Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article name

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

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

Improving

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

Also posting at FAC:

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

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

1987 Denver Post article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Native American writers

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

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

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

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

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)

Ward Chuchill, anarchist?

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

The "allegations" title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Good Article

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

"Academic"

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

Privet Commrade. Zvedet: Churchill, Ward (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. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Churchill esotoria professor: tochna. Nravitsa maya ploha ruski? Travb (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill, ACTA and Public Opinion

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

The 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)

MONGO, so when the Regents do fire Churchill, once and for all on July 24th when they hold their hearing, will you take back what you said earlier and admit that the recommendation of termination of Ward's position is valid?Keyuehan 20:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not fired until he's fired. Right now he's only recommended to be fired. The Regents alone can make the decision to fire or not. But I think you are correct that his firing has been officially recommended by various CU personnel and committees since the Investigative Committee report was published in May 2006.Verklempt 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he's fired, MONGO, concede that the recommendation for termination is valid, let it stand.--Keyuehan 02:36, 25 July 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)

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)

David Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill

"David Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 2006-07-02.
"Full two hour audio". rightalk.listenz.com. Retrieved 2006-07-02.
"David Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill - Round 1". Young Americans Foundation. Retrieved 2006-07-02. Video and audio (exerpt)
"Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz". foxnews.com. Retrieved 2006-07-02.
Sprengelmeyer, M.E. (2006). "Churchill, Horowitz on their best behavior". Rocky Mountain News. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Levine, Brittany (2006). "Churchill, Horowitz debate politics in the classroom". The Daily Colonial. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Talhelm, Jennifer (2006). "Churchill, Horowitz Debate In D.C." cbs4denver.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Bettelheim, Adriel (2006). "Churchill debates Horowitz in D.C." The Denver Post. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Flickinger, Christopher (2006). "Ward Churchill Defends His Right to 'Profess'". Human Events Online. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

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

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)

Stuff to add to the article, when it is unblocked

"Ward Churchill The Research Misconduct Inquiry". www.colorado.edu. Retrieved 2006-07-03.
"Report and Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct by Professor Ward Churchill" (PDF). www.colorado.edu. Retrieved 2006-07-03. [PDF]
Littwin, Mike (2006). "Witch hunt apparently pays off at CU". Rocky Mountain News: 7A. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Mayer, Tom (2006). "The Report On Ward Churchill". Swans Commentary. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Stanley Fish, Conspiracy Theories 101, "The New York Times", July 23, 2006.

"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)

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.

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.
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.
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)

No, political correctness would have been "him/her" or "her/him". As for a statistic, I'd say that a 48% rejection of evolution is a pretty good start. - N1h1l 15:42, 1 April 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)

Those straw men built avoiding or twisting my line of argumentation while replying to me. For instance, let's focus on the most recent ones:

We have two scholars, Brown and LaVelle, naming some claims of Churchill "conspiracy theories". You're claiming "We have two university professors who have labeled Churchill a conspiracy theorist in peer reviewed journals.". This is misleading and I have already hinted why. The two argued about two different things, not the same one. Therefore their accounts do not support each other, do not increase their weight because they are two instead of one. To write a conspiracy theory (to be a conspiracy theorist) is not always something like a modus vivendi (well, I can admit it can be, but that should be proven in our case, shouldn't it?), is not like a profile, is not like "once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist". If you want that accusation to be supported you have to find more reliable sources arguing for a conclusion (interpretation) from the same premises, particularly the same "theory" promoted by Churchill.
LaVelle's assessment is dismissed by the aforementioned CU report. We cannot simply ignore the controversy and build a profile for Churchill from LaVelle's account. Moreover, Churchill is an academic, too (if the article is not wrong on that, I haven't verified it myself). So if we refuse to take sides between LaVelle and that Commission we should refuse to take sides between LaVelle and Churchill or Brown and Churchill. On what grounds are you arbitrating these academic debates? If you allow yourself to dismiss Churchill based on some reviews, I don't understand why aren't we allowed to dismiss LaVelle on a review, which unlike any other here, it was a report supported by an academic institution (it's no longer the POV of a certain scholar, but of a scholarly community). You want the report downplayed, but not the incriminating reviews. This cannot be.

From the evidences presented in this page, the only one I'd agree it supports the categorization to a degree is Brown's review (as virtually there's no opposition to it). All I've tried here was not to say if Churchill is X or Y (I have barely heard of the guy before participating in this discussion, rather of few of his opinions), just to assess some evidences, some accounts. I expressed my reserves of not labeling a guy only from what one scholar says (I repeat: they count as two, only if they argue on the same thing, not on different ones!) and I'd leave others to carry the flag in this other battle. Daizus 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we have a different definition of conspiracy theorist. I do see it as a modus vivendi, and thus we have two scholars weighing in, not just one. If you become more familiar with Churchill's oeuvre, you might come around to the same position. How many more sources do you require? Do they all have to specifically apply the specific label "conspiracy theorist", or is a general description of the phenomenon sufficient. Please justify the source of your definition and standards.Verklempt 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see it, it's WP:OR. There's a study given as reference in Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories which shows a person who believes in a conspiracy theory is likely to believe in another, as well. However that study does not say if a person believes in a conspiracy theory, then everything he believes in/claims is a conspiracy theory. So, assuming Brown's review is correct in its assessment, we may imagine probably Churchill believes and consequently promoted other conspiracy theories as well, but that doesn't mean necessarily LaVelle was right and that particular theory of Churchill is a conspiracy theory, i.e. that doesn't mean LaVelle's review supports Brown's (nor viceversa).

As for references, they should contain the controversial label ("conspiracy theory/theorist"), otherwise again we're in danger of WP:OR (and we're talking about living persons, as well!). I only asked for more reliable sources on the same issue, I don't understand what's the problem. Can you bring at least one more to support either LaVelle's or Brown's accounts? Daizus 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gunter Lewy published an article refuting Churchill's theory of a smallpox blanket conspiracy, although he does not specifically deploy the term "conspiracy theorist" to label Churchill. Instead, he shoots down Churchill's theory that there was a "conspiracy" (and he does use that word to describe it). At some level this stuff should be self-evident. Anyone who proffers a theory of a conspiracy is by definition a conspiracy theorist. Your objection is like saying that wikipedia cannot call a banana a banana until a professor publishes an article calling it a banana.Verklempt 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's another straw man. I simply required sources stating facts. Everything else is rhetoric and, no offense, I find no reason why should I keep discussing here. Daizus 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What sort of facts? There are plenty in Lewy's article, and in the many citations in Brown and Levy's article both. It's unclear what evidence you're looking for, or what your basis is for such a narrow definition of conspiracy theorist.Verklempt 00:11, 3 April 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)

Even the report submitted by the committee that condemned Churchill acknowledges, (on page 78 of the report, footnotes number 20 & 21 of the article) documentation that U.S. officer Lewis Cass (He's got a Wikipedia article) instructed the senior Indian agent for the Missouri river area to exclude certain tribes from vaccination, "on the grounds that they had previously 'committed hostilities'" against U.S. citizens. 64.81.167.175 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is Ward Churchill dead?

