribes. He cannot provide a single name of one person, not even his mom or dad, that backs up the claim for Metis membership. Also, he claims Cherokee ancestry and he denigrates the whole blood quantum system, but why does he not simply go to the main Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma ("CNO"), and apply for membership? Why not??? CNO does not follow blood quantum like the Keetoowah's do. All he has to do is provide the name of an ancestor on the Tribal roles. He won't even try. Also, add up the numbers, he claims to have some Cherokee on one side and some Creek on the other and somewhere or another some Metis. But yet he still looks like a white guy. With that many ancestors he should be well over one-quarter, but he freely admits that he is less than one-quarter. He ADMITS that he is less than one-quarter. He ain't an Indian, but he is a Chief. he is the Chief of the Wannabees, a tribe from the land of Wannabee Indians. This, I hope, is not your situation. I'm sorry that it makes you uncomfortable, but Churchill brought this discussion of his Fake Indianness on himself by being a bully toward REAL Indians and blowhard--these are the real reason that Churchill's Nazi comments caused so much stir.--Getaway 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Chuchill, anarchist?

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

[edit] The "allegations" title

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

I agree that the subcommittee report is quite damning of Churchill, but it's not a jury, nor are the charges criminal... nor, for that matter even "civil" in a judicial sense; the findings are administrative. Moreover, exactly what the University Regents and/or the faculty committee as a whole will do is not yet known; nor, for that matter, whether an appeals process and whether it will be pursued, is also not known.
Aside from that, the material covered in the section (and at much more length in the child article) isn't limited to the issues the subcommittee considered. For example, the stuff about whether Churchill has NA heritage, and whether he claimed to, was something that the subcommittee ruled out consideration of, as not relevant to academic fraud.
I was trying to think of a title that was more specific to the nature of the section, given the release of finding, but I really can't think of anything that remains NPOV. Saying something is an "allegation" does not mean that it is untrue... if anything just the opposite, it leans in the direction of suggesting its truth. LotLE×talk 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the section title should be changed. CU's extensive report removes the academic doubt of the allegations, so for all intents and purposes they are now facts. What the University does about it is irrelevant. Also, if the material on his fake indian heritage is misplaced then it can be moved to a more relevant section. How about "Academic Misconduct", since that is what the Committee was tasked to discover (and did discover)?
A further explantion of the Committee's "academic misconduct" should also be listed, specifically 'four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” '--CReynolds 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:Weasel words like "Allegation" should not be in the article at all. Travb (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the word “allegations” needs to be dropped from the section heading and the title of the child article. An allegation is an unsupported charge or a charge that has not yet been proved (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/allegation). But the plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication charges were proved by WC’s university (http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/ChurchillStandingCmteReport.pdf). The fact that Ward has no Native American ancestors has also been proven (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html). I don’t know of a formal investigation of the copyright infringement charges, but it’s weasel wording to lump all this stuff together under an “allegations” title just because one point wasn’t proven in court. Steve8675309 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the new title be: "Ward Churchill: Misconduct Issues." This is neutral, and allows the article text to sort out which allegations are proven and which remain controversial.Verklempt 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ward Churchill: Misconduct Issues" sounds good. Unlike the current title, it isn't biased. Steve8675309 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

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

[edit] "Academic"

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

Privet Commrade. Zvedet: Churchill, Ward (Spring 2004). "From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present". The New Centennial Review 4 (1): 1-72.  Churchill esotoria professor: tochna. Nravitsa maya ploha ruski? Travb (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill, ACTA and Public Opinion

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

[edit] The Recommendation of Churchill's Firing

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

I have protected this article. As a biogrpahy, we must not allow potentially libellous information to be posted here unless it can be accurately referenced and discussed. My protection does not favor a particular version, only helps to prevent an edit war and is an effort to open a discussion if contencious arguments are to be added.--MONGO 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have posted below the comments that MONGO has posted on my talk page. I find these comments to be threatening in that: (1) there is no specific mention of anything that I have done wrong and (2) MONGO simply does NOT agree with the editing decisions that I have made concerning the Ward Churchill Wikipedia article. This is a very good example of how Wikipedia has its short-comings. MONGO does NOT agree with my point of view concerning the how the article should be written and instead of debating the merits of the article he decides to WARN me on my talk page to stop me from making the edits that I believe that should be made. I believe that MONGO should review the rules of WP:CIVIL. He is acting as a bully and I have not done one thing that violates Wikipedia policy. --70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
== Personal attacks ==
I strongly recommend that you review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This will be a polite reminder to remain polite and civil, no matter how much you may disagree with someone else.--MONGO 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice in this statement MONGO does NOT give one example of the behavior that I engaged in that violates Wikipedia policy. MONGO is engaging in bullying behavior. MONGO was orginally brought to this article by Lulu to provide Lulu with a second person to agree with any changes that Lulu made. That is a fact and it is in the Wikipedia edit history. This attempt to intimidate and stop me from editing--when I have NOT violated one Wikipedia policy--is in the edit history and cannot be disputed.--70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, MONGO states that the information that I posted on the Ward Churchill article is "potentially libellous information," which is simply NOT true. The information that has been posted has been sourced and referenced. MONGO is creating a red herring to HIDE factual information about Ward Churchill from the Wikipedia reader. MONGO has NOT explained how the information that was taken from independent third party sources, newspapers, is potentially libelous information. MONGO needs to focus on the FACTS of argue the merits of the issue and he needs to stop engaging in bullying behavior.--70114205215 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidence? "You must stop your POV pushing behavior", apparent threat of an edit war, condescending tone, attacking contributors and not content, borderline personal attacks, obvious personal attack, condescending tone, "dear sweet MONGO"?, among other things, and using your IP address only, before you simply created a user account that is your IP address [1] I can dig up more later, if you really want me to.--MONGO 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. These are all behaviors that Lulu has been engaging in, I actually learned the terminology from Lulu, and yet you are NOT asking him to quit. -- --70114205215 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I put in an edit which pointed out that the CU Committee recommended that Churchill be fired and you removed it. That is a fact. It is in the edit history--along with all of the personal bullying tactics that you and MONGO have been engaging in--you can review where you reversed my sourced and reference material here: [2]. This the material that MONGO is claiming is "potentially libellous" sic. It is NOT potentially libelous at all. It is the official recommendation of the CU Committee and MONGO is stating that it is "potentially libelous." I am asking that you and MONGO edit in good faith. When you call an official recommendation from a University of Colorado committee "potentially libelous," then you are pushing the bounds of good faith. --- --70114205215 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... I added a paragraph break! I retained your added citation (though I did simplify basically duplicative consecutive sentences). LotLE×talk 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your edit was retained, for the most part, yet you continue to single out editors and not the argument. See, for the very last time WP:CIVIL. Excuse me if my spelling is not always perfect...so long as it is in article space, that is the most important thing. This is a biography and I don't care what it says anywhere else, no matter how well referenced an issue is...you should discuss adding such potentially libelous items with other editors...Wikipedia is not a free for all to try and use for what may be libelous additions.--MONGO 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT potentially libelous. It was an Associated Press article by Daniel Elliot, dated Tuesday, June 13th, 2006. The article was entitled, "Panel recommends firing Colo. professor." It was picked up off of the AP newswire with same title by the Washington Post [3], Yahoo [4], CBS News [5], Washington Times [6], ABC News [7], Forbes [8], Netscape/CNN [9], Salon [10], and many, many other respected news outlets. These large, well-known, well-respected news outlet sets to rest the carnard that the information that I put in the article is "potentially libelous." -- --HouseByTheLake 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I see...as I stated, your edit was retained...what the heck is your problem? Look up libel in Blacks Law Dictionary. Substantial truth edits are retained, if they utilize reliable sources. Recommending by a panel=what? So what if he has been recommended to be fired...has he been fired? No. If they don't fire him, then the recommendation to do is about as notable as a blade of grass. Time will tell.--MONGO 04:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In hindsight, it is clear that Churchill IS toast and MONGO's opinion was clearly off-base. Time did tell.--Getaway 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As an attorney, I looked up libel in Black's many, many years ago. The information printed in the newspapers that I quoted is NOT libelous. You are wrong. For it to be libelous, the newspapers would have to be reporting something that is not true. Truth, as they teach in law school and is upheld in common law courts, is the ultimate defense against a claim of libel. One of the elements of the many required for a cause of action of libel would require that something UNTRUE be stated about Churchill. Now, the information you are claiming is libelous does not have libelous information in it. You are pointing to an Associated Press article that simply states that the CU panel recommended that he be fired. Now, there is nothing, absolutely nothing untrue in that statement. For Churchill to up-hold a cause of action against the AP (or by extension any of the many, many news orgainzations that repeated the story, word for word), then Churchill would have to prove (since Churchill would be the one bringing the cause of action, he would have the burden of proof) that the CU panel did not recommend his firing. Now, since the AP has pictures of the news conference where the CU panel announced the recommendation, it is not possible that Churchill could maintain a cause of action for libel under those circumstances--unless Churchill could somehow prove to a judge (because this cause of action would never make it to a jury) that the news conference did not happen, regardless of the existence of TV and still cameras. Now, from a practical standard we know the claim that the information is "potentially libelous" is false because the AP has staff of many, many lawyers that would never have allowed the AP to print such a simple little article if they believed that the contents were libelous. Also, the University of Colorado has a team of lawyers working the Churchill case and those lawyers would never have allowed the CU panel to hold the news conference in the first place if they believed the news conference was libelous. And finally from a practical point of view, Churchill's attorney would be filing a libel suit against the AP if the information in the article was not true. That is the legal issue. As to whether the recommendation is notable, well that is a whole different issue. It does not have anything to do with the legal issue or Black's Law Dictionary. It is a subjective decision based upon the opinion of editors. I believe that the recommendation is notable in that this article is a biography and Churchill has held basically the same job for several decades--a major part of his life, the topic of a biography. Now, that is enough reason to consider the recommendation notable because it concerns Churchill's livelihood. However, it is notable for many, many other reasons. One reason Churchill has been in the public spotlight for a couple of years now is because of his 911 comments but also because many, many people believe that he is being unfairly singled out because of the 911 comments, a violation of academic freedom. (That is not true, but it is not the topic of this discussion.) Since the CU panel has recommended his firing then those people who are interested in his particular case because of the so-called academic freedome issue are going to be interested in the panel's recommendation. So from that perspective, the recommendation is notable now and in the future. Why? Not many tenured professors get recommended for firing, much less actually fired. So to sum up, the recommendation is notable because the of importance in Churchill's life and also because of the academic freedom aspect of the case and finally libel has nothing to do with any of this discussion on notability because it is a legal issue and there is not even a prima facie case for libel involved with the AP article, reducing that argument to a red herring. --- --HouseByTheLake 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If he isn't fired, then it is meaningless...it becomes nothing more than a big so-what. See how easy it is to make a point without writing a few kb's of diatribe?--MONGO 11:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, with the benefit of time it has become clear, very clear that Churchill was fired. It did happen and the previous argument was an attempt to censor important imformation about Churchill.--Getaway 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that Dr. 70114205215 apparently has a J.D. as well. I guess Dr.70114205215, esq. is a more appropriate term of address. I wonder if any M.D.'s or D.D.S.'s or Ed.D.'s are in the wings too. Maybe a D.V.M. (specialized in dogs and ponies, perhaps). Having such a stunning collection of degrees s/he's right on the question of libel (in the USA): it's a non-issue for a number of reasons. Other than the awful writing in Dr.70114205215, esq.'s draft, I actually quite agree that the recommendation of the whole committee is notable enough for the lead, if written concisely (even the slight mischaracterization as "recommended firing" is simpler than the more nuanced accuarcy).

FWIW, if the Chancellor and Provost decide to value academic freedom (which doesn't look all that promising), the lead should lose the committee recommendation. It could go later in the body, but isn't lead stuff at that point. Likewise, now that the whole standing committee recommended, the subcommittee isn't lead material anymore. Or again, if the eventually Chancellor fires Churchill, and the Colorado Supreme Court later overturns, the SCOC is the most germane to a concise clause. The "current status" merits a lead sentence, but not a belabored diatribe.

