Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 9

Protection

I have protected this page after viewing the request at WP:RFPP. The goal is to encourage discussion here and to let things settle down. Please try to hammer things out here or at least come up with a consensus version. Wikibofh_(talk) 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For after cool-down

The page was protected for a bit, which seems fine. I think it's not necessarily all that necessary, since the main problem had been User:Fluterst, who got him/herself banned indefinitely on unrelated (or semi-related) issues. But a breather is still good.

I'd like to suggest an effort to de-escalate discussion after the page is unprotected. Pokey5945 and I clearly disagree widely about both the seriousness and plausibility of the allegations made against Churchill, but let's just "agree to disagree". Going around in circles on this is just going to annoy both of us. I commend Pokey5945 for his productive page edits, I do not (and have not) believed that his POV has prevented him from adding generally helpful and NPOV material.

As to passing by users, usually either anon IPs or brand new accounts, who want to insert vitriolic diatribes or random oscenities: just don't do it! It's fine for you to get all excited about watching Bill O'Reilly, but the world already has plenty of right-wing blogs that you might write for. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore not the appropriate forum for such material.

Happy new year! (unless you have a belief system that goes by a different calendar: in that case, just happy day!) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, the amount of discussion is overwhelming.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 16:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotected. Go ahead and cleanup, and we'll watch to see if semi is appropriate. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Book reference template...

If someone is feeling energetic, the books should be changed to use the book ref template. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New McCarthyism

What the hell is up with the "New McCarthyism" section? The title alone is ridiculous. People have every right to critique this guy, did some fan post this or what? (unsigned, anonymous IP post)

If you were to read the section you would see that the phrase (in quotes in the section title) is a quote from University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman. If you have a beef with the University President, you should take it up with her. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section is pertinent.

Hoosier 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat on NPOV

Wikipedia has an NPOV requirement. Which doesn't mean that we can't discuss allegations of misconduct; it means that we can't start from the hypothesis that the allegations are already proven fact. It means we can't exclude sources that favour other interpretations. It means we can't phrase our original writing on the topic in such a way that we're seen to be favouring the misconduct interpretation. It means we have to show both sides of the issue fairly. It means we have to at least present the possibility that, as Lulu points out above, Churchill is actually either right or honestly (i.e. not through deliberate academic fraud) wrong. Bearcat 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I do agree that the article should not prejudge either Churchill's guilt, or prejudge his innocence. Rather, it should present the views of qualified experts. Unfortunately for Churchill, the only people who have spoken out in his favor are not experts on the specific issues at hand. WRT the smallpox issue, the scholarly experts have all repudiated Churchill's view. And so Lulu has interpolated a long quote from George Tinker, who does not appear to have any expertise on the topic. I've repeatedly asked Lulu to provide verification of Tinker's expertise re the smallpox issue, but Lulu refuses to do so. I do not think Tinker's quote is relevant to this section, due to his lack of expert standing on the topic. It would be relevant to include Tinker's quote in another section on the overall merits of the Churchill affair, and I advocate moving the Tinker quote to a concluding, big picture section.Pokey5945

Churchill in Counterpunch

Churchill has stated in an interview with Counterpunch that he has revisited the issue of the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and it is actually worse than he thought it was.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html

"I'm now preparing in-depth essays, both on what happened at Fort Clark in 1837- it turns out to have been much worse than I originally contended, involving not just a couple of low-ranking army officers but the Secretary of War himself-..."

The issue I believe is that Churchill's contention of US Govn't involvement is critical to his overall assertions of genocide. It needs to be included, with examples of pro/con support. Hoosier 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This quote is included in the sibling Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) (or at least it was when I last looked, unless someone took it out). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking while reviewing the archives (here included)and have been wondering: should we present the, "fors and against" at this time? Shouldn't we waint until the committee has finished their work? Should we address the assertions of both the academics, radio talk hosts, and the allegations as well as the refutations at this point? Then we can address the rest afterwards. btw...I have not reviewed every scholar with the expertise and opinion on the original documents to say that Churchill is refuted. So I don't know. He is accused of not having sufficient evidence from his cited sources to draw the conclusions that he has regarding the 1837 smallpox epidemic. Hoosier 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing archives and page history is certainly fine. Be careful not to understand the point of an encyclopedia entry. It's not like a political debate where all sides are presented, and given equal time. Of course, we must also not simply present one POV either. But there's an idea underlying this about what facts are notable, not simply which are verifiable. I don't think it would be bad to include some more stuff on talk show claims, refutations, et alia (either here, or more likely in the sibling article), but we're aiming for useful and to-the-point articles, not simply archives of everything we can find that anyone said or wrote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Only seeing the tip of the iceburg, blind to the rest