No. He is alive. And therefore WP:BLP applies to this situation. Please review the biographies of living persons policy if you don't understand my removal of the categories.

Is Ward Churchill an impostor? Is he a conspiracy theorist? Actually, I'm inclined to agree with those who say he is. But I'm more concerned with the procedures that are not being followed. Read WP:SYN. Read WP:BLP. These are official policies, they are not guidelines. And those arguing to keep the categories are making some of the textbook arguments of what not to do.

You're not running against a brick wall of unreasonable editors. You're being asked to better document your claims. If your assertions about Ward Churchill are so intrinsically obvious -- just "calling a banana a banana" then it will be easy for you to get better sources. And if not, then maybe let it slide. It's not as if any of the people here (from what I can tell) are in love with Ward Churchill or something. And it's not as if this article makes Ward Churchill look like a great guy. --JayHenry 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that two peer-reviewed articles in two different scholarly journals by two different professors is pretty damn good evidence of Churchill's standing in the academic community, coupled with the fact that there are no articles supporting the fabrications, and also coupled with the fact that he's been repeatedly sanctioned by committees of his peers at CU for said fabrications. I understand your appeal to the BLP policy, and I agree with it. What I don't understand is where your standard of evidence comes from. How many professors would have to publish on this before we reach a tipping point? Once he is officially fired for his fabrications, would that change the standard of evidence you're seeking? At that point, I think the burden of proof would have to fall on people who argue that he is some lind of legitimate scholar.Verklempt 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Verklempt: Thanks for your support on all this, and for all your tightly argued, cogent explanations. I agree 100% on the substance of your position. I just don't have the stomach to fight anymore, and JayHenry made a good enough case on procedural grounds to call it quits, at least for me. But if new info comes up (along the lines you mention), I may come back to this, since I think it's kind of ridiculous how such obvious things about Ward Churchill are being shoved under the rug, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But right now I'm weary of tilting at windmills, and there are other things to do, hopefully more productive... Turgidson 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, JayHenry, you're the first guy that makes a case for deletion that I can understand and fully appreciate, so I'll throw in the towel. As long as both you and I agree (at least to some extent) that Churchill is a fake and that he pushes wild-eyed theories, I'm ready to bow to the cold, hard realities of official policies, as you just explained them. You gotta know when to fold 'em. But, as da man says, E pur si muove!. Cheers. Turgidson 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

you had no case to begin with. period. nice of you to finnaly admit that your wild-eyed dislike of Churchill was the motivation behind all this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.214.200 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 April 2007

I see you cannot even write correctly in wikistyle, or sign your contribution, let alone know that a sentence must start with a capital letter. Your ad-hominem attacks and wild guesses about my motivations are not worthy of a response. Have a good day. Turgidson 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Newman

There's been some back and forth on the mention of Bob Newman's allegation of obtaining FOIA records about Churchill's military service. I readily admit that, to me, Newman's claims ring false, or at least unlikely. Specifically, if he actually had such records, he would have published them rather than claim Army-McCarthy Hearings-style to have a "secret list" proving his claims.

Nonetheless, I think the sketchy source has been widely enough referenced to present as a claim by Newman, as long as the former language of claiming a simple fact is tempered. This seems probably OK (maybe simple past, 'claimed' is better though).

Radio Host Bob Newman ~~claims~~has claimed that military records he 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.^[2]

I guess the issue remaining is whether this claim (by an obviously partisan source) is of sufficient notability to make it into the basic biographical sketch. If more than just one citation to a rather badly written minor source could be located, that would add weight to the inclusion. LotLE×talk 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Verklempt's recent edits certainly suggest that there really isn't any good faith in the attempts to invent overbroad claims about the military stuff. All this slippery stuff about trying to find a basis for "evidence"... "Well, maybe not FOIA, but surely someone knows this." And so on. I think if I see any more shenanigans like this, I'll just remove the borderline-notable sentence altogether (as the editor Annonymous is pushing for... though under a somewhat misleading username, I think). LotLE×talk 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Lulu is back editing the Churchill article again. Welcome back! Please work away, but I would ask you to stop insulting and jumping to conclusions on the motivations of the other editors. Neither you or I know if Verklempt's edits are in "good faith" or not. Only he/she knows that. However, there is one clear, bright line in Wikipedia and it is simple, you need to "assume good faith." You are not doing that. I'm not sure if the debate and the radio host work is finalized yet (you for some reason seem to believe that it is), but at any rate, please reframe from inappropriate discussions of Verklempt's good faith because I believe strongly that he has been editing in good faith and I find your comments inappropriate.--Getaway 20:16,

10 April 2007 (UTC)

More commentary from Lulu which is not appropriate: Lulu stated in an edit summary the following Denver Post claim is unambiguous misreading of actual article: authors write "It has been reported", they don't claim it themselves. Please stop violating WP:BLP) Well, once again, Lulu please focus on the underlying issues and please stop making inappropriate comments about other editors. It does not win any points or the argument. Assume "good faith" and focus just on the issues and do not make unsubstantiated claims about other editors. Verkempt did not violate WP:BLP.--Getaway 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Two points. First, Lulu seems not to have noticed that the Denver Post is now also on board as a source, also citing Churchill's military records. Second, scans of Churchill's military records were available on the net at that time from several sources. That is why this para stood unchallenged for two years--because the proof was easily available. Now that those sites have taken the records down, it does not change the facts. We have two journalistic sources cited here, both saying essentially the same thing, and both citing federal government documents. The burden of proof is now on those who say this interpretation of the records is false.Verklempt 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more data points. I will write these into the article wqhen I get a chance, unless someone else wants to do it:

On Feb 3, 2005, the Post was citing News From Indian Country about Churchill’s military records. Howard Pankratz, “CU prof affirms Indian heritage: Tribe says he's not full member, Denver Post, Feb 3, 2005

By February 13, the Post appears to have obtained those records:

Questions stoke Ward Churchill's firebrand past By Dave Curtin Howard Pankratz and Arthur Kane Denver Post Staff Writers Sunday, February 13, 2005 U.S. Army records produced in 2004 in response to a request from the organization News From Indian Country show that Churchill was inducted on Nov. 16, 1966, and trained as a light-truck driver and projectionist. He spent most of a year in Vietnam.

The stories he has told over the years of his Vietnam service have varied dramatically. On a 1980 résumé submitted to the University of Colorado, Churchill wrote that he served as a public-information specialist who "wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases."

In a 1987 interview with The Denver Post, and as recently as two weeks ago, Churchill described his Vietnam service as more complicated. In the 1987 interview, he said he had attended paratrooper school and been assigned as part of an elite long- range reconnaissance patrol to hunt the enemy. His service records do not reflect paratrooper school, or training or assignment on reconnaissance.

The Pentagon’s summary of Churchill’s military records was posted at http://www.850koa.com/img/churchill-mr.html until October 2005.