It is not however, appropriate to spend more words on the matter, in the lead, than are used to describe Churchill's actually primary reasons for notability: basic bio (born, etc), wrote a bunch of books, lectured widely, media attention, etc. Nor, of course, is it OK to write the whole thing as an editorial argument rather than as an encyclopedia article. Good writing is more subtle than simply avoiding libel, or even than following WP:V. LotLE×talk 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh just to follow up on myself: There's something interesting to note about the AP story that Dr.70114205215, esq. added. While it is headlined as he described, there's hardly a word in the article about Churchill's imperfect footnotes, or the investigative subcommittee, or anything like that. The whole article is about Churchill's "sin" of being a leftie and characterizing 9/11 insensitively. It's almost as if the Associated Press doesn't actually believe the accuracy of some footnotes about an 1837 event are really why the CU committee recommended Churchill's firing. LotLE×talk 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly factor

Prof. Churchill should sent a "Thank You" note to Bill O'Reilly of Inside Edition, or whatever his yellow journalism show is called nowadays, for giving Churchill far more publicity than he could ever have hoped to obtain otherwise. >:) And vice versa. Wahkeenah 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If he does get canned, he should be hired by Fox News to replace the wimpy Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes. That should be a ratings boost. They could conduct the show "live", maybe sell tickets, hold it at Madison Square Garden... Oh, wait, CNN already tried something like that, on the late, unlamented Crossfire. Wahkeenah 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OH man...that would be one heck of a wild show! I can see it on the nights Oliver North sits in for Sean Hannity...imagine putting North and Churchill in the same room together....it would be worse than the worse brawl on Jerry Springer.--MONGO 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Another editor pointed out to me a "debate" between Churchill and Horowitz from a couple months ago. I think the link to audio is on my talk page, though it's probably archived by now (I can dig it up if anyone cares). According to Maxrespct, who pointed it out to me, Churchill handed Horowitz the latters head on a platter (Max didn't use that phrase... but being the sort of person who has a tattoo of Aubrey Beardsley's Salome (play) inscription of the head of John the Baptist on a platter, I like the imagery :-)). Churchill's success in the debate wasn't, of course, Fox News style screaming fits, but simply in showing his far greater intellect and analysis. Or so according to Max... I couldn't bring myself to listen to Horowitz. LotLE×talk 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lulu, I would be VERY interested in this debate. Please post the link. What happened to that guy who was serving your head on the platter here? Is he still around? Or did sheer persistence on your part win out? Thanks in advance. Travb (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Use google (looks like Max just mentioned it, not the actual link). Fortunately for me, myrmecine minds mostly belong to editors who have managed to get themselves permanently blocked. LotLE×talk 15:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Myrmicine: Of or pertaining to Myrmica, a genus of ants including the small house ant (M. molesta), and many others. Impressive vocabulary, couldn't you just say "ant" though? In law school people use Latin all the time, it drives me crazy. It is a way for one group to feel superior to another group.
Are you talking to me? Is this a way to insult me indirectly? Or were you refering to User:Pokey5945? He doesn't seem to be permanently blocked.[11] The problem with subtle insults is sometimes they are so subtle, no one gets them. Travb (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the archive history of this page, it was User:Pokey5945 looks like he isn't around lately. He was a really great debator. Looking forward to that link, Lulu, thanks.Travb (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be asinine. LotLE×talk 15:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you disagree, please refrain from calling my views asinine. It is nothing personal against you. I agree with your POV, I just read through the arguments and felt like he was a better debator, thats all. I wish I knew (or cared to learn) more about Churchill to push the pro-Churchill stance, but I don't. Good luck Lulu, and best wishes. Travb (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, thanks for the info on the video. I will see if I can find it, and I will let you know.Travb (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill

Enjoy this audio. Travb (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill fired today--please update page

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Verklempt (talk • contribs) .

Is a source available for this, or did someone just sense an "imbalance in the Force"? :) - N1h1l 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[12]...please wait until he is/isn't fired before adding it to the article. Let's not do even the smallest amount of specualtion on this matter...let it happen or not happen. Examine the first paragraph...University of Colorado interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano announced today that he wants to dismiss professor Ward Churchill...all this says for now is that the interim Chancellor "wants" to dismiss him, so it hasn't happened yet.--MONGO 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Read DiStefano's own statement at the CU website. He doesn't just "want" to fire Churchill; the Chancellor has "recommended" Churchill's dismissal to the Board of Regents, and has relieved Churchill of his campus duties including teaching, service, and research. That is the first step in the firing process. It's major news. It needs to be added immediately, or else this page is out of date.Verklempt 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have an external link for that?--MONGO 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
LIke I said, CU and Churchill takes you right to it: http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/churchill062606.html. Listen to the audio, where DiStefano says that Churchill is relieved of his duties.Verklempt 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, ensure you add the link I provided and the one you have as well. Ensure that the move is to dismiss, and I'm not sure he is completely gone yet/ Just remember that this is a biogrpahy and ensuring we only summarize precise wording is crucial for our reputation.--MONGO 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


This information is, or will be, relevant to the bio. But Wikipedia isn't an up-to-the-minute news scroll. If we don't reflect today's events, it's no big thing. The recommendation is significant (if not surprising, given DiStefeno's obvious intention to do just that before the investigation even began). But let's let a few more newspapers report for a few days. Being "relieved of duties" during summer intermission doesn't really amount to much just yet... if he's not teaching in the fall, that's more notable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper (try Wikinews)... it's cool when WP is totally current on a breaking event, but this is ultimately a slowly unfolding event... five years from now it really doesn't matter whether some sentence was changed on June 26 or July 5. LotLE×talk 00:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one... http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9424240/detail.html Bdelisle 07:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano issued Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at CU today. (not exactly the same as firing but close. They may want him to officially resign or something. This notice of intent may be interesting for the story line of the article, but one shouldn't say he has been fired until it's official.)--YellowLeftHand 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW info is from website/CU email. --YellowLeftHand 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff to add to the article, when it is unblocked

So why is this article blocked? I don't see any evidence of a vital controversy that needs to be hashed out on the talk page. What gives?Verklempt 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ask and you shall recieve...it is unblocked...Travb (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park trivia

Several editors have gone back and forth about adding and removing this blurb.

  • Churchill is indirectly referenced in the South Park episode "Die Hippie, Die". The episode has University of Colorado students saying that a professor enlightened them to world problems. The students also refer to some South Park residents as "Little Eichmanns".

My own opinion is that I find "trivia" sections somewhat out of keeping with serious biographies, but I do not have any special objection to this one. The South Park use was funny, probably intended as mildly insulting of Churchill, but reporting it is not unduly disparaging (per WP:LIVING) in itself. Still, let's make an analogy: Jesus and Satan (and Santa Claus) are frequently recurring characters on South Park. Would editors feel that the South Park information belongs in their articles also? If not, what's different?

Let's discuss it here on talk before adding it back. LotLE×talk 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Ward Churchill is not on par with religious figures. He is a living public figure, just like Bob Dole. And yes the South Park, Family Guy, and Simpsons comments about Bob Dole are on the Bob Dole page. It seems that Ward Churchill should be treated as loosely as Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and George Bush. But the analogy to Christ, Satan and Santa (there is similarity between Satan and Santa isn't there?) is not on point. Besides, it is damn funny to make fun of the loose-cannon professor that claims to be a member of several different tribes (Creek, Cherokee (both mainstream and Keetoowah) and Metis) but he can't find proof for even one. Yeah, I know I commented upon his desire to be an Indian, I guess that makes me a "Little Eichmann" because I don't agree with him, how enlightened.--Getaway 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the Bob Dole analogy is much better than the more mythic persons. If the information is to be added, I like the style of Dole's section better, i.e.: "Ward Churchill in popular culture". I'm still not quite convinced this is a general pattern: I've certainly seen many bios of living public figures that lack such "trivia/pop culture" sections, even where the person had clearly been portrayed in satires, literary works, etc. I'm hardly set against the inclusion, but I'd like to see the opinion of other editors as well. I do see a bit of a "slippery slope" for such inclusions. For example, Bill Clinton or GW Bush have been parodied or portrayed thousands of times in various media... and clearly we cannot include them all in their bios. What decides which representations are "notable"? LotLE×talk 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It turns out there actually is a completely specific guideline recommending against exactly this sort of trivia: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. I suspect the same consideration would apply at articles like Bob Dole as well, though I am not an editor of that article. LotLE×talk 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it. However, it is just a guideline and the decision should be based upon concensus. I'm going to work the information into the main article.--Getaway 17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The question of whether a fact is trivial or not is entirely subjective. We should not label a fact as "trivial" as a tactic for excluding it. It seems to me that Churchill's appearance in South Park is more than trivial. It is a relevant indicator of his significance and reputartion in the broader culture.Verklempt 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... well, like I said above, I find mere cultural references to a biography subject mostly inappropriate to include in articles. I asked about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and the sentiment there seems to be along the same line. I find South Park fairly amusing (less so now than in the first few seasons), but most topics parodied by South Park do not mention that fact in their own articles. For example, Janet Reno, Saddam Hussein, John Elway, Barbara Streisand, and Tom Cruise are all living figures who have been parodied by South Park. I would find it inappropriate to include that "trivia" in any of their articles (though I confess I have not checked any of them to see if the "trivia" is there). However, if the reference was somehow worked into the main narrative, it would be less conspicuously out of place. LotLE×talk 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Labeling the South Park thing as a "mere cultural reference" is simply another way of saying "trivial." The comparison figures you mentioned are way more famous that Churchill, and a South Park reference is far less significant to their biographies. However, Churchill's South Park appearance is probably the sum total of his cultural resonance in fictional works (his own autobiographical writings excluded). Therefore it is more significant in his biography than it would be in Tom Cruise's buigraphy.Verklempt 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Before seeing this comment, I was pretty neutral about the South Park trivia. Seeing an editor who clearly wants a cultural parody solely as an indirect way to insult a biography subject makes me far more opposed to its inclusion. Moreover, just how fundamentally Verklempt misses the point about WP:LIVING and the like convinces me that these sort of mentions are affirmatively harmful for readers (who might mistake the cultural reference with the figures reasons for notability). LotLE×talk 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The bulk of this is ad hominem nonsense. I will address the last sentence, the only one that is not ad hominem. Why would anyone confuse media attention as the cause of media attention? Few readers are that dense.Verklempt 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories

I see the category "Native American Activists" has been deleted and re-added. This drew my attention to whether he belongs in this category. It all hinges on the category's definition. If it is "activists for native american causes" then he surely does belong, but if it is "activists who are native americans" then he just as surely does not belong. Thoughts? TheKaplan 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I took out the category: "Native American Renaissance" because that category is made up of people that are, without question, members of Native American tribes and it requires the member to be part of a movement in Indian Country where Indian people re-develop their own art forms, take them back from non-Indians and Indian Wannabees. Many, many people believe Churchill to be the Chief of the Wannabees and NO ONE at all considers, at least in Indian Country, Churchill to be part of the Native American Renaissance movement. Honestly, he really isn't very well liked in Indian Country. Now, he is very well liked by non-Indian (mostly white) members of radical poltical movements, but Indians, not so much. Now, on the other topic (i.e., Native American Activists"), I'm just taking it out until there is discussion--just following Lulu's precedent of removing things and then talking about them (e.g., the South Park parody of Churchill).--Getaway 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm mostly agnostic on this issue, because of the two ways of interpreting the category. If I had to choose, I tend to think that there is no doubt that Churchill is an activist for Indian causes, and thus deserves the category, even though he isn't an Indian. However, it would be useful to provide an assessment of his reputation in Indian Country. Certainly you won't find any laudatory articles on Churchill in the Indian press. It's pretty much all negative. Getaway's assessment is right on the money in terms of Churchill's audience--it's white radicals or people who recently decided to be Indian, not Indians raised in a culture. The problem is how to substantiate and write this up in an NPOV manner.Verklempt 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually glad, Getaway, that you took out the list (not category) of NA renaissance. That's much more literary than sociological writers in any case, and Churchill is definitely not such. Actually, I'd be perfectly happy seeing the entire "see also" section go... those sections are almost always used when editors are too lazy to incorporate the topic into the main text. If a person is connected to some list, or to some general topic, that fact should best be presented in the actual narrative describing them, since just "seeing also" leaves it opaque exactly why one might want to see that other thing when reading the article at hand.
As to the category, I think the category page should get some clarification there on what it means. It certainly looks to me like it's about politics, not about ethnicity. But if the category page said otherwise... well, it's not so simple as some editors suppose, since Churchill's heritage claims are disputed not false by consensus (yeah, a few biased reporters managed not to find Cherokee ancestors). But clearly Churchill is not a tribal member or raised on a res, or anything like that... so if the category page said "tribal members", that would decide it. I'd ask for consensus on the category talk page, if you care about this.
Verklempt and Getaway are a bit off track on Churchill's reception in "indian country". He's actually got some laudatory mentions in the magazine called Indian Country, FWIW; but as a rule not a lot of Indians really give a damn about Churchill one way or the other. The people who have strongly negative opinions about Churchill are pretty nearly to a person white conservatives... but yeah, most of the folks who most like Churchill have pretty pale complexions also. LotLE×talk 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Lulu: I agree with your comments as it concerns Wikipedia, but when you go into the territory about how people in Indian Country perceive Churchill, well, that's just incorrect. I am an enrolled member of a Federally recognized Indian tribe and I have worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in Washington and in area and field offices and at Haskell. Most folks in Indian Country find Churchill to be a joke because he claims three different tribes (Cherokee, Creek, and Metis) but even his parents do not claim Indian ancestry. Also, Indian Country Today (out of Rapid City, South Dakota and owned by the Oneida Indian Nation, which is the magazine that I believe that you are referring to, regularly prints articles that are very, very critical of Churchill. As a matter of fact the editorial Board of the magazine has condemned Churchill in no uncertain terms. That editorial can be seen here: Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment There is a cartoonist that works for Indian Country Today that has drawn some very hilarious parodies of Churchill. This particular cartoonist regularly refers to Churchill as a Fake Indian. No. As someone who IS Indian, has worked in Indian Country and lives in Indian Country, I would not state in any way that Churchill is taken seriously except for a few very devoted followers that are gathered in mostly socialist white political circles, who get chubbies on his radical, Marxist rhetoric. I reviewed your personal page and you seem to have a respectful understanding of computer and other sciences but I don't see Indian issues on your resume. You have limited experience and understanding of Indian Country at best. I respectfully disagree with your evaluation and I can flatly state that my opinion is based upon a ton of experience that you simply don't have, but you do have a ton of experience, just not in Indian Country. (Oh, by the way, we brothers refer to and write about it as Indian Country, not "indian country".) Peace, brother.--Getaway 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks Getaway. I really appreciate the nice and cooperative tone you have. This is a rough page to maintain an encyclopedic tone on. Not the only such page by any means, but as you can imagine it attracts a lot of partisan opinions rather than the neutral POV encyclopedia we're looking for. And I sort of stumbled into an informal maintenance role on this page (along with a dozen or two others, each surprisingly unrelated to the others, even in broad topic). Obviously, my characterizations of some matters are probably a bit different than some of yours, but your above note is an epitome of good faith. I'll try my damnedest to keep my normally crotchety nature under control in chatting with you (but try to forgive any digressions from that attempt).
I was thinking about the South Park thing some more. While I really am concerned about the "trivia" sections... not because of Churchill particularly, but because I've been working on a lot of biographies (mostly of living persons, see WP:LIVING and all that). There are some pitfalls I've seen a lot. Actually, I have an essay I started on this (maybe someday to be proposed as a guideline, but not just yet) at WP:LIVING/A. On that, Churchill isn't a central example, since a lot of his notability indeed comes from the controversy around his one essay, and all the upshot of it. He'd certainly merit an article if he had only ever been an academic, but now he's clearly a "public figure" as well (even more than he had been previous to 2005 for his less, but still notably, publicized political activities). Anyway, I'm rambling, but I just want to make it clear that my concern is about the structure of biographies, not with some pro-Churchill partisanship.
If you could find a way to incorporate the South Park joke into the general narrative, I think it would work a lot better. Really ideal would be if there was some other cultural reference to discuss in the same breath. I don't know of anything off the top of my head, but it flows much more naturally if an article can talk about the general public representation of a figure than to say in isolation that they were mentioned (obliquely) in one place (and in a comedy at that). I don't think some daily editorial cartoon in some local newspaper really has sufficient prominence, however... something more nationally or widely viewed/read, I would think. There's a subtle line here: really hugely known figures have been referenced altogether too many times to have one reference be notable for a biography. For example, hundreds of comedian has done an impression of Bill Clinton, which makes each individual one insufficiently notable. At the other extreme, some figure who might just barely be notable otherwise, but who was referenced in a popular cultural work should probably have that work mentioned in their article. Nothing jumps out as an example, but certainly writers, comedians, cartoonists, video game designers, whatever sometimes make obscure references. Churchill (and also probably 80% of all the bios on WP) fall in a middle territory: they are not so obscure that one reference substantially influences their overall notability; on the other hand, they are not refrenced so frequently that the fact is utterly banal. Still, like I say, I think it would flow better with the South Park somehow compared with something else in the narrative. LotLE×talk 04:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think that Trivia sections in all articles are abused by folks to get in a punch which either does not fit into the natural flow of the article or is non-notable. I experienced this recently on the "snowflake children" article. But has been cluttered with clips by John Stewart and articles that way off topic. In the Robert Byrd article there is a list of all of the roads, bridges, caves, parks, swimming pools, stop signs that have been named after Robert Byrd in West Virginia. It goes on and on! Is that really a good way to develop an encyclopedia? I don't think so. I tend to think that our discussion about Trivia in articles is a larger than the Ward Churchill article. Wikipedia tends to had sections that are just pure indulgence by either an editor who loves a particular person or someone who just can't stand a particular person. It was my turn to ramble.--Getaway 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Not so badly rambling as me :-). But I'm on the same page, and that's why I was concerned with this trivia. While the cooperative process is great, one of its flaws is that its easy for editors to "grant indulgance" to other editors who have some "special pleading" (if the matter is not too actively harmful to the encyclopedia in itself). But those accumulate... it's my hard-assedness in refusing to compromise on such things that pisses off some other editors who don't like me, but I still think I've helped various articles by exactly that. LotLE×talk 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute - Artwork

This section mentions the "winter attack" painting. A Denver television station reported that Churchill copied the painting from Thomas Mails [13]. I added a reference to this report, but it was deleted. In its place, there's a rambling sentence with no references about "visual compositions" and "past works" A neutral article should have a link to the news report rather than an opinion from a biased POV.Steve8675309 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to emphasis that my edits to the article and comments here relate mainly to the organization and placement of the content, and not so much to the quality, purpose or slant of the content. As the main article states, and to the best of my knowledge no one has disputed this, Churchill’s notoriety as an artist is, at best, minor. (And if that’s the case, how big can a controversy surrounding his “artistic” work really be?) In general, I feel that the whole issue of whether or not Churchill has purloined the artistic work others is most properly addressed on the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations page in the section titled “Allegations of copyright infringement and art fraud”. Since the work “Winter Attack” is the piece most cited by Churchill’s critics as being not his own I believe it may be a bit too controversial to be mentioned in the main article as a prime example of his work, but definitely should be included on the allegations page. I would offer that one of his better known, and undisputed, works should be mentioned in the main article, but my knowledge of his work is too limited to suggest one. Should the allegations be mentioned at all in the main article? Absolutely. But the article should focus mostly on his work as an artist and not on the allegations. Readers who would like to read more about the criticisms or concerns with his art should be redirected to the proper page. To that end I included a link to that section in the edits that I made. Cheers! Cafe Irlandais 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I will add my two-cents on this topic. I tend to agree with Cafeirlandais's analysis on how the article should deal with the Fake Indian's fake artwork; however, I find the comments of Lulu, where he calls Steve8675309's edits "vandalism" to be incorrect and abusive. There was no "vandalism" involved. It was just another way to present the material. Lulu has a tendency, when editing this article, to see any changes, not agreed to by him, to be simply, in his words, "vandalism." It is an editing tactic that keeps people away from making any changes, but it does not jive with the principles of Wikipedia where Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative effort and anyone can edit. His handling of the work of Steve8675309, IMHO, to be heavy handed and unnecessary. One reason the Fake Indian, Ward Churchill, has gotten himself into such hot water is because he pushes around REAL Indians as if they are second-class citizens. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Lakey's pacifism essay

An anon recently added a link to an essay by Lakey reasserting the value of pacifism, against one of Churchill's books. Lakey's is a perfectly fine essay, but is far from any central importance to Churchill's notability. Lots of people disagree with Churchill academically on various points, and Churchill's reputation is not especially influenced in any direction by that one essay (Lakey's perhaps is, being his own essay).

There might be some other article where this discussion would be more central. Probably not pacifism as a general article, which is a far broader topic than these two individual thinkers. But perhaps some sort of side article on disputes about the efficacy of pacifism, if such an article exists, or could be written. LotLE×talk 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Verklempt 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I noticed since my first comment that Churchill and a few other critics of pacifism as a political philosophy are discussed in pacifism. Perhaps some point from Lakey could be relevant over there, but I have not followed that article (which actually looks like it could generally use some fleshing out; but my time isn't such as to allow that on my part). LotLE×talk 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxemburg photo

I think the Rosa Luxemburg photo serves a valid illustrative purpose in this article, showing clearly and neutrally the sourcing of Churchill's art. Speaking, as one can on a Talk page, more subjectively, I think it also shows his lack of craft in capturing likeness -- his Luxemburg bears a far stronger resemblence to either Ethel Rosenberg or Elena Ceauşescu than it does to the ostensible subject. Robertissimo 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that all representations of Churchill's art and their original sources be moved to the misconduct page, where it is more relevant. It would also be useful to juxtapose Churchill's version of Winter Attack with Thomas Mails's original.Verklempt 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The text of the article mentions quite clearly that Churchill has often used public domain photographs (such as the most famous one of Luxemburg) as source materials. I suspected anon was trying to somehow disparage Churchill with the extraneous image. In any case, something so silly as a claim of misrepresentation or misconduct in use of the Luxemburg photo belongs nowhere at all, including not on the misconduct article: It's both a public domain source and immediately known to anyone familiar with Luxemburg.
I wonder, as I have whenever this idiocy arises, why these "editors" don't go make some sort of accusations against Warhol for reproducing images that actually are under copyright, even under well-enforced commercial copyrights (try silkscreen Marilyn Monroe for a commercial advertisement rather than a "fine art" painting, and see how many minutes it takes to wind up in court... well, even for a painting, unfortunately). The misunderstanding of both art and copyright law in evidence by folks like Robertissimo is jaw-droppingly bad.
As to literalness of the painting, it's definitely not a photocopy of the source photo. Perhaps Robertissimo might go visit a museum that shows post-17th-century paintings to try to get a sense of some artistic conventions later than the Dutch masters. Or perhaps go edit Picasso's article to point out how inaccurate his representations of his models are.
An no... Churchill ain't no Picasso in terms of artistic talent. Nor any Warhol. He has some moderate skill at painting, but isn't going to be known as a great artist. I'm just offended by the slovenly ignorance of art on exhibit in these comments. LotLE×talk 15:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Churchill's reproduction of Thomas Mails' work probably is a copyright infringement. Mails's descendants are certainly exercised about it.Verklempt 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxemburg Drawing