Pokey5945 in regards to your comments here. You characteristically missed my entire point, Your comments actually proved my point that I made. You are seeing the tip of iceburg, and appear uninterested in the larger story, the underlying reasons that Churchill is being attacked.

I was attempting to widen the debate in asking why is Churchill singled out, why don't "mainstream" historians who repeat the offical party line of America as a beacon of freedom and democracy get attacked and scrutinized like Churchill? You ignored my entire argument. I was expecting more, much more. I was hoping for an intellectual rebutal, but I got none.

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957

Pokey5945, Beveridge couldn't have said it better.Travb 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read my response again. I agree with you that Churchill has been attacked because of his political rhetoric. Why would I attempt to rebut you on a topic in which we are in agreement? Pay attention!Pokey5945 23:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I have tried to follow the argument and Pokey5945 you seem like the better debator. For me, if Churchill broke academic rules he should be punished, irrespectible of his political affiliation. I enjoyed and learned a lot from his Pinkerton article, which I will post a link too here when I find it online.Travb 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aparently, Travb feels that someone anti-americanism is more important than what they say or do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterforfreedom (talk • contribs)

Dispute re "Allegations" fork

It seems to me that Lulu's forking of the Allegations section into a new article constitutes POV-mongering. Lulu opposes forking the McCarthyism section (which represents the pro-Churchill perspective), but has forked the Allegations section that represents the critical perspective on Churchill. To fork one while reverting forks of the other is blatant POV mongering in my opinion. Meanwhile, Lulu labels those who revert the fork as "vandals." This is characteristic ad hominem from Lulu, and he continues to avoid substantiating why one section should be forked but not the other.Pokey5945 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Article size
• Wikipedia:Summary style
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles

Moreover, you yourself, Pokey5945, earlier endorsed exactly this refactoring (I can dig up the diff, if need be; it's probably on a talk page archive by now). The issue here is nothing other than article size: before refactoring the article was around 60k, approximately equally split between the biography part and the criticisms part. In general, it is desirable for pages to be under 32k. If there is anything you can suggest to make the links between the two sibling articles (or parent/child, depending on how you think of it) more prominent, I have nothing against that; though the tags I used seem to be the standard approach.

I do not necessarily oppose refactoring the "New McCarthyism" section. I do oppose an undiscussed merge of that into McCarthyism. Refactoring into children and merging into an unrelated (or very loosely related) article are two very different issues. In general, merges require votes, and appropriate notice with "merge"/"mergesection" tags on the articles. The discussion here is pretty closely focused on Churchill rather than on the general concept of "McCarthyism" that a few quoted people use.

I think it's conceivable that an argument could be made that the "New McCarthyism" section fits better in the "misconduct allegations" sibling article. I debated that a bit. But given the prior continuity of sections, it seemed to work better as it is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support any of your alternative solutions. What I don't support is exiling the critical perspective while retaining the pro-Churchill perspective. That fails NPOV. BTW, it's refreshing to see you negotiating politely.Pokey5945 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with putting the "New McCarthyism" section in Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) as it stands is that the title of the sibling article is really not right to include that. I might have used a more neutral sibling title like Ward Churchill (political disputes), but I was pretty sure you'd be apoplectic if the title failed to condemn Churchill. But I do kinda agree that the section doesn't flow entirely smoothly in the main article either, it's not purely academic biography, which is more-or-less the "bare facts" of "who is Churchill?". OTOH, the rather short section is really not enough to make up its own article, so it still seems best where it is, of the options available.