Churchill claimed in his 1980 resume that he served as a Public Information Specialist, writing press releases and newsletters. By 1987, Churchill was claiming that he served in airborne reconnaissance. ^[3] Verklempt 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Censorship

The Ward Churchill article is going to have changes made to it. There is no need for comments that violate Wikipedia rules such as WP:CIVIL. User:Eleemosynary please do not engage in uncivil cries of "Censorship" it violates the rules of civil. You can review your violations of that rule here: First example of Eleemosynary's use of the word "censorship" and here: Second example of Eleemosynary's use of the word "censorship". Thank you.--Getaway 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that moving the passage in question to the "Writings" section doesn't even come close to censorship, since the material is retained in the article.Verklempt 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, why are you protesting the use of the word "censorship"? You yourself have used the word (and variations of it), many, many times in your edit summaries. Here are just a few: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Honestly, one might be tempted to accuse you of being hypocritical here. ; )

By the way, your ignoratio elenchi of instructing editors to review Wikipedia policies that don't apply (cf. your admonition to review WP:CIVIL, which says nothing whatsoever about claims of "censorship") rather than debating the issue at hand, will be ignored every time you use it. : ) Eleemosynary 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Eleemosynary and Lulu

Please keep your comments civil. Please abide by WP:CIVIL. Verklempt and my edits are meant in good faith and it is highly inappropriate for Eleemosynary to call all of our edits "censorship" and it is highly inappropriate for Lulu to call all of our edits "POV". Wikipedia has rules for this kind of thing and I would ask you to follow them. Please review WP:CIVIL. Our edits are reasonable and to the point. Our edits are made in good faith and it is simply against Wikipedia policy to call any of our edits "censorship" or "POV". Please stop.--Getaway 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, why are you protesting the use of the word "censorship"? You yourself have used the word (and variations of it), many, many times in your edit summaries. Here are just a few: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Honestly, one might be tempted to accuse you of being hypocritical here. ; )

By the way, your ignoratio elenchi of instructing editors to review Wikipedia policies that don't apply (cf. your admonition to review WP:CIVIL, which says nothing whatsoever about claims of "censorship") rather than debating the issue at hand, will be ignored every time you use it. : ) Eleemosynary 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Red herrings, POV edits, and "censorship" by Getaway, and his various sockpuppets/meatpuppets

Getaway, your red herrings will continue to be ignored. And please stop the POV edits, censorship, and sockpuppetry. You also need to stop placing personal attacks in section headers. Please check WP:NPA for more info. Also, please stop blanking comments of others regarding your sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Honestly, one might be tempted to post the diffs. Oh, and please re-read WP:CIVIL. I do not think it means what you think it means. : ) -- Eleemosynary 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eleemosynary: Please work in good faith. Your words and actions are not in line with WP:CIVIL. Please review the rules of Wikipedia. There is nothing to justify your claims of "censorship", "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry", "POV". Please stop. Also, Lulu, please stop your claims of "POV" it is inappropriate and it violates Wikipedia rules of WP:CIVIL. Take care, --Getaway 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please reread above comments. Eleemosynary 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Denver Post cites

The Post articles on the questions surrounding Churchill's various military service claims cite both Churchill's own military records as well as reporting by News From Indian Country. What possible reason is there for censoring this information?Verklempt 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, wasn't it Verklempt who was bellyaching about gratuitous misuse of the word "censor" recently?

In any case, the more this goes back and forth, the more clear it becomes that the insertion is there exclusively to try to belittle the article subject, and is unrelated to any notability of the subject (i.e. if violates WP:BLP. The problem isn't really that the Post cite violates WP:RS (the article is pretty haphazardly written on poor evidence, but the Post still counts as a "reliable source" by the WP meaning). The problem is that the sentence simply doesn't do anything to enhance the article, but simply represents a somewhat obscure (albeit verifiable) disparagement of Churchill. LotLE×talk 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Lulu. However, the paragraph is notable because it fits into the pattern of Churchill's behavior. He is less than truthful about his Indian heritage, he is less than truthful about the General Allotment Act, he is less than truthful about who wrote what and who is should be attributed to, etc. You admit that the information is based upon a reliable source. It just becomes a question of whether it is notable. Undue weight is NOT an issue because there is just a brief mention of it. The Living Person issues are a just a smokescreen. In the grand picture of this particular information about Churchill this is just a small thing. The real issue is notability. You claim that: [the quote] "simply represents a somewhat obscure (albeit verifiable) disparagement of Churchill." It is not obscure. If it is verifiable, which you concede then it is NOT a "disparagement" of Churchill, it is a FACT. If Churchill had NOT done what is claimed that he did then it would be a "disparagement". However, that is NOT the case that we have here. Churchill did what is claimed, it is properly sourced, and it is FACT. Now, you might not want the information in the article because you personally do not want the information in the article, but that is NOT the standard that applies. It is notable because it fits in a long line of other false claims made by Churchill. Should we take out ALL of the questions about his Indian heritage because, as you state, it "disparages" him??? The answer is no. In the introduction to the article there is a reference to him being a "Vietnam vet". Now, I noticed that you believe that to be a notable piece of info for the intro, but his lies about his service in Vietnam are NOT, in your opinion, notable enough to be in the article at all, not even in a buried paragraph in the back of the article. Why is ok to refer to his Viet srv but not his untruthfulness about his Viet srv? I don't see the difference. If we are going to rightfully point out his Viet srv then we should point out what claims and verifiable counterclaims exist concerning his Viet srv. If his Viet srv is notable in the intro then his false claims about his Viet srv is notable in a back paragraph.--Getaway 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that the Post published that article. But it doesn't take much reading between the lines to realize that Indian Country quoted Newman, and the Denver Post in turn cited Indian Country. So in reality, the alleged fact about military service goes back to one show-boater looking for ratings (Newman) who hasn't actually produced the alleged documents. I think it's pretty likely that Churchill has exaggerated his service record, but I find it almost certainly false that the service specifics are actually those purported by Newman, and reported passingly in three other places (one of them a blog; another a single sentence in Indian Country).

An entirely false claim about military service (i.e. Newman's claim) could become notable if it was widely discussed. But the reporting that exists hasn't risen above obscure. So yeah, "somebody said something" is verifiable; but I just don't see a plausible case for notability. LotLE×talk 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reading between the lines" violates the policy re original research. It would appear that you did not even read the Post articles carefully, much less between the lines. Churchill's military records themselves are cited by the Post, and also by several other newspapers. Furthermore, Newman did produce the records, and they were posted on his website until October 2005.

The passage in question here is clearly disparaging, but it is also based on factual reporting. The passage is notable because it was widely reported in the media, mainly because it fits the pattern by which Churchill has represented himself dishonestly, in terms of his false claims to tribal enrollment and his appropriation of other people's scholarship and artwork. Churchill himself has not attempted to resolve the discrepancy.

The pro-Churchill POV warriors keep raising the bar. The first complaint was about the source. Once a reliable source was produced, then the complaint shifted to the substance of the charge not being notable. If a professor's war stories are shown to be most likely bogus, that is clearly notable, and that is why it was widely reported in the media. Something that generates numerous newspaper stories is not obscure, by definition. Log into Nexis and you'll find that a number of other newspapers also reported this story.Verklempt 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been a limited amount of correction of the strong anti-Churchill POV introduced by Gateway, Verklemp and Steve### (the last's userpage states explicitly that his main goal on WP is to disparage Churchill, i.e. bad-faith by his own description). There's still a strong non-neutral slant to the article, but removing this contentious bit is a small step in the right direction.