Is there a WP:V verifiable source that states that this is a drawing by Ward Churchill? Uncle uncle uncle 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented out the Luxemburg drawing attributed to Churchill as it does not meet Wikipedia Reliable Source or Verifiability claims. The uploader of the drawing claims [14]: "the drawing is from my private collection, is signed by Churchill (as is clearly visible), and was obtained directly from Churchill." But that statement does not satisfy Wikipedia Reliable [WP:RS] source or Verifiability [WP:V] requirements. Uncle uncle uncle 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure that I understand your reasoning for commenting out the Luxemburg drawing. Could you be a bit more specific about why you feel is doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see where the violation is. Thanks, Cafe Irlandais 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to expand on my earlier note. The attribution of the drawing to Churchill needs to have a source. How would we know that Churchill really produced the drawing? Wikipedia has guidelines for verifiability WP:V and reliable sources WP:RS. These guidelines attempt to guarantee that a reader of Wikipedia is able to find a reliable source to back up any claim - such as "Ward Churchill drew this picture" In this case we have only the word of the uploader of the image. I attempted to obtain more information about the source of the image - the upload comment says that it is from a private collection; I wanted to know if perhaps it was a noted private collection documented by a supporting reliable source. This was not the case - the uploader claimed that the it was in their own personal collection and had been obtained directly from Churchill. I have no reason to disbelieve that Churchill has created the drawing, but as there is no reliable, verifiable source for that claim, it cannot be made here. What is to prevent another editor from uploading their own drawing and claiming it was created by Churchill? Nothing would prevent it, but other editors should demand verification of the source before it was allowed to remain in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
Good points re verifiability. I concur.Verklempt 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, not one single example of any work by any artist on Wikipedia that would meet Uncle, etc.'s invented standard for "proof" of authorship of a work. But in particular, for minor artists, it is extremely unlikely that multiple specific sources can be found stating some specific work really is by that artist. Sure, you can find multiple sources stating the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo... though even there that fails in the evidence that the specific photo used in a WP article is genuinely of that work rather than a forgery. In any case, given that Uncle, uncle, etc.'s edit history has consisted solely of similar random destruction, I am not inclined to grant much benefit of the doubt here. LotLE×talk 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am applying the Wikipedia WP:V guideline which states: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I understand that digital realizations of a graphic image will be different from the image itself and that different realizations will differ somewhat from each other due to lighting, noise, image size, compression method, etc. I am not requiring "multiple specific sources" for the Churchill Luxemburg drawing or for a jpg image that is bit-for-bit identical to the uploaded image. I am simply requesting that a reliable, third-party published source be provided where any form of the Luxemburg image may be found - the same standard that is applicable to any material added to Wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. Uncle uncle uncle 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I have accurately described the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and reliable sources which dictate that items that do not meet these guidelines should not be included. Your reply to requests for a reliable, verifiable source is not to provide such a source, but instead to say "Trust me!, I got it directly from the artist, you can even see the signature". If that is your position, then we are at an impasse. What next action do you think we should take next to work this out and reach an agreement on how this issue should be handled? Uncle uncle uncle 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with UUU’s arguments about the drawing’s lack of verifiability. But the biggest problem with the artwork section is the fact that the same editor who insists on including this obscure drawing has repeatedly censored references to “Winter Attack”, which is Ward’s best-known work [15][16]. An encyclopedia should favor the notable over the obscure, not vice versa. If Ward’s pieces of art are going to be mentioned by name, then “Winter Attack”, and the fact that Ward stole it from Mails, should be included here instead of censored or buried on a subpage. Steve8675309 15:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not just replace the Luxembourg drawing with the Winter Attack piece? Winter Attack is verifiable in that Churchill has publicly acknowledged it as his doing. But really I don't see the need to have any artwork at all on this article. Churchill is not known as an artist.Verklempt 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As some editors have pointed out, it is absolutely correct in that WP:V states that “any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.” I think we can all agree that this standard goes a long way toward establishing Wikipedia as a credible project and source, and indeed, it is one of the three core content policies. But after having read the policy over a couple of time now and I have come to the opinion that, as with the vast majority of “one-size fits all” policies, while its intent, direction, and instruction are crystal clear, its application in some situations can be a bit awkward. Since the prevailing wind seems to be in favor of a fairly strict interpretation of this policy, (and with young Lulu apparently taking a bit of beating in the process), I’d like to take this opportunity to play Devil’s Advocate and argue in favor of the photo from/of the Luxemburg painting’s inclusion in the article. I'd also like to say that I believe that the real issue here lies with the interpretation of policy, not the edit that is being discussed.
While the policy is very clear about the importance of verifiability, it does recognize that there is a need for a certain amount of flexibility. This is evidenced by the wording cited above that “any reader should be able to check…” It does not say “any reader shall be able to check…” This difference here is not just semantics. “Shall” carries the weight of being mandatory, “should” implies or strongly recommends, but does not impose this condition. In the policy this necessary flexibility is addressed in the section entitled Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s). It states that “material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material” and then it spells the five conditions that have to be met in order for this section to apply. I have listed them below along with a very brief explanation of why I feel the photo meets these criteria:
1. It is relevant to their notoriety; As I stated in a previous comment on this talk page, Churchill’s notoriety as an artist is, at best, minor. But if we are going to discuss his “artistic prowess with a paintbrush” then a sample of his work is relevant.
2. It is not contentious; I think it’s fairly safe to say that the discussion about the Luxemburg picture’s verifiability would be considered contentious, but nothing in the piece itself really is. To my mind if we tried to include in the article a statement by Churchill in which he was alleged to have said “Bush and Cheney are behaving like Nazis in Iraq” and it was only reported by, say, Ernesto Cienfuegos, then that would be contentious[17]. But again, the content of this work is rather innocuous.
3. It is not unduly self-serving; As Lulu states, “…Churchill ain't no Picasso in terms of artistic talent. Nor any Warhol. He…isn't going to be known as a great artist.” As such, rather than being unduly self-serving, it could be argued that we are actually doing Churchill, to say nothing of the viewing public, a considerable disservice by posting his work.
4. It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; I think this one is self-evident since it is, after all, simply a picture from/of a portrait of Rosa Luxemburg.
5. There is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; As I have read over the edits concerning this kerfuffle I haven’t seen any comments where anyone has actually challenged the fact of whether or not it was produced by Churchill. In fact, editors here have openly stated that they accept that painting is Churchill's work. The crux of the matter here seems to revolve around the sin of verification omission, not artistic commission.
Do we consider Lulu to be a dubious source? With apologies to Lulu I must confess to conducting a search of his alter ego, David Mertz, to see if I could turn up any instances of mendacities, chicanery, hooliganism, or stealing candy from babies. Despite the fact that he is from Massachusetts and therefore probably a Red Sox fan, I have found nothing that would make me question his integrity. Is Lulu biased in his edits? Good Lord yes! But then that same charge can be made of most, if not all, of the editors here, myself included I’m sure, and bias does not equate to dishonesty. In the end though, I believe that requirements of WP:V are satisfied. I can find nothing that would make me question the fact, nor require that I make a leap of faith, that the photo is from/of an original painting by Churchill. Your honor, Beelzebub rests…
Tales of True Confessions! I must be honest here and admit that my interest in this debate lies in the fact that I myself have uploaded a potentially contentious image here on Wikipedia. It concerns an issue that even the most casual of editors would agree is of much greater significance than anything dealing with Ward Churchill. The problem for me is that I am no longer able to obtain an independent, third party verification of what I purport to be in the image as the contents of the photo have, inexplicably, come up missing.[18] Sláinte! Cafe Irlandais 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm mostly agnostic on this topic. However, I submit that if an example of Churchill's artwork is to be included, that the Luxemburg piece is not representative of what Churchill usually does. Every other piece of his I've seen has been on an overtly Indian theme. Furthermore this is the only drawing of Churchill's that I've encountered. IMO, any other piece would be more representative than this particular drawing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Verklempt (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[removed argument I just posted to down below]Uncle uncle uncle 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be useful to obtain some broadening of input by soliciting opinions from other Wikipedia contributers as to the suitability of the verifiability provided for the Luxemburg drawing. The opinions above seem balanced between keep and remove, so I would like to post a Request for Comment in the [WP:RFC/BIO] area to see if other Wikipedians are able to provide input which will help reach a consensus.

WP:RFC/BIO seems like a good idea regarding the drawling. Also, I’ve added text about “winter attack” in this section since it’s verifiable and is WC’s most notable work. Steve8675309

[edit] "Hundreds of published essays"???

What reliable reference states that Ward has published hundreds of essays? I removed that claim because I haven't been able to find one. However, my edit has been reverted several times in violation of WP:V. Steve8675309 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be overly generous to call Steve###'s request "idiotic" since there is so obviously primarily bad faith involved. However, some citations one could add are:
  • http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62
  • Churchill has also published in a variety of other general readership publications like The Progressive, Mother Jones, The Colorado Daily, The Denver Post, etc. Each of these amount to a dozen or two publications each over the years. You get to hundreds quickly (some short essays or editorials). Plus certainly dozens of longer articles in academic journals.
  • http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&sa=N&oi=qs&q=ward+churchill+author:w-churchill
  • You could read the "Report of the Investigative Committee", which despite its witch-hunt agenda, also explicitly states the fact that Steve### purports to dispute. That's already cited, of course; but Steve ###'s "attempt to find a source" didn't extend as far as reading this very WP article.
Can't WP please find a way to bar purely destructive single-purpose "editors"?! The fact stated that Churchill has hundreds of publications is neither controversial, subtle, nor even undocumented in the existing article... it's fine to disagree with the content of those publications (as if Steve### had ever read any single one of them), but it's pure dissimulation to play some game denying he published them at all. LotLE×talk 01:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Another problem that WP has is the editor that believes that he/she is the only credible person to edit certain articles. Also, unfortunately many of these editors have a personal bias involved when they edit the article because of whatever reason. For example, in this particular article there are editors who exhibit bias because those editors believe so strongly in the Marxist ideology crap that Churchill pushes and it causes certain editors to denigrate or ignore the lies and BS of Churchill toward real, not fake (like Churchill) Indians. Can't WP do something about these biased, one-sided editors.--Getaway 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't help the matter to answer Lulu's ad hominem with even more ad hominem. The way forward on this issue is simple--let's find out exactly how many books and articles Churchill has published. This will be difficult, because he republishes the same pieces over and over, and if you're not careful you'll count one essay as twenty essays. The same problem exists with his books, which are collections of essays that have usually been already published somewhere else. The you have some books edited but not written by Churchill. Then you have the problem of essays plagiarized by Churchill, or ghost-written by Churchill. Put all that together, and the count doesn't really seem worth the trouble, does it? So let's just all agree that he's published a whole lot of stuff and leave it at that. What is notable to me is the paucity of peer-reviewed and/or high-prestige academic publications on his extensive cv. It's mostly political discourse in the style he is famous forVerklempt 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "witch-hunt" cite, LotLE... I overlooked their publication totals. I updated WC's page with the standing committee total of over 150 publications (see pg. 6). Also, Verklempt and the standing committee have a notable point that Ward primarily published outside of the university mainstream. I’ve noted that in the article as well. Steve8675309 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snide (& not very original) edit summaries---and Wikipedia

My comments concern this edit summary: (cur) (last) 16:51, 14 January 2007 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (This is probably pedantic anyway, but I suppose a footnote is OK... single purpose editors who are only here to destroy one article should just depart WP though)

This is an example of snide edit summaries that personally attack other editors that do not agree with you. Lulu, please do not engage in this behavior. You do not own or completely control this article about Ward Churchill. We know that you like Churchill and that you have an obvious bias, but just because other editors have a different way of looking at the material does not give free reign to critize the work of others. Wikipedia, whether you agree with it or not, is a collaborative effort and there are going to be other editors that make edits with which you do not agree. Please stop engaging in this type of negative edit summary and commentaries. If you do not like the set up of Wikipedia, where others can (and will) edit your work then maybe Wikipedia is not right for you. But Churchill's article will edited going forward. It is not perfect and, as written, it is not neutral, and Wikipedia requires neutrality. IMHO, "Hundreds of articles" sounds like hype to me. Have a good day!--Getaway 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that you wind up contributing 1/100th as much to Wikipedia as me—especially in many diverse areas of scholarship, as I have done (though nowadays, I can only watchlist a few vandal-prone articles; too busy)—then you can perhaps consider lectures of this sort. You've written a few other places, I think, Getaway, but Uncle etc. has literally done nothing other than try to damage this article. Sorry, I have no time for patience with that sort of thing, and no inclination whatsoever to assume good faith where it is transparently non-existent. LotLE×talk 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, your first comment is an example of things that one editor is not supposed to say to another editor. There is no good faith in your first comment toward me. You are losing your credibility with comments like that. Second, that comment is as silly and irrelevant as when Churchill attacked John LaVelle. Even though Churchill has published more often than LaVelle Churchill does not have the high respect that LaVelle has and Churchill's IQ is a fraction of LaVelle's. Anyway, I would ask you to stop engaging in your personal attacks because it brings down the level of discourse. Also, it violates Wikipedia policy. And, yes, it is true that some editors can be difficult, but that does not give you the right to ignore Wikipedia policy. Remember you do not own the article and your work will be edited. Have a good day!--Getaway 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your edit history excuses either your ad hominem, oor your repudiation of policy. Surely there must be an example of Churchill's art that is verifiable. Getaway's dislike of Churchill does not neutralize his argument in the slightest. If it's not verifiable, it must come out. That is the rule.Verklempt 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing

This is a dispute about whether the source provided for [19] satisfies the Wikipedia policies and guidelines [WP:RS], [WP:V], and [WP:CITE] to support the claim that the drawing was created by Ward Churchill.

The source for the image here: [20] states: "Ward Churchill drawing in private collection, based on public domain photograph. All rights to this photo of the drawing are released to the public domain."

Additional sourcing provided here: [21] states: "As stated in the image upload, the drawing is from my private collection, is signed by Churchill (as is clearly visible), and was obtained directly from Churchill."

