Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward Churchill misconduct issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill misconduct issues

Ward Churchill misconduct issues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Deletion review determined that there is real dispute regarding the existence of BLP concerns in the article. As suggested by ArbCom, this article is referred to AfD, with its history available, but with the article protected blank. Consensus at AfD will now decide the appropriate course of action. Deletion is on the table, as are other options that merge portions of the content to other articles, renaming, and any other acreative solutions. Xoloz 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Well, this article is very, very studiously sourced -- however, the sheer size may be a bit of a problem. It's not exactly necessary for an encyclopedia to document every single minor thing in this vast controversy -- with living people, broad strokes are not only more encyclopedic, but more appropriate. I'd say it would be better served as a section of Ward Churchill, but if it needs its own page, I think it can be trimmed appropriately. --Haemo 04:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • While some trimming might be posisble, I think it is precisely the detail that makes it clear exactly what the nature of the allegations are, exactly how throughly they have been investigated, and by whom, and exactly what the results of that investigation have been. Too broad a brush and these will look like wild unsubstantatied accusations, or else as if rather more has been proved than in fact has, IMO. The balance is in the detail, here. DES (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If the article is too long and covers too much minor detail, let it be edited. I agree with haemo that normally it is better to have one article--but in this case the amount of the material makes this page an appropriate solution.DGG (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This subject has received a lot of coverage and the reasons for Churchill's sacking are a matter of public record. If there's too much material to go in his own entry then this page is not only desirable but necessary. Nick mallory 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but possibly merge or rename. Just because an article talks about things the subject might not want talked about, does not mean we should delete. If the article is guilty of giving undue weight to one view or another, or contains libelous statements and vandalism, we should edit it, rather than deleting. If (as I anticipate some will argue) its very existence as a sort-of POV content fork makes the topic inherently one-sided, then we should change the name of the article to sound more neutral, or merge it with the main article again. However, it doesn't seem to me that we can't have a well-written, balanced, neutral, encyclopedic article on this topic, even if many versions of it so far have not been that article. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Rename, second choice Merge. Reading the article, it scrupulously cited and written, and there is a lot of it there. But I really wish it wasn't, because it's really just one aspect of a person's career. If there was a way to merge it in to the main Ward Churchill article without ruthlessly slashing out important, well cited material, that would be my first choice; since I can't think of such a way, it's merely my second. In any case, rename to a more neutral title, since "misconduct issues" suggests there was misconduct. I suggest Ward Churchill academic investigation, since no one can deny there was an academic investigation. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep When looking at this article, Ward Churchill, and Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy, I feel we have too much material on this individual. The Ward Churchill article, left without this, would violate WP:NPOV by being overly biased in presenting him as a legitimate researcher. Having this material in a sub-article but making that sub-article's summary more prominent (than it currently is) in the main article would appear a reasonable overall balance. Sourcing meets WP:BLP standards in the version immediately prior to deletion, with the likely exception of the source in footnote 54, which can be solved by editing. GRBerry 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Clarifying later, I would have no objection to an implemented merge to the main biography, but I do think we would violate NPOV if we redirected with the merge to be done later. GRBerry 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well sourced, relevant, useful, topical, too detailed for the main article. Rklawton 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article covers a lot information that is relevant, but there is just not enough room in the main article for it. If the article needs to be edited then it should be edited. I agree that the name is inappropriate, but that is not a reason to shutter a whole article because of the name. I say keep with a rename and appropriate editing.--Getaway 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back? I feel uncomfortable about having 2 pages to 1) say the good things about the person and 2) the bad things. I feel like these two should be in one place. Corpx 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Merge back and edit down. Alcarillo 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep these are well-cited matters of public record. They have been of significant public interest, and have become notable through sustained comment in multiple fora by multiple reliable sources. The length of this page precludes a merge, yet all or most of the content is justified to clearly explain the allegations made, and how they have or have not been substantiated, and what the subject's responses have been. I see no issue of undue weight here, particularly not when combined with the main article about the subject. I see no BLP issue here, unless Wikipedia cannot contain well cited, verifiable, notable, and apparently accurate negative content about a living person. I do suggest a move, perhaps to Criticism of Ward Churchill or Ward Churchill academic investigation or some similar title. We must be careful only to include documented, cited content in this article. Indeed, even if we can document that an obviously baseless accusation has been made, it should not be included unless we also include and document its refutation, IMO. But that is editorial, and not a reason to delete. Indeed I see no valid reason to delete at all DES 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm amazed how anyone could think such a well-sourced article violated BLP policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