FWIW, the generic gesture to Lexis-Nexis is obviously intended much like the McCarthy secret-list thing I analogize above. By suggesting a alleged resource unavailable to most editors, Verklempt tries to win his argument by intimidation. However, it turns out I actually do have access to Lexis-Nexis now. And it turns out the claim is unsupported. Instead, what we find is more like this:

Copyright 2005 Sun Media Corporation
Calgary Sun (Alberta)
February 15, 2005 Tuesday FINAL EDITION
[...] Vern Bellecourt, who heads AIM's council on foreign relations, believes Churchill was with counter-intelligence in the Vietnam war, while his military record shows him as a truck driver.

Obviously, reading between the lines--what Verklempt does with almost all posts and contributions--is precisely what is not allowed in the article... which is exactly why it only makes sense on the talk pages (as I state above). LotLE×talk 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your ad hominem for now, to ask what is the substance of your argument, if any? Why is this news non-notable? Justify your position. I would ask you to address the Joseph Ellis case. Ellis was another professor who exaggerated his Vietnam experience, and who was exposed in the media. That is an entire subsection of his Wikipedia biography. Why should we treat Churchill any differently?Verklempt 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to ignore your ad hominem attacks on Verklempt and the other editors that do not agree with your position. I would point out once again, that you believe that it is important that the article refer to Churchill's Vietnam service in the intro, but the article cannot refer to Churchill's false claims about his Vietnam service at all. You have a highly selective understanding of notable. It is notable if the information about Vietnam is favorable toward Churchill, but if information about Vietname is not favorable then you believe that it is not notable. I see a double standard here. There are articles all over Wikipedia where there are long, long references to false claims about Vietnam service or lack of service or attempts to avoid service. There are whole articles devoted to this topic. For example, this is not something that you have to go to Lexus/Nexus to find, it is right here in Wikipedia: Chickenhawk (politics). This article goes into great detail, in an enthusiatic way, about the lack of Vietnam service of Limbaugh, Quayle, etc. Churchill's military service is notable and his false claims his own service is also notable in the same vein that George W. Bush's, Dan Quayle's, Newt Gingrich's, Rush Limbaugh's, Pat Buchanan's, Phil Gramm's, Clarence Thomas's, and George Will's is. Also, Churchill has made a huge deal out of his claim that he assisted the Weather Underground to build bombs in pursuit of stopping the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War is a big theme in his writings and he actual role in it very, very notable. Now, we have given many, many reasons on why we believe the topic notable and all we are getting from you is ad hominem attacks and conclusionary statements about you believe so and so, but we have not received any substantive arguments about notability. Please response to us concerning why you believe the information is not notable in light of Wikipedia's treatment of the subject before, Churchill's history of false claims, and Churchill's repeated references to the Vietnam in his writings. We would like to hear your defense of this substantive topics and we really would not like to hear another ad hominem attack.--Getaway 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Denver Post cites

Read all of the cited articles. At least one Posr article cites directly to the primary source, and not to Bob Newman. The passage thus meets the reliable source policy. It also meets the notability policy, in that the story was written up in a variety of media outlets. Finally, there is a Wikipedia precedent that fits this case precisely, in the Joseph Ellis story. So where is the problem in including it in? Is there a rational case to be made for suddenly excluding this story now, after it's already been in the article for several years?Verklempt 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. You have not provided one source outside of this article that in any way corrobates this accusation. There is no getting around the fact that the posts claims are based on Newmans research and his alone. There is no way to view these documents he claims prove Churchill lied about his service, so it is therefore invalid.

I don't understand, If I'm so wrong about this why don't you simply just produce an independent investigation separate from Newmans that confirms his findings.

This seems like a transparent attempt to disaprage churchill no matter what. At the very least this should be stated as accusation, not as fact whch is how it is in the article currently. annoynmous 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I already posted the independent investigation you request. I posted it above, on April 10. News From Indian Country obtained Churchill's military records in 2004, before the scandal broke, before Bob Newman ever heard of Churchill. This is reported in the Denver Post articles that you keep insisting have no source other than Newman.Verklempt 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to understand WP:ATT. The Denver Post investigation came up with findings. Our entry says that the Denver Post investigation came up with findings. We don't adopt the findings as fact, but there is no reason not to state them. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You posted a link to a site that is dead and therefore contains no way of verifying the claims you say are in it.

The Denver POst did not do there own research. As is palinly stated in the article they based there research on Newmans findings. annoynmous 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any literate person can read the Post article and immediately see that your characterization of it is totally false:

Questions stoke Ward Churchill's firebrand past By Dave Curtin Howard Pankratz and Arthur Kane Denver Post Staff Writers Sunday, February 13, 2005

U.S. Army records produced in 2004 in response to a request from the organization News From Indian Country show that Churchill was inducted on Nov. 16, 1966, and trained as a light-truck driver and projectionist. He spent most of a year in Vietnam.

The stories he has told over the years of his Vietnam service have varied dramatically. On a 1980 résumé submitted to the University of Colorado, Churchill wrote that he served as a public-information specialist who "wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases."

In a 1987 interview with The Denver Post, and as recently as two weeks ago, Churchill described his Vietnam service as more complicated. In the 1987 interview, he said he had attended paratrooper school and been assigned as part of an elite long- range reconnaissance patrol to hunt the enemy. His service records do not reflect paratrooper school, or training or assignment on reconnaissance.

At his recent trial on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade, he said he had walked "point" in a combat unit in Vietnam and was called "chief" because of his Indian heritage. "I was on the ground pulling triggers. You can't undo that. And I have an obligation to do what I can by way of compensation," Churchill said in a recent interview. "You can say that is the foundational reason that I do most all of what I do."

Lt. Justin Journeay, a spokesman for the Army at Fort Carson, said it is conceivable a truck driver in Vietnam could have seen combat in some situations. But he said he doubted that a driver would lead point on patrol. Churchill has repeatedly declined to comment on the discrepancies between his printed military record and the descriptions he has given of his service.Verklempt 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link that deals with miltary service. This is what the actual entry says.

February 11, 2005

DENVER—An exhaustive investigation by Bob Newman of Newsradio 850 KOA (Denver), who is also a frequent guest military & terrorism analyst on the FOX News Channel and a Men's News Daily columnist, into the genuine Vietnam service record of radical University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, has revealed that Churchill’s claimed combat experience is in direct contradiction to his official military records.

After a confidential source provided Mr. Newman with documents pertaining to Professor Churchill’s military service and his employment at the University of Colorado, Mr. Newman began an investigation into the documents’ authenticity.