Btw. If you'd try to tone it down, Pokey5945, editing would go a lot more smoothly. Despite your anti-Churchill beliefs, your edits started out relatively NPOV before you started to escalate the anti-Churchill diatribe stuff. For example, in the sibling, repeatedly deleting the Tinker section with the allegation that Tinker is a "non-expert" (while insisting that Brown belongs there, even though he's even less of an expert) is only intended to agitate edit conflicts. Something like trying to come up with a relevant section heading that would include Tinker would be actually productive editing; blanking relevant material with confrontational edit comments really is not such. Obviously, the flow needs to make sense still. Since Tinker is questioning the weight or merit of the Brown allegations (as is the Churchill comment you inserted about "don't know if Brown is 7 ft. or dwarf"), it should connect to that in the reader's mind. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Local and national issues

Ok kind peoples, I have been organizing. It seems that Pokey and Lulu are, "on-track". And I hate to be an occasional contributor. I am reluctant to edit. But one concern that I have is although the controversy went national, "therefore the McCarthism", it is as much a local battle. We have previous accusations against Prof Churchill by Caplis & Silverman that he did not sign the loyalty oath, then when he did he violated it by his "Seattle" comments, that he violated Title VII by signing the AA form in 1978 that he was, "Native American/Indian", and a host of other violations. C & S took out a full page ad listing their, "case" against him.

The loyalty oath issue is indeed an interesting topic that is not addressed in the article. I know a little about it, but just from talking with my mother who is in Colorado and more-or-less "connected" to a lot of politicos on various sides. I don't know enough to actually write a section on it (I could learn/research, but in terms of off-the-cuff).

In terms of the local (i.e. Colorado) perspective in general, I think something interesting could be included, but again, I can't write it. While the whole "Churchill Affair" has been discussed in the national press, it's been discussed even more, and with a somewhat different slant, in the Colorado press. We have to think of notability for a world-wide encyclopedia here, but just because something is a "Colorado event" so-to-speak, doesn't automatically mean it's non-notable. But again, someone else would need to get this started (maybe in a third sibling article, since it's not quite either the generic academic bio, nor the "misconduct allegations"... perhaps the "New McCarthyism" stuff could move to this hypothetical third sibling, if the right title was found). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, none of these issues are brought up any longer. I presume it is because the University of Colorado has spoken and limited the investigation to his scholarship and representation as Native American (since a non-factor). But I do believe it is important in the imbroglio section. Both KHOW hosts are practicing trial attorneys, and were the experts on OReilly. Silverman is a former prosecutor. So this was not exactly Neil Boortz promoing his, "fair tax plan." However, they did have a show to promo, as well as OReilly.

In an earlier post, I stated the desire to explore the artwork controversy further, but have not found a "verifiable source" that I can use. I have my own sources in the arts community of Indianapolis, but that would be original research. Anyway, until ihave a verifiable source, I can't/won't expand the section. Hoosier 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting has been his decades-long feud with the American Indian Movement. It's odd that a person who wrote two books about COINTELPRO got his start working for Soldier of Fortune magazine (a CIA mercenary recruiting tool), then created a splinter faction of AIM, appropriating AIM's name, claiming that all AIM chapters are autonomous, then supported recruiting of mercenaries for the Contras, etc. See www.aimovement.org This is the real controversy that makes WC such an interesting character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.42.201 (talk • contribs)

Yeah... I agree that much of that is quite interesting, and quite odd seeming. Some of it is in the article already, but if it could be expanded in a NPOV manner, that would be useful. Of course, just saying "It seems very strange" isn't encyclopedic (even though I agree with you). The Colorado AIM separation is an interesting topic; Churchill wasn't the only major name involved in that. In fact, if you could find verifiable sources, it might make an interesting article in itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I added a bunch of citeneeded tags to the article. Citations are needed for: childhood facts, some of the quotations, and widely-known facts about WC (i.e. he resigned from his position as chair, and so on). Though the last of these are known to everyone who read about the debate, they still need to be accompanied with a specific reference. Hope those of you who are more familiar with WC and the WC controversy than I am will fix all of these. --Pierremenard

First thing: thanks Pierremenard for these suggestions/questions. Max rspct yanked them back out; I suspect because he mistook them for a variation on the vandalism this page very frequently suffers. So to Max respct: I can vouch that Pierremenard's intentions are honorable, not bad-faith. OK, good-faith attributed all around, I think you got slightly carried away, Pierremenard.