Previous discussion about the source is located here: [22]


Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • The attribution of the drawing to Churchill needs to have a source. How would we know that Churchill really produced the drawing? Wikipedia has guidelines for verifiability WP:V and reliable sources WP:RS. These guidelines attempt to guarantee that a reader of Wikipedia is able to find a reliable source to back up any claim - such as "Ward Churchill drew this picture" In this case we have only the word of the uploader of the image. I attempted to obtain more information about the source of the image - the upload comment says that it is from a private collection; I wanted to know if perhaps it was a noted private collection documented by a supporting reliable source. This was not the case - the uploader claimed that the it was in their own personal collection and had been obtained directly from Churchill. I have no reason to disbelieve that Churchill has created the drawing, but as there is no reliable, verifiable source for that claim, it cannot be made here. What is to prevent another editor from uploading their own drawing and claiming it was created by Churchill? Nothing would prevent it, but other editors should demand verification of the source before it was allowed to remain in the article. Uncle uncle uncle 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. I don't see a reliable third party source backing up this claim. I can't tell if it is true or not. There is just not enough information available to make that determination. Lulu's claim is not acceptable because he is a Wikipedian himself. The rules are clear: (1) Reliable Source and (2) Not based upon the opinion of a Wikipedian. Also, would ask that Lulu just flat out stop denigrating the motives and intent of Uncle uncle uncle. It violates Wikipedia policy and has no place in this discussion.--Getaway 12:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I have accurately described the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and reliable sources which dictate that items that do not meet these guidelines should not be included. Requests for a reliable, verifiable source were not met with a source, but instead a response of "Trust me!, I got it directly from the artist, you can even see the signature".

Does the presence of a signature give an automatic pass for the WP:RS requirement?

  • Allowing a signature to stand in for a reliable source would make WP:HOAX impossible to detect or remove. Anyone could add a signed art image to any biographical article and claim that subject of the article created the artwork. If the presence of a signature meets the burden of proof, then such an image would be nearly impossible to have removed from Wikipedia using to the WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE guidelines, as the burden of proof would then be on the challenger to somehow prove that a drawing was in fact not created by the artist claimed. That would be 180 degrees reversed from how the guidelines are intended to be used.

If an image is similar stylistically to other works by an artist, does this obviate the need for a reliable source as defined in the [WP:RS] guideline?

  • I believe that the answer is obviously no. Would Wikipedia allow a unsourced quote on the grounds that it is similar to other statements made by a subject? Is a reader required to become an art expert to determine if "Stylistically, it obviously matches various other copyrighted photos of Churchill works that have appeared in various publications" and to somehow prove that their art knowledge was superior to the art knowledge of the one who originally uploaded the image?

Wikipedia has guidelines for verifiability, they should be followed. Uncle uncle uncle 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely oblivious to a verifiability concern, notwithstanding the obvious bad faith on the part of Uncle uncle uncle. However, clearly very few works my minor artists—even ones who otherwise meet notability criteria—in private collections have been discussed in published works. That's just not the way the world is. My private collection of art isn't some sort of Getty or Rockefeller thing: it just means I own a dozen or two artistic works by a couple artists I've encountered in various contexts, nothing worth any real money, nor worth writing a book (or even short article) about.
There have been several of Churchill's drawings or paintings discussed in published works, albeit mostly in the context of (somewhat silly) copyright infringement allegations. (Silly, of course, because the works allegedly infringed are often in the public domain, and also because basing works on earlier ones is a norm in the history of painting, not some "fraud" perpetrated by Churchill). Unfortunately, those that I have seen have not themselves been released under applicable copyright terms. I would be more than happy if some other work whose photo was available as PD or GFDL were used instead.
That said, the evidence of Churchill's authorship is pretty clear in the image itself. Stylistically, it obviously matches various other copyrighted photos of Churchill works that have appeared in various publications. Moreover, the signature on the drawing is the same as that visible on these other published photos. I can upload a closeup of the signature if that would help; unfortunately, I'm not currently in the same state as my home (and as the drawing), so can't take a better resolution closeup of the signature itself in the short term.
In any case, this evidence is essentially identical to the degree of certainty readers have that the photo of, e.g. the Mona Lisa used on WP is really of that famous painting, rather than being a photograph of a forgery. Clearly it is conceptually possible—and not even all that difficult—to falsify a painting, especially one presented only via a low-res photograph. Other than some weird demand that WP not show images of artistic works under the remote possibility they could be forged (applied, disingenuously, exclusively to Churchill), it's not obvious what one might make of Uncle uncle uncle's crusade. LotLE×talk 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I question the need to have any photo at all of Churchill's srtwork. He was never self-supporting as an artist, and he stopped art altogether once the government outlawed non-Indians from selling Indian art. He's known for his politics, not his art. Do hobbies really warrant mention in an encyclopedic entry?Verklempt 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I question the need also. It seems that Churchill became a name on the national scene because of his hate speech toward the World Trade Center victims. Also, he was well-known in Indian Country long before his appearance on the national scene as an Indian Wannabee that was notorious for stealing jobs from real Indians and making outrageous comments that most people in Indian Country either did not argee with or found to be counterproductive. Now, if you look at his Wikipedia article you get the impression that Ward Churchill is none of the above. From the Wikipedia article you are lead to the impression that he is an "artist" even though a misunderstood one. His artwork was just one more of his many, many Indian Wannabee scams. There are literally hundreds of better trained, with way more skill, artists in Indian Country turning out tremendous works of art, that are totally original. But yet we look at the Wikipedia page and we see a poorly drawn pencil sketch of someone else's work. It was an outgrowth of his Fake Indian period--that ended a few years ago when Indian Country just could not hold him out as one of his own any more. He was getting preferential treatment as an Indian artist, but when he could no longer get acknowledged as an Indian artist he stopped the scam because was no longer profitable for him any longer. (I have sourced this FACT and included it in the article, but it has been removed over and over again.) The Ward Churchill main page only briefly mentions the hundreds of Indian Wannabee scandals that Churchill has been involved with over the years because all of that information has been pushed to the back pages, ones where there is less readership. What is prominent of the main page?? A picture of Churchill with his sunglasses on!!! Hiding his Fake Indian face. Also, what else? His lame artwork!!! Amazing. It is a whitewash of Churchill's image. He is not a great scholar, but the way the article is written you think he was. Almost all of his writings are published in alternative presses where there is NO editorial control, no peer reviews, etc. They are just self-published rants about whatever he wants to rant about. Also, there is little mention that he has been proven by an academic committee to be a liar in what little academic work that he has published. Once again that information it pushed to back pages. I don't see why the fake painting by the fake Indian is in the article at all. Have a good day!--Getaway 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the drawling should be removed. Cafeirlandais made good points about the problems with interpreting the WP guidelines too strictly. But this picture lacks notability as well as verifiability. I think very little of Ward, but will be the first to say that his career and writings are of interest. His artwork, on the other hand, couldn’t be more mundane. I don’t see the need for an artwork section at all on this page. Steve8675309 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. If the subject of the article was notable for his art, I would still maintain that the picture would need to be properly verified as his to be included in the article. But his art isn't part of what makes him notable. Why even consider ditching WP:V for something that is such a tangent? janejellyroll 09:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone in favor of keeping the artwork section? There seems to be a consensus that WC's art isn't notable enough to mention on the main page. And WC's art is already discussed on the 'misconduct issues' sub-page. I'm in favor of deleting the artwork section on the main page. Steve8675309 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrap up of Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing

Almost all of the comments received have doubts about the verifiability of the image or want the image removed for other reasons. Even the uploader of the image is "not entirely oblivious to a verifiability concern". No one has provided a verifiable source or shown a Wikipedia guideline that states that no reliable source is required if either: an image has a signature, an image is stylistically similar to other images by a specified artist, or a Wikipedian obtained the image directly from an artist.

There have been arguments made that because it would be difficult to verify any image (even where there are reliable sources provided to compare against), that therefore this particular image should be allowed to remain even without a verifiable reliable source. This argument is not a substitute for meeting the burden of proof required by WP:V.

The image should remain off the page until a verifiable reliable source is provided, or until Wikipedia guidelines are presented which would allow the image to remain without a verifiable reliable source being provided. Uncle uncle uncle 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read over the various comments that have been made here concerning the Luxemburg image and I remain a bit confused. (People who know me outside of Wikipedia do not consider this to be an unusual state of mind for me) Different editors, and I mean to point a finger at no one in particular, have stated that the image submission doesn’t meet the requirements of one or another of the various policies that Wikipedia has cobbled together. What concerns me about this is that the specific application of the policy that is alleged to have been violated is not cited. In a previous comment here I presented what I feel was a fairly reasonable case based on a specific section of WP:V in favor of the image’s inclusion. Although referenced obliquely, as near as I can tell no one has pointed out what are the critical flaws in my argument. Are there flaws? Absolutely. There are flaws in every argument and I am sure that any number of the plethora of the neutral editors here, particularly if one of them happened to be a lawyer, could point out one or two areas where my case could be painted as being lame.
If your arguments above were about the applicability of "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)" and the usage of "should" vs "shall", I'll attempt an answer.
The statement: "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)" applies to the evaluation of sources (self-published or dubious) that are authored by the subject of the article.
There is no evidence that Churchill has authored a claim (in any self-published or dubious article) that he created the drawing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has claimed that Churchill created the drawing, but LotLE is not the subject of the article. Therefore, as the claim that Churchill created the drawing was not made by Churchill (the subject of the article) but by LotLE, the entire section on "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)" does not apply (and any discussions about the dubiousness of LotLE are irrelevant).
Regarding "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
The argument "This is evidenced by the wording cited above that “any reader should be able to check…” It does not say “any reader shall be able to check" can be countered by noting that the statement concludes: "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed" which states that material without a reliable source may be removed. Uncle uncle uncle 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Let me attempt to untangle the double meanings of this meandering piece of, well, work. Cafeirlandais has referred to a shyster, I just want to make clear whether he/she is referring to Bill Clinton or another Democrat, Martha Stewart? Now, the sarcasm that he/she is referring to here would be the attempts argue that only one (1) editor can truly understand the tormented, but brilliant mind of Mr. Ward Churchill and that all other editors of Wikipedia need to shut up and just stop editing the article because only that editor of all the editors in Wikipedia can give Ward Churchill his fair due.--Getaway 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, the only really valid argument I have heard here for the removal of the image deals with notability. This is a fairly unknown work by minor artist held in a private collection. If the consensus to remove the picture was to be based on this aspect of the discussion then I would offer no objection. However, I find the verifiability aspect to be far too entangled with POV and a lack of specificity as a function of policy to be the definitive reason for its exclusion. Anyway, just my humble opinion… Cheers, Cafe Irlandais 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the non-notability argument is that it is complete bunk. Churchill was modestly known for artwork, which he sold with moderate success, before any of the 2005 brouhaha started. I know because I have actually heard of Churchill somewhere other than Fox News and right-wing blogs, and had known of him since the 1980s. But even in the narrow time frame during which Churchill arrived in the consciousness of the various right-wing defamers here, a significant part of the anti-Churchill diatribe revolves around the allegation that basing artworks on earlier works is somehow improper. It just doesn't stand up to the slightest brush of reason to claim that Churchill's artwork is unknown and non-notable, and yet its alleged impropriety is of overwhelming importance and notability. You need the context of "notable as an artist" before you can get to "an improperly borrowing artist".
FWIW, I would be absolutely pleased if some other example was available of Churchill's painting/drawing... but ONLY something that was available as GFDL/PD for inclusion. All the images the right-wing blogs reproduce to mock seem to be included on those blogs contrary to fair use, and in probably copyright violation. WP can't commit such violation. LotLE×talk 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Lulu, your commentary above simply comes down to "its all a vast right-wing conspiracy." You don't focus on any of the substantive issues raised about verifiability or notability, etc. The discussion is not about right-wing conspriracies, but about Churchill has been known as an artist and we all know that Churchill was really not known, nationwide, for much of anything until his outlandish comments about the Twin Towers and how he believed the people inside the Twin Towers deserved to die. Also, you haven't given us any proof that the picture provided by you is really created by Churchill. We have to just take your word for it. That is not a very good argument. Wikipedia rules require a third party verification and a rant about right-wing conspiracies does not meet that requirement.--Getaway 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Had you read the citations actually provided in the article, obviously you wouldn't make such absurd (and bad faith) comments about notability. The motives in all your edits are quite transparent, and none of them have the slightest connection to WP standards... as we both know perfectly well. LotLE×talk 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, it is clear that Churchill is a nobody in the art world and he should not be presented as an artist. That violates notability. Also, the only thing is really is known for is his outlandish comments toward the victims of 911. That is the ONLY thing that makes him notable from a Wikipedia standpoint, not his derivative, potentially plagiarizing artwork. It probably should be removed entirely.--Getaway 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill's Lost Years