Using his own sources and calling upon the investigative skills of FOX News Channel’s Rita Cosby, Mr. Newman was able to verify that Professor Churchill, despite his public claim (in a 1987 Denver Post interview) of having been a paratrooper (Airborne qualified) who conducted long-range reconnaissance patrols (LRRPs; extremely dangerous missions conducted by some of the most elite soldiers in the US Army) hunting North Vietnamese in Vietnam during and after the Tet Offensive of 1968, and despite his claim that he was a point man in an infantry combat unit, was in fact trained only as a jeep driver and projectionist (he was trained to operate film-strip machines and movie projectors), according to official documentation from the National Personnel Records Center, the US repository for military records.

Denver attorneys Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman, both colleagues of Mr. Newman at Clear Channel Colorado, then acquired Professor Churchill’s original resume that resulted in his being hired by the University of Colorado. That resume matched exactly the resume Gunny Bob had acquired from his confidential source. On that resume, Professor Churchill cited no combat experience whatsoever, no Airborne training, no infantry training or experience and no winning of the Combat Infantry Badge. Instead, it said his experience in Vietnam consisted of his duties as a “Public Information Specialist,” as which he “wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases.”

Verification of Professor Churchill’s real Vietnam service record was completed with the direct assistance of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.

Gunny Bob notes that in the same 1987 Denver Post report, Professor Churchill admitted to being a bomb-building and weapons instructor for the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group active in the 1970s.

I see nothing in there about the post doing there own research. It looks to me like all the reasearch came from newman and no indepent investigation has confirmed it. So if you ask me Verklempt is being a little untruthful in his statements.

Doesn't this prove that at the very least the entry should be stated as accusation, not as fact. Should't Newmans name also be mentioned in this article. annoynmous 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Newman is already cited here. However, what you fail to acknowledge is that your example above is dated Feb 11. Two days later, in the Feb 13 DP story that I posted, they had done additional research. They had acquired the records, which they cite, and they also cite a 2004 article from NFIC. They do not even mention Newman. So your assertion that Newman is the sole source for the DP stories is totally false.Verklempt 15:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

News from Indian Country, February 21, 2005 contains an article that is the same Bob Newman story. Perhaps this was the basis of the first paragraph of the February 13 DP article. It seems appropriate to include the accusation but attribute it to Newman and note that copies of the records were available on the web for some time. 62.56.90.91 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The DP cites to a 2004 NFIC story. NFIC has been researching and publishing on Churchill for well over a decade. The DP story of Feb 13 cites to the military records, not to Newman.Verklempt 15:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find such a story in the NFIC archive, which goes back to August 2002. (The DP article doesn't actually mention a 2004 NFIC article, just that they got the records in 2004.) Still, you have a point about the records, which were available at that time. (His 1980 resume still is.) 62.56.90.91 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The brief summary of Churchill's military records (that Newman posted on the web) is always available to anyone who submuits a FOIA request. Paul DeMain of NFIC has been researching Churchill for years. It may be that he provided the records to the Post, but never published them in his own newspaper. Either way, the DP's Feb 13 story does not cite to Bob Newman, and clearly seems to be based on independent research. So I think we have at least two independent investigations that arrived at similar conclusions: one by DP/NFIC, and one by Newman. Plus the story was reported in additional media outlets as well, citing back to one or the other investigations. Thus this passage meets the standards for both verifiability and for notability. I would note that the section on Vietnam exaggerations in the Joseph Ellis bio is based on only a single investigation, by a single newspaper.Verklempt 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is this stuff you claim proves this. It's nowhere in the article and you have provided no link that shows what you claim these articles say.

The article you just linked too above once again mentions Newman as the primary source for this claim.

There is no getting around the fact that in the link in the actual article now, the primary source is Newman. Yet it's protrayed as an absolute proven fact which it isn't. Has the military made any claims that contradict Churchills account of his service. Has any other newspaper. You have to admit that evidence you have for this is at best extremely thin.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it should be stated as accusation, not as fact. Is that so unreasonable? annoynmous 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what evidence you are asking for. My point is that the Feb 13 DP story does not mention Newman as a source, and by any reasonable reading appears to be exactly the independent investigation you asked for. The statements in the WP article as it stands today are all factual, not speculative. What sort of alternative wording would you suggest?Verklempt 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article you mentioned has no link to it whatsoever to confirm what you say is in it. Exscuse me if I don't take your word for it that article says what you claim it says.

The basic fact is that nothing in the article that deals with this issue has been confirmed and it is just dishonest to claim so. I ask again where is the military response contradicting churchill. You have not provided one link that anyone can read that doesn't mention Newman as a source. Just saying these articles exist without showing us where we can read them proves nothing.

The information in this article is innacurate and should be rephrased to show that this is only an accusation, not a proven fact.annoynmous 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Feb 13 Denver Post story does not mention Newman as a source. It cites instgead to NFIC and the military records. I've pointd out this to you what seems like a hundred times already. I've even posted the relevant text from this article. Can you point to the passage that mentions Newman? No, of course you cannot.Verklempt 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

annoynmous doubts Verklempt's reporting of the Feb 13 article, but it's online (and easily found from the search box on the DP site). 62.56.90.91 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay once again none of this is in the article as it stands. Here is what is actually in the article.

The Denver Post reports that Churchill's military records 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.[13]

Okay here is what is in link 13.

Gunny Bob Breaks Story of Prof. Ward Churchill’s Real Military Background

MND NEWSWIRE

February 11, 2005

DENVER—An exhaustive investigation by Bob Newman of Newsradio 850 KOA (Denver), who is also a frequent guest military & terrorism analyst on the FOX News Channel and a Men's News Daily columnist, into the genuine Vietnam service record of radical University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, has revealed that Churchill’s claimed combat experience is in direct contradiction to his official military records.

After a confidential source provided Mr. Newman with documents pertaining to Professor Churchill’s military service and his employment at the University of Colorado, Mr. Newman began an investigation into the documents’ authenticity.

Using his own sources and calling upon the investigative skills of FOX News Channel’s Rita Cosby, Mr. Newman was able to verify that Professor Churchill, despite his public claim (in a 1987 Denver Post interview) of having been a paratrooper (Airborne qualified) who conducted long-range reconnaissance patrols (LRRPs; extremely dangerous missions conducted by some of the most elite soldiers in the US Army) hunting North Vietnamese in Vietnam during and after the Tet Offensive of 1968, and despite his claim that he was a point man in an infantry combat unit, was in fact trained only as a jeep driver and projectionist (he was trained to operate film-strip machines and movie projectors), according to official documentation from the National Personnel Records Center, the US repository for military records.

Denver attorneys Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman, both colleagues of Mr. Newman at Clear Channel Colorado, then acquired Professor Churchill’s original resume that resulted in his being hired by the University of Colorado. That resume matched exactly the resume Gunny Bob had acquired from his confidential source. On that resume, Professor Churchill cited no combat experience whatsoever, no Airborne training, no infantry training or experience and no winning of the Combat Infantry Badge. Instead, it said his experience in Vietnam consisted of his duties as a “Public Information Specialist,” as which he “wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases.”

Verification of Professor Churchill’s real Vietnam service record was completed with the direct assistance of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.

Gunny Bob notes that in the same 1987 Denver Post report, Professor Churchill admitted to being a bomb-building and weapons instructor for the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group active in the 1970s.