A lot of the bio facts of academics are given in WP articles without specific citation, unless they are in dispute. For example, because you had mentioned him elsewhere recently, I had taken a look for the bio on George Lakoff. I'm not holding this up necessarily as the best of all possible academic biographies, it just happens to be one of reasonable length that I read in the last day. But let's look at the facts you feel need citation for Churchill:

• Where born.
• Parents divorced/names/siblings/family synopsis.
  • Not given for Lakoff; my hunch is most bios don't bother citing this.
• How listed in yearbook.
  • Not given for Lakoff, though I tend to agree this specific fact could use citation.
• Years and type of military service.
  • Not given for Lakoff (probably because not applicable); what do other example bios do?
• Years and places in school.
• When University job started.
  • Given without specific citation for Lakoff, and I think for most academics.
• Remark by Churchill on Casteneda within paragraph about Fantasies of the Master Race
• Same thing with characterizing Indians R Us
  • Several similar forms in Lackoff bio that characterize particular books. Unless there is a specific dispute in the characterization, I don't think we need: "on page N it says this; on page M it says that".
• Resigned as chair
  • No exact Lakoff analogy, but I think this is implicitly part of academic career, and unless contested, the sort of thing you would expect to find in Churchill universisty page given in references, or in similar general background
• Colorado House anti-Churchill resolution
  • OK, my comparison page is proving worthless :-). I think this could use a specific citation. It's not contested, but ideally a link to the exact text and procedure would be good.
• UH speech invite.
  • This feels like general narrative background that doesn't need cite unless contested. It sets the stage for the later quotes from that speech that are cited more specifically.

So we've learned (a) my attempt at a good analogy page falls down; (b) I think much general background isn't really contested, and hence doesn't need citation beyond the general background reference given at bottom. But sure, let's discuss the details of what needs support and what doesn't. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my experience, actually, a large ugly-looking number of citeneeded tags usually generate more work on the part of everyone than inserting a small unassuming number. This was my motivation for inserting the tags.

With regards to the issue at hand, I have the following points to make:

(a) Its true that many bios suffer from not citing sources and this article is far from the worst (and is in fact, quite well written and well above average). But nevertheless, this ought not to be a reason to be complacent about this article. Being better than other biographies is not the same as living up to wikipedia policies. For this reason, I suggest that we not consider other biography articles.

(b) You make the point that unless we have a content dispute, we don't need a specific citation at this moment. I think, though, that wikipedia policy is that all the facts must be cited. WP:CITE says "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source." Though the emphasis is on contentious information, this sentence obviously implies that when you add any information, it must be cited.

I don't disagree with this as a principle, of course. I think, however, that for a certain class of general biographical information, a reference link to a persons "official faculty page" or the like is fine, even if it appears only at bottom, rather than near each individual fact. So, for example, if we write: "Professor Foo (born 1943), obtained her Ph.D. at Big State University in 1979, and has taught at Private College since 1991." All of these facts would be reasonably expected to occur in the university faculty page linked at bottom, so we need not say of each of the three clauses "(see Uni bio)".