I don't think there is much unknown in his bio. He was in IL going to school through the mid-70s. He taught part time at Black Hills State after that. Then he went to Denver and worked for Soldier of Fortune. I think he also very briefly had some kind of social worker gig in Denver, but forget the details. It might be useful to add in some info about Churchill's four wives. The first one was convicted of embezzling while she was married to Churchill. Then she became a lesbian after that. The second one is a nutty women's studies professor in SF. The third developed a drnking habit while living with Churchill, and was killed by a car while running from the Churchill house into traffic in a state of undress. The fourth and present Mrs. Churchill is a nutty law professor who changed her name to sound more ethnic. Churchill appears to have ghostwritten under the names of all four wives.Verklempt 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu needs to discuss the mass reversal of changes

Lulu mass reverted the work that I did to the article. He did not discuss it. He just mass reverted it and called it, in his opinion, POV edits. He needs to discuss why he reverted all of the changes and he removed in information that has sources and citations to back up the claims.--Getaway 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop these daily nonsense edits. If you want to go on at length about your opinions about Churchill, start a blog or something. Wikipedia aims to maintain an encyclopedic tone, which means all of: relevance, NPOV, and avoiding undue weight (and also WP:V, though that hasn't per se been the main problem lately). LotLE×talk 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Lulu: I don't know what you are talking about. I have not put anything in the article that violates WP:V. That is just not true. Try not to make things up. You want to defend Churchill--that is what you want to do. You shown bias and you rule over the article as if only your opinion matters.--Getaway 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to assume good faith about all of this article's editors. However, the continued reverting of well-sourced material that provides verifiable perspective on matters that are fairly central to his claims to notability as a public figure could lead an outside observer to see an attempt to shape POV by omission. The material does not appear to be nonsense, unduly long, nor irrelevent; I have restored it, and hope that it can stay while, if necessary, further discussion plays out here. Robertissimo 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss the Keetowah statements here

A) For a statement to be libelous, it must be false. It is demonstrably true that top representatives of the Keetowah tribe made the statements in question. Furthermore, as a sovereign nation, the tribe's description of Churchill's status is equivalent to a White House press conference at the very least, if not established law. It is absurd to describe this as "potentially libelous."

B) Statements that Churchill has not presented any evidence of his Cherokee ancestry are demonstrably true. Furthermore, even if they were false, why in the world would that be defamatory? Millions of people are not Indians.

C) Moving this data to a footnote seems a POV obstruction to me. Churchill's entire public identity is as a Keetowah tribal member. It is on his university web page, all of his books since 1994, and he mentions it in most every speech. The fact that the tribe repudiates his membership claims and describes his core identity as a fraud is extremely relevant to his biography.Verklempt 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We both know perfectly well that your attempts to insert absurdly long and tortuously contrived denunciations of Churchill into the necessarily brief biography summary is bad faith at its worst. I get it that you dislike Churchill. Start a blog for the topic! Don't insert grossly unbalanced material into a biography. Sure, a concise sentence mentioning disputes of his ethnic claims is fine... it's not even in the same ballpark as encyclopedic to devote 20 times as many words to disputing Churchill's ethnicity as are spent mentioning his claim in the first place.
FWIW, like everyone I know who's read any of Churchill's works, I really never knew or cared what tribal membership he claimed or when he claimed it. Contrary to being his "entire public identity", it's not something that much anyone ever thought about outside of this tortured WP digresssion/vandalism. LotLE×talk 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)k
Now, Lulu, based upon your attacks on everyone who does not agree with you concerning this page, it is a little laughable that you are calling Verklempt's valid edits "bad faith at its worst". Let's face it. His edits are valid and should be discussed like adults. Now, I would argue that your recent edits taking out info critical of Churchill, information that has been in the article for almost two years, to be an example of WP:POINT. You know and I know that the Keetoowah's response to Churchill claiming to be a member of Keetoowah band has been in the article for almost two years. It is highly inappropriate for you to demand that it be removed now. He claims to be a member. He claims it on the Univ of Colorado website right now. The Keetoowah band of Cherokees has forcefully denied several times that he is not a member of their tribe and he is still claiming it now. What you are asking us to do is leave in the article Churchill's current claim of membership in the Keetoowah band, but yet remove the tribe's strong denial. Also, your writing is just flat out POV. Your sentence starts with the phrase "Churchill's critics". As if all of his critics are the same. As if the weight and importance of the opinion each of his critics is equally unimportant in your opinion. I agree with Verklempt. Churchill's has spent most of his life defining himself as a member of an Indian tribe and there are literally tons of people, for many, many years, who have questioned his claim of being an Indian. Now, may be you never heard about the controversy until the Twin Towers comments, but that does not mean anything. Wikipedia is not about your experience. Now, Verklempt and myself are not attempting to put in the words of every single critic of Churchill's ancestry claim (because honestly there would just not be enough room in Wikipedia for that fact), but a short sample of the critics. You, however, in an inappropriate POV manner are attempting to remove all traces of these critics from the article--even valid sourced comments that have been in this article for almost two years. That is inappropriate. There are highly respected, enrolled members of American Indian Nations that have forcefully denounced Churchill's membership claims. But you will not let them in the article. It is as if you do not want the voice of Indian people to be heard in relation to Churchill. That is censorship. We do not censor in Wikipedia. Please see: WP:NOT#CENSORED --Getaway 14:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the relevant passage from policy: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." Clearly the critics' views are relevant, given Churchill's public and professional identity claims to Keetowah membership. Clearly the critics' are the majority view, and the official institutional view. Clearly the sources are reliable. The only possible violation of policy is that this article does appear to side with critics. However, there really is not another side to present given Churchill's refusal to provide evidence of any Cherokee heritage.Verklempt 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If he's not a native american, than this talk page shouldn't have that as a category either. 65.14.229.26 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinction between being unenrolled and being Indian. It is possible to be Indian without being enrolled. Churchill's theory of Indian identity seems to be that anyone who says they are an Indian is one. So I think the category can stand, even in the face of Churchill's misrepresentation about his enrollment.Verklempt 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A Rocky quote I added last November was just blanked without discussion. I restored it and will continue to restore material that is deleted without discussion. Steve8675309 13:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getaway impeding legitimate revision

The third paragraph misleadingly lacks any mention of the direct connection between the 9/11 essay contraversy and the current investigations and instead says that "some argue" there's a connection. However, the misconduct issues page begins by mentioning the 9/11 essay and continues, "As a result, allegations, both old and new, were raised against Churchill accusing him of academic fraud and plagiarism, and questioning his claims of Native American heritage." Contrary to the consensus, Getaway removed my revision, claiming it was POV. As I explained, it is not POV to say that there is a connection here. It IS POV to omit the fact that, without the media attenion the essay received, there would be no investigation into misconduct. That is all my simple revision was meant to correct. I doesn't matter how this point is made, but there is no reason for it to be excluded from the entry. So I will restore my contribution, and it may be revised if it is unclear. If anyone finds something fundamentally wrong with it, I await your explanation here. --LC | Talk

Your edit is factually incorrect. The CU investigation was initiated in response to allegations of research misconduct that were made against Churchill by a number of academics. None of these academics had ever approached CU with these charges before. It may well be true that said academics took advantage of the media firestorm to get more attention for their charges, but that remains in the realm of speculation. It is not verifiable, and thus not appropriate for WP.Verklempt 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Verklempt, thank you for replying. It is frighteningly Orwellian that you and Getaway, whose Points Of View are quite clear from your past contributions to this and other entries, so confidently charge others of exhibiting their own. You accused me of a POV edit but still have not explained why. If the impetus behind the current investigation were in question, I might be accused of intentionally casting doubt on the basis of the investigation. But, as the misconduct issues page indicates, it is perfectly clear that the misconduct charges received attention precisely because of the media firestorm. This can be called "speculation" in only the most cynical, disingenuous, theoretical sense. Precisely how do you distinguish between valid and invalid inductive inference in cases like this, and how did my inference exhibit POV? Finally, if my contribution was wholly speculative, then it cannot have also been inaccurate; either you know I was wrong or you don't. I maintain that the cause of the current investigation is clear enough that there is no danger of violating WP policy by saying it. --LC | Talk 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no credible evidence for your assertion. The Misconduct Committee and the CU administration have taken great pains to affirm Churchill's right to free speech, and to point out that the investigation followed charges of research misconduct from other academics that could not be ignored. Those are the facts. You have cited no evidence that would prove otherwise. Instead, you cite to two editorials, one of which was authored by one of Churchill's strongest supporters. Where is the evidence that CU is punishing Churchill for anything other than research misconduct?Verklempt 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the assertion to make the more modest claim that "some" infer that there is a connection, which we both know to be true. (I am obviously among them.) The citations were not mine in the first place, so I restored them. They are evidence of the opinions held by "some." Hope this meets your approval. --LC | Talk 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories

Today I added a new category to this article: Category:Conspiracy theorists. User: Losecontrol saw fit to revert my edit, with the comment, "sorry but Churchill advocates no conspiracy theories that I know of; glad to discuss this if you like". OK, let's discuss it. First of all, there is a Report from the University of Colorado at Boulder, which states, and I quote:

According to Professor Churchill, the General Allotment Act "imposed a formal eugenics code" that tribes themselves adopted by making blood quantum a requirement of membership.[31] Professor LaVelle has asserted that Professor Churchill's criticisms of Indian tribes for using blood quantum standards as part of their tribal enrollment criteria rests on false information about the Act.[32] Professor LaVelle asserts that "[t]he main flaw of this federal/tribal conspiracy theory is that it rests on — and propagates — demonstrably false information concerning the contents and impact of the General Allotment Act."

So here we have a sourced reference (which by the way is already listed in the Ward Churchill article) saying precisely that, with a precise quote. Besides, the theories promulgated in the Ward Churchill 9/11 essay seem based, at least in part, on the same general philosophy as that of Thierry Meyssan, who is listed under the same Category:Conspiracy theorists: namely, blame America for the September 11, 2001 attacks on America. So how does all this square with the assertion that "Churchill advocates no conspiracy theories" (emphasis added)? Turgidson 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

um Theirry Meyssan said that 9/11 was carried out by the United States government. Ward Churchill said 9/11 should be viewed in a historical context; not as a "senseless act" (senseless defined as- "Lacking sense or meaning; meaningless [sic] ") by people who hate some notion of "freedom" but as an action by a group with concrete aims and concrete grievances (ie salafist theocracy and u.s. propping up despots in the middle east to maintain strategic control over the area and its resources). he goes on to list actions by the u.s. government that he sees as extremely violent and immoral and make 9/11 look like a walk on the beach. what is the general philosophy between the two? -march2007 ()