It's funny, I don't see Newmans name anywhere in the sentence above nor of his position as a talk radio host.

As for this article that supposedly proves the Denver Post did some magical independent, detailed investigation, all I've seen is one sentence in a article dealing with various issues dealing with churchill. I think it's clear that Post has based almost all there claims of Churchill's military service on Newmans research. Nowhere is a name mentioned of any Denver Post reported who actually saw these documents, nor have any links been produced that allow anyone to actually read these documents.

I don't understand, why is what I'm asking for so unreasonable. There is clearily enough here to cast doubt on the absolute truth of these claims. All I have asked, from the beginning, and now once again is for the sentence to state this claims as an accusation, not as fact. annoynmous 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, even though the Post does not cite Newman in the Feb 13, and even though that story cites to NFIC and the primary source, you are inferring that Newman must somehow still be the DP's only source, and therefore the story must be inaccurate. Is that about right? Edits must be substantiated by published evidence. Your random hunches are irrelevant here. The article's statement accurately summarizes the DP story from Feb 13.Verklempt 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first this article you speak of is nowhere in the article. Indeed it seems odd to me that the first mentiion of this article is on this talk page. During our miltiple reverts of one another,you never once put this in the article to support your case. The article as stands is linked to an article based on Newmans research.

Second, you have not provided one source or link where we can actually view these documents dealing with churchill's military service. Without these, this is merely hearsay based on what other people who have supposedly read these documents. I'd rather read them myself than take soemone else's intrepretation of them.

Third, the article in question that you say proves your point consists of one sentence in an entire article daling with multiple issues in regards to churchill. Also the fact that the date of this article was after Newman did his investigation suggests that they were basing there claims on newmans research. Just about every source you have provided to support this claim involves newmans name in some way. Just because the Denver Post prints doesn't mean it's instantly credible. You have not given any instance of a Denver Post reporter who did an investigation seperate from Newmans.

I repeat once more that there is little proof to claim this as absolute fact. I am not asking it to be erased entirely, all I'm asking is that it be rephrased as an accusation. Why is that so unreasonable?annoynmous 06:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(1)The Feb 13 DP article is cited in fn 13, and has been for a very long time. It is obvious to any literate person that you have been reverting for weeks without even bothering to read the citations. (2) If you want to read the public summary of Churchill's military records, you can do the FOIA yourself. Anyone can access the summary by request. It was on Newman's website until Oct 2005. Do your own research if you feel the need. However, your personal interpretation of the primary source is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which is based on published secondary sources, not on original research. (3) The Feb 13 DP article is signed by two DP reporters. It does not cite to Newman. It cites to two additional sources. Your unsubstantiated inference that Newman is the ultimate source for this article is irrelevant until you offer some evidence to prove it. (4) This article does not state any "absolute fact" about Churchill's military service. It merely states that the DP reported some inconsistencies. And that is a proven fact. (5) I am beginning to think that we need an RFC on this editor's behavior. He/she/it has done nothing constructive here, constantly blanks the same material without even reading it, insists on inferring his/her Newman bete noir in a DP article that does not even mention Newman, refused to negotiate on the talk page until after the article was locked down, and now refuses to offer alternate wordings. I do not see any evidence of good faith, much less normal literacy or competence with the subject at hand. Does anyone have suggestions on dealing with this person?Verklempt 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected request - add a citation

{{editprotected}} I'd like to add a citation to replace the [Citation Needed] tag following the sentence "The Standing Committee..." in the Misconduct Issues section. The citation is:

{{citation |title = Report and Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct by Professor Ward Churchill|format = PDF|url = http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/ChurchillStandingCmteReport.pdf|date = [[2006-06-13]]|publisher = University of Colorado at Boulder|pages = 16|last1 = Rosse|first1 = Joseph|last2 = Bhagat|first2 = Sanjai|last3 = Bradburn|first3 = Mark|last4 = Bruff|first4 = Harold|last5 = Glyde|first5 = Judith|last6 = Guberman|first6 = Steven|last7 = Mody |first7 = Bella|last8 = Morris|first8 = Linda|last9 = Nauenberg|first9 = Uriel|last10 = Pak|first10 = Ron|Last11 = Pierpont|first11 = Cortlandt|accessdate = 2007-05-07}}

Thanks, GabrielF 15:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the confusion. CMummert · talk 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I'd like to change the coding for the link to "See also: Ward Churchill misconduct issues#Questioned ethnicity" it should simply be "Ward Churchill Misconduct Issues" with a link to the Anchor# Questioned Ethnicity.

Thanks. Petercoyl 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion

Everything Verklempt just said is holy untrue. He claims that article doesn't state itself as absolute fact. Here is what it says.

The Denver Post reports that Churchill's military records 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.[13]

That sounds like a statement of absolute fact to me. The source 13 that is listed is not a link to the actual documents that it implies, it's a link to a post article that cites Nemwans research.

I love the fact that verklemt accuses me of illiteracy when he has produced zero evidence to support his claims. I ask him to produce these documents that Newman based his research on he says "Well they were on Newmans site until oct 2005, but now there gone", you've got to be kidding me. So I'm just supposed to take it on good fath that these documents exist somewhere and that they say what newman says they said. I have asked time and time again for verklempt to produce actual articles and documents that prove his point and all he does is give me accusations of things that exist, but never actuallly provides a link to them or tries to add them to the article.

I resent the idea of trying to ban me from the talk page. I have a right to speak my piece and you have no right to shut me up! I have not insulted Verklempt in any persoanl way, nor have I vandalized anything on this talk page, so to call for m e to be banned is very innapropraite.

The fact the matter is that verklempt has produced little to no evidence to support his position and think that is sufficient grounds for the sentence to be reworded. Sense Verklempt asked for alternative wording I'll give some.

"Churchill's military history has been questioned by Radio Talk Host Robert Newman, who claims that documents show that Churchill was only trained as projectionist and a light truck driver"

That is the alternative wording I'd prefer.annoynmous 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Try again. Your version leaves out the DP's reporting of Feb 13, based on additional sources, including Churchill's military records.Verklempt 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference 13 is composed of a number (8) of references:

Dave Curtin, Howard Pankratz and Arthur Kane, "Questions stoke Ward Churchill's firebrand past," Denver Post, Sunday, February 13, 2005;
Howard Pankratz, “CU prof affirms Indian heritage: Tribe says he's not full member, Denver Post, Feb 3, 2005;
Dave Curtin and Arthur Kane. “CU weighs buyout for firebrand prof,” Denver Post, February 26th 200;
"Ward Churchill's Military Claims Proven False", Mens News Daily (Guerneville, CA: Java King, February 11, 2005);
Calgary Sun (Alberta) February 15, 2005 Tuesday;
Thomas Brown, “Is Ward Churchill the New Michael Bellesiles?”, History News Network, 3-14-05;
Victor Davis Hanson, “The Seven Faces of “Dr.” Churchill,” National Review Online, March 24, 2005, http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503240801.asp;
Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman, “Churchill's active advocacy of violence demands his firing,” Rocky Mountain News, Saturday, March 5, 2005</ref>

Maybe the ref /ref tags should be around each item.