Agreed. --Pierremenard 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(c) I'm not insisting on "page N of X" after every sentence. For example, one reason why many biographies do not cite year of obtaining PhD is that under references they contain pointers to biographies, which would contain such information. I do not object to adding something under references, without adding a citation after every sentence. --Pierremenard 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went through the article again. I agree that you are right that descriptions of books are fine as they are now. I still think though that the personal biographical info at the beginning needs a source, as do the facts about Bill Owen and the Colorado legislature (note that I am not disputing these facts - I remember reading in the news about the events described in this article, and I agree that this article is a faithful summary - merely saying that to meet WP:CITE those sections need to be improved). --Pierremenard 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, Churchill's Uni bio is linked at the bottom, and covers some basics of the facts stated. But I'm 100% agreed that the Owens and CO legislature stuff needs more specific citation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mean this? I don't see any of the above-mentioned facts in there. --Pierremenard 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

academic free speech

I took out the phrase "has reaffirmed Churchill's right to academic free speech" as POV. It implies that the university's making a different decision would have constituted a denial of Churchill's right to academic free speech. Not everyone sees it that way. In addition, the rest of the sentence provides the relevant facts. --Allen 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Campus Watch

An editor had added the characterization of Campus Watch as "left-leaning". That seemed fair to balance the prior mention of "conservative pundits" in the paragraph. But then I took a look at the Campus Watch website itself: [1]. Basically, the characterization doesn't seem supported. Director Daniel Pipes is extremely right-wing, and editor Michael Rubin is affiliated with the ultra-right American Enterprise Institute of all things. Some of the other staff or board seem more liberal-ish, but I don't see any I could actually call "leftist". If anything "right-leaning" would be closer to the truth... but I think it's better to avoid trying to characterize it at all. Readers can follow the link, and make their own judgement about the organization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems?

Looking for citations, I noticed that the first paragraph of the article under "Early life" is copied word-for-word from here. I think thats a copyright problem, though I'm not 100% - ualaska.com is the website of the university of alaska, which is affiliated with the state government. I'll remove it unless someone more familiar with copyright than I am wants to insert it. --Pierremenard 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's copied exactly, it's questionable. But the fact his mom and dad had those names, and so on, are not copyrightable. So if we just rearrange the sentences to state the same things in our own words, that's safe. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, I don't think anything Pierremenard took out because of the copyright concern is important to have, however rephrased. Churchill's parents have names, worked places, he has some siblings, etc., but none of that feels very notable or important; it would be unusual to include any of that in other biographies unless that parents or siblings were themselves notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

do we really need to quote the Revolutionary Communist Party?

I took out the sentence about "a number of organizations and individuals" charging "witch hunt". I looked at the reference given; it turns out it was Churchill himself who was being quoted there. Then I looked up the attribution for the quote that comes next. It's from the Revolutionary Communist Party's party newspaper. I fixed the attribution, but I recommend we take it out entirely. Why are their views on this subject notable? Even the official Communist Party is marginal in the United States. --Allen 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that also; and agree that RCP is a rather partisan source (though no more so than Fox News on the other side). Actually, the RCP journal Revolution was once a shockingly good theoretical journal, back in the late-1980s to early-1990s or so (comparable to NACLA or the like, to my mind, or more mainstream American Political Science Review; much better than the CP's rather hack Political Affairs). Unfortunately, sometime before the mid-1990s, Revolution became pure party-organ posturing, with nothing of any theoretical interest.

I had put in the quote earlier, and thought it was from Campus Watch, since Campus Watch had reprinted the article (I'm not sure if CW changed their webpage format since I first saw it, or whether I just overlooked the original source attribution). However, in the main, the quote is used to present the comments of University President Hoffman, which seems germane. We could quote somebody else quoting her, but the fact Hoffman made such comments is notable. Notice that I also added to today a link to the Rocky Mountain News quoting a couple other more mainstream academics, to the same general effect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; Hoffman's comments should be there. I'll leave the RCP quote in unless I can find another way to include Hoffman's quotes. Thanks for adding the Rocky Mountain News link. --Allen 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest additions, Lulu; I think they've made the intent of the witch hunt charges clearer. --Allen 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's a way to extract just the Hoffman comments, that seems fine with me. We could clip out the last paragraph from the RCP article, which is their own editoral take on it. But then attributing it to RCP is slightly irrelevant, since it's really just a few words presenting the actual Hoffman quote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