I disagree. First of all, sure, conspiracy theorists will come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations -- the one just above is typical of the genre. Just because there is some verbiage pushing the theory does not contradict the fact that that's a conspiracy theory. And second, putting Ward Churchill in Category:Conspiracy theorists is not based solely (and perhaps even not primarily) on his theories about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. As the quote a couple of paragraphs above states, "[t]he main flaw of this federal/tribal conspiracy theory is that it rests on — and propagates — demonstrably false information concerning the contents and impact of the General Allotment Act." The deletion of sourced information by anonymous is thus unjustified, in my opinion. Turgidson 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I still have concern, we have his opinion being described by an opponent as a conspiracy theory, not a neutral source. As to the observation that Churchill's ideas about 9/11 are conspiracy theory, that would be original research. Still, I wouldn't strongly object to inclusion of the category given that we have a source that explicitly labels it as such. JoshuaZ 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. Churchill advocates a number of theories that are "self-evident" (to borrow one of Churchill's favorite adjectives) as conspiracy theories. The problem is that Churchill is often not called on it, because few serious scholars bother to waste their time citing or refuting Churchill. One example is Churchill's claim that the Pine Ridge politics of the mid-70s were driven by a federal conspiracy to wrest uranium from the reservation. It's "self-evidently" a bogus conspiracy theory, but the only people who ever bother to invoke it are Churchill's fellow travelers. Because serious scholars mostly ignore Churchill, I don't know of a third party cite.Verklempt 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Category:Conspiracy theorists, "For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here."
Which "conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories" does Churchill advocate? If one cannot be found, the category must be removed. - N1h1l 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several conspiracy theories that Ward Churchill advocates, but if you need a specific one, how about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Another person who advocates such theories is Kevin Barrett -- this is mentioned in the lead for the article on him, and he is also listed under Category:Conspiracy theories. Here is a reference, explicitly tying the Barrett and Churchill together as advocating the same conspiracy theory:
"KEVIN BARRETT, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has now taken his place alongside Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado as a college teacher whose views on 9/11 have led politicians and ordinary citizens to demand that he be fired."
Is this good enough a reference, or does one need to bring more evidence to prove a rather obvious point? Turgidson 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Churchill-as-9/11-conspiracy-theorist claim is weak given his support of the official account of events (ie. the attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists). I'd like to hear what the other "several conspiracy theories" are that are advocated by Churchill and exist in Category:Conspiracy theories. - N1h1l 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
And I think that the Churchill-as-9/11-conspiracy-theorist claim is quite strong, and beefed up by the explicit reference I just gave. As for the other conspiracy theories he's been advocating over the years, I will refer you to the quote I provided (twice) in the above, plus the article on him, which makes it quite clear, in my view. Turgidson 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the General Allotment Act in Category:Conspiracy theories? Because if not, it doesn't qualify according to Category:Conspiracy theorists. - N1h1l 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I have no interest in playing semantic games -- the guy advocates conspiracy theories, and there are verifiable references in the literature to that effect. My take is that that eminently qualifies Ward Churchill for Category:Conspiracy theorists under wikipedia guidelines. But, just in case, let me add one more explicit quote, with reference:
  • Mark Fenster and Philip Rosen, "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture", University of Minnesota Press (April 2001), p. 241 ISBN 081663243X

Rogin also groups conspiracy theorists who perceive the threat of subversion to be real under this term. [...] Among the most significant accounts of COINTELPRO is Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers.

I think the 3 different explicit quotes and references -- on 3 different conspiracy theories advocated by Ward Churchill -- that I provided should be enough to convince most impartial editors. I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this subject before pursuing this discussion. Turgidson 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
COINTELPRO is not listed on Category:Conspiracy theories. Have you actually read the requirements provided at Category:Conspiracy theorists? Because this isn't a semantic issue. That being said, some additional opinions would be welcome. Anyone? - N1h1l 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the requirements (you must have mentioned that about 10 times -- people do get it now and then, you know?), and yes, I did see that COINTELPRO is not listed on Category:Conspiracy theories. So what? Maybe it should. And even if it's not, most likely the way Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall treat the subject is to make it into a conspiracy theory. One cannot possibly list under Category:Conspiracy theories all the stuff that people write nutty theories about. The point is that the requirements for inclusion in a category are not absolute -- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, after all. One needs to use judgement, common sense, and a sense of proportion -- I say the preponderance of evidence plainly justifies the conclusion that Ward Churchill should be listed in the category he is listed under. So no need to keep repeating ad nauseam the narrow rule that you found -- I got that. Could we assume good faith and a modicum of intelligence all around, and move the discussion to a more elevated plane, taking into account all the wikipedia rules, not that just that narrow bit, which may or may not be satisfied (I think it is, you think it is not), but in any case, is not the end and be all? Thanks. Turgidson 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; however, given the potentially pejorative nature of the label 'conspiracy theorist' and Wikipedia's sensitivity towards living people (see WP:LIVING), I should think that a narrow interpretation would be appropriate. - N1h1l 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
To state the the term conspiracy theorist is pejorative is POV, no? And if COINTELPRO is not on the WP list, then let's add it.Verklempt 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Then someone better tell it to the guys over at Conspiracy theory, because they labeled the term pejorative too! :) - N1h1l 13:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Read that article more carefully. The term can be either pejorative or neutral. Here's another Churchill conspiracy theory: his bogus claims that the US Army gave smallpox blankets to Indians, which has been totally debunked by experts in the field.Verklempt 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill believes the US military was the cause of a smallpox outbreak among the Mandan indians, which would be a conspiracy[23][24]. Since there's no facts to back this up, it remains a theory. Add the info to the Mandan article or make a new article about this conspiracy theory and Churchill will qualify for Category:Conspiracy theorists. Anybody disagree? --Calibas 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This dispute revolves around whether or not Churchill qualifies for inclusion in Category:Conspiracy theorists.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • Given the potentially pejorative nature of the label 'conspiracy theorist' (see conspiracy theory) and Wikipedia's sensitivity towards living people (see WP:LIVING), I think that the narrow guideline given for inclusion in Category:Conspiracy theorists should be adhered to. This guideline stipulates that "Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here." I can find no qualified theory espoused by Churchill. For reasons stated above, Curchill's views on 9/11 do not qualify as conspiracy theory - and, significantly, there is no mention of conspiracy in the Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy article. - N1h1l 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

First of all Cointelpro is not a theory; it happened, it is well documented that it happened, and the United States government admits that it happened. If you have evidence that there is a conspiracy to defraud government documents and U.S. history then you should begin by heading over to the COINTELPRO wiki site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) and make your case there then criticize Churchill. Also present evidence to your assumption that "most likely the way Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall treat the subject is to make it into a conspiracy theory." and give citation/s from the two books that they wrote together not from attack pieces.

Secondly, Turgidson doesn’t answer why he/she thinks Ward Churchill is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He/she accuses me of “verbiage,” states what I wrote “does not contradict the fact that that's a conspiracy theory” without presenting evidence, and then changes the subject to the General Allotment Act of 1887. Others bring up Kevin Barrett and his theories about the 9/11 cover-up; which has about as much relevance here as Theirry Meyssan. The quote given by Turgidson about Barret proves nothing and uses a fallacious line of reasoning that assumes that everyone that “politicians and ordinary citizens” get mad at (in the context of 9/11 related issues) is an automatic 9/11CTist. Staley Fish links the “9/11 conspiracy theory” wiki as proof that that this is one of “several conspiracy theories that Ward Churchill advocates.” However the link is filled with nothing but remote controlled airplanes and disappearing Jews; nothing about Ward Churchill. Neither the polemic nor the book that Churchill wrote about 9/11 has anything to do about the technicalities/or presumed contradictions of that particular terrorist attack. On the other hand Churchill has blatantly scolded the 9/11CT as stupid, really stupid, and completely irreverent, as can be heard in the Q&A part of the 2003 audio CD “Pacifism and Pathology in the American Left” (which I’m sure is available on the internet and if not on torrent or some file sharing program). So the question remaining is why is Ward Churchill a 9/11 conspiracy theorist if he doesn’t believe in a conspiracy? My personal opinion is that people don’t like the man and want to brand him with disparaging labels. But this wiki is full of that already, so why add more when there isn’t an iota of evidence?

That leaves the General Allotment Act which is equaly not a conspiracy theory and which ill get to tommorow. It is worth noting, though, that the selective quote from the source cited up top does not claim Churchills views to be a conspiracy theory.-()

The argument here is not that COINTELPRO is a conspiracy theory (although COINTELPRO itself may have constituted a conspiracy; some conspiracy theories are correct). On the table here is the observation that Churchill argues that the FBI used COINTELPRO to advance the federal government's alleged scheme to access uranium deposits on the Lakota reservation. This is a conspiracy theory that is unproven. Finally, I would point out that Churchill's footnotes and citations are not reliable evidence to cite in an encyclopedia, given that Churchill has been consistently found guilty of research misconduct by his peers.Verklempt 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here from WP:RFC, and having followed the news reports about Ward Churchill's controversy, I feel comfortable weighing in. There are three issues here, I'll respond one by one.
  1. 9-11 Conspiracy theorist. Ward is not a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. This one's very clear. Ward's comments are considered odious not because he disputes in any way what happened, but because he says the victims deserved to die.
  2. COINTELPRO. Although it's clear that COINTELPRO happened (just as it's clear Kennedy was assassintated) that doesn't mean that therefore there can be no conspiracy theories surrounding what's known to be true. So the argument that "COINTELPRO...it happened, it is well documented that it happened" is not persuasive to me. But that said, while it's possible that Ward's book contains conspiracy theories regarding COINTELPRO, the citation above is not sufficient. The quote says that conspiracy theorists focus on COINTELPRO. It also says Ward Churchill wrote a book about COINTELPRO. Now, perhaps Churchill's books makes conspiracy theorist claims, my point is the quote above isn't sufficient for that claim.
  3. General Allotment Act. The reference at the start of this discussion, from the University of Colorado report, clearly and explicitly labels Churchill's theory as a conspiracy theory. And I'd say it's a good source. But, there's no article on the topic and Category:Conspiracy theorists does clearly state that the category is only for people who support categories listed at Category:conspiracy theories. I think it's a lousy criteria for inclusion, but it is the criteria, and changing that criteria is a conversation for category talk, not here.
In sum: unless better sources are provided for the claim (or an article written about GAA/eugenics against Indians), the category does not belong. --JayHenry 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • COINTELPRO is not a conspiracy theory, it was a factual conspiracy. Here's the final report of the Church Committee, "Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence."
  • For the 9/11 conspiracy theory it was quoted that "KEVIN BARRETT, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has now taken his place alongside Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado as a college teacher whose views on 9/11 have led politicians and ordinary citizens to demand that he be fired." Read this carefully, nowhere does it say their views on 9/11 are the same. It simply says their views on 9/11 have gotten them in hot water. Reading Ward Churchill's essays on his site I think it's obvious that he believes 9/11 was indirectly a product of US foreign policy, not a government conspiracy.
  • The part about the Dawes Act may qualify but we need more information. According to Churchill, the Indians and the US government both agreed on the part about blood quantum, which doesn't make it much of a conspiracy. It appears that Professor LaVelle doesn't think very highly of Ward Churchill so I believe his conspiracy comment was simply an insult. Also, the Dawes Act doesn't say anything about blood quantum, but the Dawes Commission does, I wonder if Churchill confused the two, his research appears rather sloppy.
  • Finally, the part about the small-pox infected blankets sure meets the qualifications for conspiracy theory in my book. Mandan#Smallpox_epidemic_of_1837.E2.80.9338 doesn't currently have anything about a consipracy but it could easily be added or another page could be created. According to [25] and [26] Churchill believes it was a conspiracy, hence making him a conspiracy theorist. --Calibas 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Citing the Dawes Commission does not justify Churchill's conspiratorial view of the Dawes Act. The commission did record blood quantum, but the tribes themselves chose to make use of that data for membership requirements. But Churchill argues that the Dawes Act itself somehow imposed a BQ, which is false. Churchill also claims that the Dawes Act had a eugenics component stemming from the mythical BQ he finds in the Act. Such is the conspiracy theory nature of Churchill's argument, and that is what Lavelle was criticizing. Lavelle's argument is rather more sophisticated than your speculation permits.Verklempt 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, nobody is disputing that COINTELPRO is a factual conspiracy. We all agree that it happened. The point of debate is that in addition to the factual conspiracy, other conspiracy theorists (and possibly Churchill among them) believes that there is much, much, much more and that this addition is the conspiracy theory. --JayHenry 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"and yes, I did see that COINTELPRO is not listed on Category:Conspiracy theories. So what? Maybe it should."
"To state the the term conspiracy theorist is pejorative is POV, no? And if COINTELPRO is not on the WP list, then let's add it."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.214.200 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
I see that my point is being misunderstood. Nevermind... Regardless, there's no adequate source for any of the COINTELPRO claims, so the discussion should focus on the other claims and whether or not there's reason to ignore the criteria for inclusion at Category:Conspiracy theorists. --JayHenry 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the relevant cites to the COINTELPRO article. Read them. I've also added the tag to the smallpox blanket and Mandan articles, the Dawes Act article, and the COINTELPRO article. So now we have four listed conspiracy theories on which Churchill has published. That takes care of the procedural objection, so now we can focus on the substantive objections.Verklempt 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like your edits are already being contested on at least one of those articles. - N1h1l 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

instead of providing evidence why any of these are conspiracy theories you went to several wikipedias and taged them as such. that is intellectually dishonest and shows the malign rather then analytical nature of your intentions. there is a difference between a "conspiracy" between individuals/groups/institutions and a "conspiracy theory" as it is used in popular culture. A look at wikipedias list of conspiracy theories in the category section shows that the context in which this term is used is when outlandish theories use perceived irregularities in an event to make broad uncorroborated claims. Maybe you should tag the Vietnam War or the Holocaust as a conspiracy theory since that too involved a conspiracy among individuals. - anonimf