There is no requirement on Wikipedia that all references must point to Web content. I reference without web links can still be verifiable. Uncle uncle uncle 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder if all the adults had left the building.Verklempt 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence (which you kept deleting) not only sounds like an absolute fact, it is a fact, as verified by the first ref in [13]. Hint: what is the main verb in that sentence? 62.56.90.91 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to read any of these articles except for the article the references Newman. Only too of these sources have links and they both come form highly partisan sources

You still haven't provided any source were we can actually read these documents referring too Churchill's Miltary service. As far as I can tell the only person who has seen these documents is Newman. I haven't seen any articles where a Denver Post reporter claims to have actually read these article.

Besides, none of these stories deal directly with military history. From the titles they seemsto deal with many aspects of churchill's life. The only article you've produced that deals directly with military issue is the one that references newman.

I would also like too say that I resent verklempt's condescending tone when he's provided very little evidence to support his claims. I also resen it becasue apparently he refuses to compromise in any way.

I am not calling for this section to be ommitted all together, I just want it to be rephrased. The Feb. 13 artilce has no links to it in thee article. The only solid refernces are the National review articl and the Post article that refernces Newman.

I ask again for an alternative phrasing. Such as "Churchill's military history has been questioned by Radio Talk Host Robert Newman, who claims that documents show that Churchill was only trained as projectionist and a light truck driver". I'm not saying it has to be exactly lke this, but it should be something similar.annoynmous 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that the Denver Post's story of Feb 13 is sourced totally to Newman. You have the citation. If you lack the research skills to find and read this story yourself, that might indicate that you are unqualified to be editing an encyclopedia.Verklempt 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The burden of proof is on you provide a link to these documents that supposedly contradict Churchill's story. Without those it seems a lot of this other stuff is irrelevant.

Once again the Feb 13 article contains only one sentence dealing with the military issue. That is hardly a rock solid piece of evidence.

The only point I have made is that it is false to claim this as absolute fact when the evidence to support it is far from extensive. I'm just trying to come to mutual compromise. Is that something your completely unwilling to consider? If so that seems rather unreasonable.

annoynmous 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn about Wikipedia policy. As you have already been instructed, cites need not be hyperlinked. The Feb 13 Denver Post story contains much more than one sentence on the topic, contrary to your misrepresentation. Here it is again:

Questions stoke Ward Churchill's firebrand past By Dave Curtin Howard Pankratz and Arthur Kane Denver Post Staff Writers Sunday, February 13, 2005 U.S. Army records produced in 2004 in response to a request from the organization News From Indian Country show that Churchill was inducted on Nov. 16, 1966, and trained as a light-truck driver and projectionist. He spent most of a year in Vietnam. The stories he has told over the years of his Vietnam service have varied dramatically. On a 1980 résumé submitted to the University of Colorado, Churchill wrote that he served as a public-information specialist who "wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases." In a 1987 interview with The Denver Post, and as recently as two weeks ago, Churchill described his Vietnam service as more complicated. In the 1987 interview, he said he had attended paratrooper school and been assigned as part of an elite long- range reconnaissance patrol to hunt the enemy. His service records do not reflect paratrooper school, or training or assignment on reconnaissance. At his recent trial on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade, he said he had walked "point" in a combat unit in Vietnam and was called "chief" because of his Indian heritage. "I was on the ground pulling triggers. You can't undo that. And I have an obligation to do what I can by way of compensation," Churchill said in a recent interview. "You can say that is the foundational reason that I do most all of what I do." Lt. Justin Journeay, a spokesman for the Army at Fort Carson, said it is conceivable a truck driver in Vietnam could have seen combat in some situations. But he said he doubted that a driver would lead point on patrol. Churchill has repeatedly declined to comment on the discrepancies between his printed military record and the descriptions he has given of his service.

Now, you need to prove your ridiculous claim that the above story is based solely on Bob Newman's research.Verklempt 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Every article you have shown was written after Newman finished his research. Nowhere in this article do the reporters state that they actually saw these documents and they base there claims off of another organization. As Lulus the lotus eaters rightly said, it doesn' take much imagiantion to see that the Denver post is basing there claims off of Newmans research. You still haven't produced any link to these actual documents that show what they actually say. That seems to render this entire conversation mute. I don't care what the Denver Post claims they saw, unless there is a way to actually view these documents the claim remains unproven.

All I'm asking for is a mention of Newmans name and a rephrasing of the sentence. It's clear that he was the cataylst for this claim and he should be mentioned in the article.

You claim that the documents were once on Newmans sight, but there now gone. Well surely with a little research you could find them again and that would prove your case. It seems to me the burden of proof is on you to provide the hard evidnce you say exists. annoynmous 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the "hard evidence", in the form of the Denver Post cite. This meets every qualification as a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Your and Lulu's "imagination", on the other hand, does not meet Wikipedia policy for sourcing. You need to educate yourself as to Wikipedia policies. The article as it stands is well-sourced and well-worded to conform to what the source states. If you don't like it, you would need to provide some contradicting evidence.Verklempt 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this qualifie as "hard evidence" when you have failed to produce the actual documents of Churchill's miltiary service. Sense this article came out after newman released his findings, it's very likely that the Post was just quoting from his research. Maybe they did there own research and actually viewed the documents, but I would say there is sufficient reason to doubt that given that this article was written after Newman did his research. I was wrong in stating that the section was only a sentence, but it is one part of an article dealing with several issues pertaining to churchill. It hardly qualifies as an in depth investigation, let alone "Hard Evidence".

Real hard evidence would be finding the actual documents that deal with Churchill's military service. If you really want me to shut up and go away then all you have to do is find these documents and show me where I can read them. Just me taking you at your word that they were once at newmans site is not enough, I want a link to them. If they truly were posted on newmans site then they must still be out there somewhere and it shouldn't be that hard to find them. Why don't you just do the research and find them and if they say what newman claimed they said then I'll admit I was wrong and shut up.

Otherwise I will continue to insist that the article as it stands is based on flimsy evidence and should be rephrased to include newmans name and make the sentence more an accusation than an absolute fact.annoynmous 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that you repeatedly deleted is:

"The Denver Post reports that Churchill's military records 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.[13]"

That is a fact, as confirmed by the first ref in [13]. You are demanding evidence for a different statement from what is actually there. 62.56.90.91 09:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am done attempting to negotiate with that editor. It has lied repeatedly about the contents of footnotes and sources. It refused to go to the Talk page until the article was locked down. It refuses to familiarize itself with Wikipedia policies. It demands that other editors conduct original research and provide hyperlinks, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There seems to be no way of breaking through its fog of density and dishonesty. I'm finished here. The article stays locked down until it loses interest and drifts away.Verklempt 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm done too. It seems that it doesn't matter what I say, Verklempt is determined to keep the article exactly as it is and will make no exceptions for anyone. All I asked is that Verklempt actually provide actual evidence to prove his point, I don't understand how that's violating wikipedia policy. God forbid he should have do to some work to prove his claims.