'fragging' in allegations page

CReynolds, you added the "fragging" quote to the "allegations" section. I feel like that section could be expanded somewhat, to make it a more complete summary of what's in the "misconduct allegations" page. But I think having one topic be included in more detail than others makes the section seem lopsided. How would you feel about scaling the "fragging" info back to the way it was, and instead adding a few sentences that better outline all the allegations against Churchill? --Allen 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It might expand a little bit, but we should keep in mind the point of the refactoring: to make each article moderate sized. Generally when a section links to a "main article", it provides just a minimal synopsis of what will be found in that other article. Certainly, every general topic occurring in the sibling should get a word or clause, but there's not need to explain "if you were to read this other article, this is what you'd see". In terms of the "fragging" thing, we have a clause indicating it's among the allegations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My primary motivation for including the "fragging" quote was because Lulu had denigrated Churchill's comments to "allegedly" advocating the killing of US officers. As his comment clearly shows, it wasn't an allegation. Churchill, a vocal opponent of the war, did say that the killing of officers as a sign of opposition would be much more impactful than simply being a conscientious objector. While there is a separate article discussing all of Churchill's malfeasances, this is one of his more notable comments which I beleive deserves mention in this primary article on him.--CReynolds 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a violation of WP:POINT, and is at the very least disruptive editing. If the exact characterization was inaccurate, you could reword it, but it is wholly inappropriate to repeatedly copy over large swatches of material already contained in the sibling article as a way to criticize the brief characteization in the existing summary.

Please try to read the wording carefully rather than through some haze of indignation. It had been inaccurate earlier, because the scope of the adverb was wrong. Before I fixed it, it had said:

...and has allegedly made remarks advocating that soldiers kill their commanding officers.

After my edit for precision it now says:

...and has made remarks allegedly advocating that soldiers kill their commanding officers.

The first is actually not true. The remarks that Owens and others cite was actually made (and is quoted in the Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) sibling article), and no one disputes that the statement was made. What is only alleged is that Churchill's remarks constitute "advocacy" of fragging. Specifically, to support the governor's assertion, the remarks would need to be a form of criminal incitement; that assertion is almost certainly false since Churchill was speaking to a group of civilians and did not name specific officers who might be fragged. So the governor's legal sense of advocacy is more-or-less evidently untrue. But does it constitute "advocacy" in a more informal political sense? Maybe. Churchill points out that conciensious objection has much less effect on the conduct of wars than does fragging; at one level that is more-or-less an obvious fact (though Churchill's audience of pacifists might often delude themselves otherwise). Does he go further and say that therefore fragging is good? Well, maybe. It's not obvious. It's not quite like Churchill was quite so explicit in this advocacy as to, for example, quote Thomas Jefferson: From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. But there's probably an insinuation in that direction.

The point is, that for someone who knows how to read, what Churchill is or is not "advocating" is not unambiguous. And little partisan rants don't create facts afresh. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop your hysterical accusations of violation of WP:POINT, please. Just because we can have an honest disagreement on the meaning of one of Churchill's comments doesn't mean anyone that doesn't hold you POV is automatically "disruptive". I would almost agree with you that the first part of Churchill's statement, where he asks those "pacifists" if they would be as supportive of those directly murdering their officers as someone who just wanted to become a conscientious objector, borders on the theoretical and could almost be construed as not "advocating" murder. However, he follows that up with this statement:

...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.

At this point, he's telling his audience how to be more "impactful", and that crosses into advocating an action. If someone in his audience did go out and murder a military officer, whether they were already an enlisted person or someone who just happened across that officer somewhere else, Churchill could be criminally liable. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I won't posit on the strength of that case.

All that being said, I would agree with Allen that the section should probably be expanded, perhaps a bit more detail on each of Churchill's various misdeads (and there are many), but perhaps leave the meat of "fragging" comment to the linked article.--CReynolds 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The clear violation of WP:POINT is in the de-factoring of the sibling articles to... well, make a point. If you think an encyclopedia entry has the purpose of "demonstrating misdeads", you really need to read WP:NPOV.