There is plenty of evidence that these are conspiracy theories, even according to your own unnecessarily limited definition of conspiracy theory (i.e., a claim that is "outlandish"). For Churchill to say that the Dawes act had a eugenics dimension is outlandish. For Churchill to claim that the US Army gave smallpox blankets to the Mandans in 1837 is outlandish. For Churchill to claim that the FBI was conspiring with unnamed corporations to extract uranium from Lakota reservations is outlandish. I would suggest that you read the evidence I have cited, in order to better educate yourself on this topic. After all, one should know something about the topic before one edits. To edit on topics on which we are ignorant is the height of hubris. Please also negotiate in good faith and attempt to avoid ad hominem in the future.Verklempt 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not participating (so far) in this discussion, which, after all, was prompted by an edit I made at some point (adding the "Conspiracy theory" category), but I was caught up, both in other wikipedia endeavors, and in real life. But I see that the discussion has been quite spirited and informative, with lots of good arguments on both sides. I still hope the category stays, but there is little I can add to the discussion at this point -- I pretty much I said all I could, and besides, I feel a bit awkward in saying more (unless asked a specific question), since I am a latecomer to this article, and have not contributed anything besides that little cat (sigh...). So I'll let you guys decide what's best, though if it ever comes to a vote, please do count me as a strong keep. Turgidson 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you’re just making things up Veklempt. What you did by posting on other wikis to back your Ward Churchill claims was really disingenuous. This is an encyclopedia not a site for political agitprop. And read the report that you keep referring to because neither you nor anyone slandering Churchill on this site obviously has. http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf. This whole debate is about absolutely nothing and is going to go nowhere. Obviously several of you have made up your minds beforehand and are going to continue coming up with more spurious accusations about Churchill, one after another, even while the ones initially made are discredited. No one of any credibility or relevance has accused or proven that Ward Churchill is a conspiracy theorist. If you want to keep him in the same category as David Icke and Jim Marrs, which I’m sure you will, you're only going to deceive yourselves. And my proposition on Vietnam and the Holocaust still stands. -anonimf

Suggest that you look up "disingenuous" in your dictionary. You are using the word incorrectly. WRT your complaints, please be more specific. What part of this article is "slanderous," and what part does the CU report refute? Furthermore, why do you consider Churchill's "accusers" as not credible? John Lavelle, named in this discussion above, is a published law professor at a major state university. Others cited in the articles are also published professors with advanced degrees -- more credentials than Churchill himself possesses in most cases.Verklempt 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed the RFC and noticing Turgidson is involved I thought I could drop few comments, too.
  • Mark Fenster and Philip Rosen, "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture", University of Minnesota Press (April 2001), p. 241 ISBN 081663243X
Here I don't think that quote proves anything. If anyone looks at that page using Google book, will see it's in the notes section and the two parts separated by "[...]" are actually two different notes (2 and 3) from "Conspiracy theory and populism" chapter. The page in question is page 53. I do not find clear at all in that page Rogin includes that book in the list of conspiracy theories. On contrary, the note says Rogin includes also conspiracy theorists (beside "critical and leftist historians" practicing the "realist" approach in American "political demonology"). The CONINTELPRO accounts illustrate what these "realists" would identify as an example of "destructive and antidemocratic work of countersubversives". Without an understanding of Rogin's conceptual frameowork and lacking a perspective, without a clear statement to represent Churchil as a conspiracy theorist, such assumptions are dangerous and contrary to WP:BLP.
  • On 9/11 issue, I don't understand what's the conspiracy theory Churchill promotes here. From what I've read in the articles on him and some of the sources and external links (perhaps not enough, but still) I believe Churchill blames USA's external policy in middle East in the last decades for 9/11 and also considers the victims from this incident "collateral damage" in the terms he claims US invokes in its military actions. But this blame is actually finding a motive for the terrorists. I don't see it listed under 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also do not find any similarity between Churchill's view and Meyssan's (except they blame in some way US, however Meyssan focuses on some concealed organizations, that's why he's a conspiracy theorist, isn't he?).
  • The only serious reference remains on the General Allotment Act. However it seems it only LaVelle's criticism and not that comission's verdict. I wouldn't jump to include someone as a conspiracy theorist only because some scholar called him that way, and as someone said above, it could be just a rhetorical figure, an insult. Daizus 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your discussion of COINTELPRO does not address the issue at hand. which is Churchill's claim that COINTELPRO was wrapped up with corporate interests in reservation uranium being advanced by the federal government. Your speculation that Lavelle's characterization of Churchill's Dawes act explication is merely an insult indicates that you haven't read Lavelle's article. Editors should be knowledgeable on the topics they choose to work on.Verklempt 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I addressed the book which triggered the COINTELPRO issue in the first place. Your reply on interests in uranium reserves I see it repeated several times in this discussion with no real replies from the others and most importantly, no reliable source from your side to call Churchill's claims a conspiracy theory.
As for LaVelle's characterization you may call it speculation from my side but here are what I've found and read. LaVelle's accusations are supported or infirmed by the Comission:[27] While blaming Churchill for scholarly misconduct, the Comission doesn't support everything what LaVelle is saying, on the contrary: "there is more truth to part of Professor Churchill’s claim than Professor LaVelle is prepared to credit." or "Professor Churchill is therefore more correct than Professor LaVelle in suggesting, as he does, that the requirement of Indian blood began with federally-imposed definitions of Indian status that, in Churchill’s terms, “originated in the prevailing federal racial criteria of the late nineteenth century.”" or "The general thrust of Professor Churchill’s underlying basic point (seemingly and surprisingly rejected by Professor LaVelle) is that late nineteenth-century racism by federal officials in implementing the General Allotment Act of 1887, rather than traditional Indian cultural practices based on community citizenship, better accounts for the predominance of current blood quantum requirements in tribal membership rules. That argument certainly has a firm historical basis, dating back at least to the Rogers decision. Professor Churchill nevertheless has virtually all of the details of that history wrong.". At the same time, in LaVelle's review: [28], the "conspiracy" attribute occurs only once and with no real arguments to support it. Balancing LaVelle's review and Commision's review, my conclusion is LaVelle's doesn't have a real argument for his accusation and that's why I concluded it's rather rhetoric. Moreover, it seems the essence of Churchill's theory is correct (though its historical justification is flawed). Daizus 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re the COINTELPRO cites you requested, see the COINTELPRO page. I added the relevant cites to that article. Re Lavelle v. the CU Committee, should wiki editors really be arbitrating this dispute? The fact remains that two university professors have labeled Churchill a conspiracy theorist in peer reviewed scholarly journals.Verklempt 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist category is defamatory (breaks the rules regarding biographical articles) and totally inaccurate. Churchill has argued against C.theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks for example. He has published no books on conspiracy theories.. conspiracies - yes. This ridiculous supra-POV inclusion will be reverted each time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max rspct (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Churchill's commentary about the victims of 9/11 and in other areas are not conspiracy theory based.--MONGO 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Churchill's 9/11 writings are not conspiracy theory. But we have two scholars who have labeled other apsects of Chuchill's work as conspiracy theory. Professor John Lavelle did so WRT Churchill's Dawes act falsifications. Professor Thomas Brown did so wrt Churchill's smallpox blanket fabrications and falsifications. Both of these professors published their accusations in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. What grounds do pro-Churchill wiki editors have for disputing established experts in their fields?Verklempt 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the quote from Professor Brown's piece in Plagiary: "Churchill is perfectly entitled to believe in a fantastic conspiracy theory, in which the U.S. government sets up a vaccination program for Indian tribes as part of a secret plot to commit biowarfare genocide against Indians. Churchill's belief in an absurd and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is not in itself research misconduct. But Churchill's claim that the army allowed vaccine to "languish in storerooms" in "post after post" is a total fabrication.'Verklempt 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Call my petty, but that's a pretty weak source. Notably absent is any claim that Churchill is a conspiracy theorist. The average American believes all sort of absurd things, but that doesn't make her a conspiracy theorist. It just makes her ignorant. - N1h1l 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Very politically correct, and elitist at the same time. Be that as it may (and I personally don't buy the allegation -- care for a verifiable statistic?), but the average American does not spend his time peddling absurd theories for a living -- perhaps because the average American tries to earn an honest living actually doing something concrete and perhaps even useful, instead of just bloviating, like Churchill does? Just a thought... Turgidson 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Verklempt, please WP:AGF and stop raising straw men. I came in this page to answer if three (did I miss anything?) summoned evidences (by the time I wrote my first reply here) are indeed pointing to him being a conspiracy theorist or not. And you can insist on LaVelle how much you want, the investigative comission appointed by University of Colorado agreed with LaVelle's accusations on scholarly misconduct but not with his general assessment of Churchill's theory. On the first page of the report you can find the members of that comission, in case you doubt its expertise.
On Brown's review, I agree it looks incriminating (I'm saying "it looks" because I don't find any references to a "secret plot"; the review it tells a story about Churchill believing the US army intentionally didn't distribute small-pox vaccine to Indians in a certain location but it doesn't gets clear about circumstances or motives or anything) but here are some related issues.
I do not know very well the history of American Indians. If may be a case analogous with LaVelle's that such situations actually happened but not in the historical coordinates offered by Churchill. Without an assessment of the entire history encompassing US, Indians, smallpox and vaccination we lack the perspective to make such a judgement.
Like in LaVelle's case we have a scholar accusing Churchill to be a conspiracy theorist. It is incriminating, like I've said, but it would be nicer to have some other scholars agreeing or disagreeing with Brown (on the same issue), so that a specific hypothesis of Churchill can be safely regarded or disregarded as "conspiracy theory".
If something Churchill said is regarded (by someone, or in general) as "conspiracy theory" it doesn't mean everything he said it is so. Let's try to avoid stereotypical generalizations. Let's not jump from case to case, from review to review and rather focus on each and estabilish if it concludes Churchill to be a conspiracy theorist or not. Daizus 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what straw man argument you're referring to. I don't see why you would consider Plagiary a weak source. It is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Brown doesn't label Churchill a "conspiracy theorist," but he does say that Churchill is advancing a "conspiracy theory" of Churchill' own invention. To deny that he is calling Churchill a conspiracy theorist is to split semantic hairs. Furthermore, Brown cites a number of scholars who agree with nis characterization of Churchill's claims on the Mandan epidemic. Three of the authors that CHurchill cited in support of his own claims have repudiated CHurchill's claims. WRT Lavelle, I agree that there is a dispute betwen Lavelle and the CU report, but it is not our place to adjudicate academic disputes. We have two university professors who have labeled Churchill a conspiracy theorist in peer reviewed journals. There are no published scholars who have corroborated the fabricated elements of CHurchill's smallpox blankets conspiracy. So what is the substantive crux of the objection to reporting this dispute in the category box?Verklempt 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious removal of category. The conspiracy category itself definitely skirts the edge of merely pejorative, and that is the obvious intention of its use here. Given the narrow category criteria noted by N1H1 (namely, advocacy of the specific listed beliefs), Churchill just isn't such. Just because someone might, in an OR-ish way, describe this or that analysis by Churchill as a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make a sneaky pejorative of a living person appropriate. LotLE×talk 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your argument objects to the existence of the category itself because it contains some potentially pejorative element. But the validity of the category is not the topic of this thread. Do you have any good reason why the scholarly literature on Churchill's conspiracy theory should not be noted in the category list?Verklempt 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking this a wee bit personal ain’t ya?

"Also, unfortunately many of these editors have a personal bias involved when they edit the article because of whatever reason."

"As to Ward Churchill, my problem with him is that I have had personal experience with the man and I know for a fact that he is not an Indian."

Golly, does someone have a personal axe to grind? Anyway, have a good day! 138.162.5.7 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military records FOIA

Re the following edit:

Military records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Churchill was trained as a projectionist and light truck driver, and give no indication that he went to paratrooper school or trained for LRRP.[1]

I agree that the source is biased. However, Churchill's records were indeed posted on the web at that time, and the interpretation given in the above WP passage is indeed the only reasonable reading. Just because the source is biased does not mean it is incorrect. In this instance, the source is both biased and correct.Verklempt 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist Scholar

Churvchill is not a marxist. can anyone defend this tag?

Depends on what the tag means. Churchill has published on Marxism, and so is a "scholar of marxism", but not a marxist himself.Verklempt 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWard_Churchill_83f2.html"