I'm going to cease responding on this talk page sense it ultimately seems futual because verklempt is unwilling to compromise in any way. Yes, I may have originally wanted the entire sentence gone, but as I have said repeatedly on this talk page, I was willing to come to a mutual compromise. I even gave a suggestion of how to improve the wording, but verklempt obviously wants it his way or no way. I get the feeling that no matter what suggestion I made that verklempt would refuse to come to a consensus.

With the article blocked and verklempt refusing all my suggestions for a compromise, I've come to the conclusion that responding on this talk page no longer serves any purpose. I guess I will have to wait till the article gets unblocked.annoynmous 10:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit history shows that Verklempt bent over backwards to acknowledge your complaints. He added quite a few cites in response to your concerns about the Newman resarch. Verklempt's new cites meet all of the requirements in WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't understand how your demands contradict WP:V and WP:RS, that shows a problem on your side, not Verklempt's.Pokey5945 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am violating some wikipedia rule such as assume good faith I apologise, but I thought that I should point out that the username of the person you are arguing with is ANNOYnmous (emphasis mine). Again, sorry if this was inappropriate to point out, I just hate to see people wasting their time taking someone seriously who does not even take themselves seriously. This appears to be the antics of a common internet troll, rather than a serious attempt at wikipedia editing. 24.57.207.199 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Annoying" complaints did lead to an improvement in the article, in that it spurred me to enter the additional citations.Verklempt 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A new development

I would like to update this article, but for some reason, the page is blocked from editing. Just in case the editing ban is lifted at some point, here's the headline news: University president recommends firing controversial professor

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- The president of the University of Colorado has recommended that a professor who likened some September 11 victims to a Nazi should be fired, according to the professor and the school. Ward Churchill, a tenured professor of ethnic studies, has denied the allegations and threatened a lawsuit if he is dismissed. CU President Hank Brown made the recommendation in a 10-page letter sent to the chair of the committee that handles tenure issues. University spokeswoman Michele McKinney confirmed published reports about the recommendation Monday but said the school would not make the letter public.

Sounds to me like something that should go into the article... Turgidson 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UT

I clicked on that link and found a page not found message. Albion moonlight 11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Click on this.

http://www.wardchurchill.net/ Perhaps an administrator can be asked to add this external link to the article.

I am open to discussion about it before I make the request myself. If any one wants to make such a request on their own then go ahead and do so. Albion moonlight 11:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking to wardchurchill.net would seem to violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:External_links, in that it is a blog. Policy discourages links to "blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Since wardchurchill.net is published anonymously, there is no recognized authority. Policy also discourages links to: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Such stuff abounds at wardchurchill.net.Verklempt 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You've already added this link to the Misconduct Issues page, where it is appropriate. Since it deals solely with Churchill's various defenses for his misconduct, does it need to be on this page as well?Verklempt 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It deals with the 9/11 and probably ethnicity stuff as well. The main article has paragraphs and plenty of links to rocky mountain news and academic sites about the controversies. I see know reason not to include it on the main article. wardchurchill.net? of course it should stay. Unless u are trying to maliciously strip the article POV stylee. --maxrspct ping me 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "main article." The link http://www.wardchurchill.net/ goes to a web site that publishes pro-Churchill defenses. I'm agnostic on adding the link here. It think it is redundant to have it in both articles, but there's no great harm in that. Certainly if pro-Churchill websites are added, then anti-Churchill websites should also be eligible. That is why I added pirateballerina.com on the other article, to achieve an ideological balance. If one is added here, then the other should be added as well.Verklempt 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again you get things mixed up. That website has PRIORITY because it is ward churchill's academic defence website. It is not a blog. --maxrspct ping me 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence do you make this assertion? You do not know who owns and operates that website. Given its uncertain authorship, why should it get priority over say, pirateballerina.com?Verklempt 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Its an obvious blog. Anonymity only serves to exclude your pitiful site even further. -- maxrspct ping me 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are both blogs. Pirateballerina is not anonymous; wardchurchill.net is anonymous.Verklempt 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pirateballerina is a true blog with plenty of racist rubbish on there. Yes it appears there isn't much in the way of site developer info on the wardchurchill.net (understandable really), but it is obviously a place to post messages of support from academics et al and information regarding the case and is close to Churchill himself. Pirate ballerina is just unacademic, slanderous and waffle. It also violates WP:BIO of course. -- maxrspct ping me 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Denver Post report -- maxrspct ping me 11:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are both clearly advocacy blogs. Neither of them is "academic" in the sense of being mainly concerned with objective research by experts in an academic discipline. The anonymous blog is solely pro-Churchill and does not publish anything critical of Churchill. The other has an anti-Churchill editor but also includes many pro-Churchill links as well. Pirateballerina has linked to academic articles published in refereed journals. The other blog has never linked those articles, because they expose Churchill's misdeeds. So what makes one more worthy of adding than the other, without violating NPOV? Can you honestly link to a pro-Churchill blog and exclude an anti-Churchill blog without violating NPOV?Verklempt 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No the .net isn't a true blog as you have just pointed out - it is different to pirateballerina.. and is obviouly sanctioned to be ward churchill's website for countering claims.. it is not meant as a amateur essay forum. and is not a slanderous blog dressed up as academic. -- maxrspct ping me 09:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't request that that one be added because it is made redundant and confirmed by the other link. But feel free to do so. Albion moonlight 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one? the ward churchill.net? maxrspct ping me 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Max go ahead and ask that the Denver post link be added if you like. I think there is room for both but since the other one is already mentioned in the Misconduct page....... With that said I think that mediation and then perhaps arbitration may be the answer in the long run. There is way too much bickering and edit warring going on pursuant to this article. Albion moonlight 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg

Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

^ Radio host Bob Newman published these military records to dispute the Denver Post 1987 claim that he had trained as a paratrooper and in reconnaissance. ("Ward Churchill's Military Claims Proven False", Mens News Daily (Guerneville, CA: Java King, February 11, 2005); Retrieved August 11, 2005).
^ "Ward Churchill's Military Claims Proven False", Mens News Daily (Guerneville, CA: Java King, February 11, 2005); Retrieved August 11, 2005).
^ Paul DeMain and Jodi Rave, “Controversial author Churchill enrolls as associate Keetowah.” ICC News Service, http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/ICCNews_Churchill_02.jpg; http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_resume_80.jpg

[1] Radio host Bob Newman published these military records to dispute the Denver Post 1987 claim that he had trained as a paratrooper and in reconnaissance. ("Ward Churchill's Military Claims Proven False", Mens News Daily (Guerneville, CA: Java King, February 11, 2005); Retrieved August 11, 2005).

[2] "Ward Churchill's Military Claims Proven False", Mens News Daily (Guerneville, CA: Java King, February 11, 2005); Retrieved August 11, 2005).

[3] Paul DeMain and Jodi Rave, “Controversial author Churchill enrolls as associate Keetowah.” ICC News Service, http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/ICCNews_Churchill_02.jpg; http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_resume_80.jpg

[1]

[2]

[3]