  • Keep This is an article about an event, with multiple players, not an individual, and should therefore be kept separate from the biography of the individual. There can be no question that the event is notable per the volume of sources, and tight sourcing meets BLP standards. This is just another example how a radicalized fringe equipped with delete button is harming Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, this is about an event, or rather a series of events. Perhaps a rename would help make that clearer? DES (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, that's an issue for WP:RM and the talk page though. ~ trialsanderrors 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Quite true, but it is not uncommon for an afd debate to suggest a change of name. DES (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge with the exception of a few sourcing issues, the article is actually fairly good. At this point in his career WC is known more for his problems than anything else. might be good to combine this with his Lil' Eichman article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with the Churchill 9/11 controversy page. As it is we have three separate articles on Churchill. One rather bland bio, one about his misconduct, and then the 9/11 page which was created by Churchill's defenders. I would merge the misconduct and 9/11 pages. Perhaps the title could be changed to reflect the "event" nature of the topic.Verklempt 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This article is an attack article. Albion moonlight 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Your complaint is too vague to evaluate. Can you point to any specific policy violations in the article?Verklempt 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole situation is comical. It looks as if the article is going to be reinstated. The article is an attack article and your refusal to admit it it quite telling. Either way I am having fun and could not care less whether the article is deleted or not. Consensus and putting an end to edit warring have always been my principle goals and in your case my tactics are still working. Keep up the good work Albion moonlight 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Albion moonlight: All of your comments above focus on you and how you feel. This discussion is not about you or how you feel. You really need to focus on substantive reasons for the articles deletion and you haven't given any, other than your feelings and that is not a Wikipedia standard.--Getaway 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you mistake what an "attack page" is. We have one more or less authoritative defination of an attack page: WP:CSD#G10 which says: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Note that this article is about as far as it can be from being unsourced. Note also that it serves a purpose beyond disparaging Churchill -- it serves to document a series of highly notable events. In general, no well-sourced page that accurately and from an NPOV documatments an actual event or events can fairly be called an "attack page". DES (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Corpx. - Crockspot 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Churchill is just one insignificant professor fired for misconduct. Giving him all these articles in content forks is undue weight. --Tbeatty 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As we discussed before the content forks were created in the first place by supporters of Churchill. There is a large amount information that is relevant and important (and carefully sourced and cited) and yet it does not fit into the main article. The article needs to be kept.--Getaway 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well sourced. No visible BLP issues in the article as of last revision. Incident is relatively notable. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as BLP violation - He just filed suit against his termination today, and from a glance at the article about the case, it's clear that he has some substantial points. I think WP:BLP implies without a doubt that this sort of stuff should not be here while it is still in the courts. ←BenB4 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What specifically in the article do you think violates BLP?Verklempt 03:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to delete this pending his suit, or any other suit. We can and should include the fact that he has sued in the article (I presume that will be easy to source) and if he has made public statements or offered evident to refute the accusations, we should include those too, assuming that they can be sourced. That's how WP:NPOV is maintained: report all points of view and sides of an issue, insofar as possible, and attribute them properly. DES (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the article was being controlled by Churchill bashers who are hell bent on reverting any information that speaks to his side of things. Balance is a nice notion but it will not be achieved until all the extremists are weeded out or become disinterested due to being forced to adhere to consensus. The CEO of wikipedia made the following statement. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Albion moonlight 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Viz. Moral panic. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the word controlled in a very general sense. If they quit edit warring and seek and except consensus they will be fine. It is unlikely that consensus will ever fall to there favor but in the event that it does that too is ok by me. Once the article reopens or is moved back to where it may belongs we shall see what happens. There is no conspiracy there that I know about. I think that Ward Churchill sought notoriety and achieved his goal. Wikipedia is helping him sell his books without meaning too. He is as insignificant as the wiki editors who despise him. Albion moonlight 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is kept, as one who argued for it and has not been involved previuously i will put it on my watch list and do my part to enforce NPOV there. I hope that others arguing for keep here would do the same. DES (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me. THANK YOU . Albion moonlight 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete An editor named Xoloz blanked the article, but the prior versions are available. In reviewing them, I see that there are articles about Ward Churchill and about his post-9/11 article. Regardless, why should we create articles about somebody's "misconduct issues"? Have not all of us, at some point, had our own such "issues"? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Mandsford 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Because in his case, those issues have become matters of national news coverage, and therefore are notable, and because they affect his reputation and credibility as a notable scholar. Our overall coverage of him and his work would not adhere to WP:NPOV without some form of this article's content. See above. Also, while many, perhaps most, of us have enganged in questionable conduct at one time or another, I+ hope that few of us have intentionally fabricated or distorted facts in serious academic publications, as Churchill has been accused of doing. DES (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot be saved from its many WP:BLP violations, unfortunately (I know, I've tried for two years to save it). LotLE×talk 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, no example has been given of where the BLP violations are and keep in mind that Lulu is the editor that created the child article in the first place. Now, he wants to delete it because he can no longer control it by being the only editor on it.--Getaway 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find there will be a few more of us if the article survives. That article has been controlled by Churchill's enemies for quite some time now. It was speedily deleted when TDC showed up trying to get an admin to delete its externals links. That was an extraordinary lapse in judgment. by someone who admits to strong dislike for Churchill. Albion moonlight 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because I though that the external links were BLP violations and I did not want an edit war to ensue over thier removal, does not mean I wanted the article deleted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that . It was an obvious blunder on your part. You seem to have have a rather marginal understanding of BLP policy. It was your fear of consensus that led you seek the deletion of those 2 links. You seemed genuinely surprised when your plan blew up in your face and the article was speedily deleted. Oh well you tried..... Albion moonlight 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per Haemo. BLP does not mean sympathetic point of view. Eluchil404 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.