It is indeed reasonable to allege that Churchill's comments constitute advocacy of fragging, which is exactly what the clause says now. But any real details of how the comments might have been interpreted or intended belongs with the longer discussion in the sibling article. If you propose a different (but still non-POV) clause to briefly characterize what is discussed in the sibling, that would be fine. But WP:SIZE is a WP guideline, and violating it out of WP:POINT is extremely bad form. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very certainly not a lawyer, CReynolds. The legal theory you advance above is about as watertight as a sieve. There is a meaning to these things, going back to U.S. v. Schenck. 249 U.S. 47 at 53 (1919). And you're not even close. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

latest changes to intro

I reverted the recent change to the intro, regarding the Eichmann quote, as POV. Churchill said, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." (I'm quoting from the link given in the article.) He is comparing people to Eichmann; he is not comparing the results of actions of people to the results of actions of Eichmann. Some people's interpretation may be that he didn't mean quite what he said, and if sourced that would be a fine addition to the article. But he said what he said. --Allen 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Amcbride here. Churchill was comparing the people to Eichmann in terms of comparable effects of their actions (that's in the essay itself, no outside source is needed); but we need not get into so much detail right in the lead. The later section discusses the Some People Push Back essay in more detail, you can't have every later section already in the lead. The single pithy phrase does pretty well capsualize (but not fully flesh out) the point Churchill is making. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A great man

This a great man, why is everyone ganging up on him? Just because of the US corporate media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UF (talk • contribs)

Why would you think that the media would be coloring people's views? The media can certainly color views on grey issues, but there isn't anything grey about Churchill's comments regarding 9/11. Those comments were made to shock and offend, and they did. Until then, not many people knew of or cared about Churchill, so you've got to wonder if there wasn't some calculation on his part to get everyone to "gang up on him"—maybe he just miscalcualted how strongly people would respond to his vitriol. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is fine on the talk page, just keep both of these POV things out of the article please.

But to Doug: do you really think that Churchill wrote and published an essay in 2001 with the grand plan that Fox News would "discover" his essay in 2005? That idea is... well, insane.

I think it would be great if we could somehow impose a technical filter on this page. Anyone who had not heard of Churchill prior to 2005 should be banned from editing the page, since they haven't the foggiest idea who he actually is, and shouldn't be working on a bio. For that matter, maybe also ban everyone who hasn't read something by Churchill other than "Some People Push Back"... not necessarily all his books, but at least say, one article in a popular magazine, of the dozens or hundreds he published before (or since) 2005. Arguments from ignorance really get under my skin (and this included the probable troll, UF). 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that Churchill's plan was so specific to how it turned out. I was merely making the point that one purpose of hate speech can be to garner attention. There can be lots of reasons why someone would want attention, but generally it would be to draw attention to themselves, their cause/point of view, or both. When or in what form the article eventually did garner attention is not necessarily relevant to the intent in making the statements.

Calling any of Churchill's writing "hate speech" pretty much just discredits you at its enunciation. It's absurd, though I suppose parroting Bill O'Reilly has you saying lots of equally absurd things. But the 2001 essay that was "discovered" was pretty much the exact same tone that Churchill had been writing in since the mid-1980s, in every one of his extremely widely cited books (among academics, that is, not among know-nothing Fox News fans). Obviously, he didn't write about the WTC attacks before they happened, but the rhetorical quality (but underlaid with quite intelligent analysis and broad historical knowledge) is just Churchill's schtick, and always has been.

Oh well, more argumentum ad ignorateum. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to respond, why not respond to the argument I made instead of framing it as an argument I didn't make. Instead of attacking me, counter my point. Since by your standards, you don't have the foggiest idea who I am, perhaps you should apply a filter on your comments regarding me.

Actually, I skimmed your book before 2005, so I guess I do know, by my standards. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As to your desire for elitist control over the content of Wikipedia...well, I'll just let your comment speak for itself. It says volumes about who you are. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I desire for WP to follow WP:NPOV. I've yet to see anyone who has edited this particular article, but had not heard of Churchill prior to 2005, come anywhere close to obeying that policy. If you want to call "writing an encyclopedia, not a political diatribe" eletist, fine, I guess it is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to refresh your memory, here was my original edit to this article. I'll grant that attributing outrage to O'Reilly in relation to this segment was not correct as he did not use the term to describe his motivation until a later date than the referenced segment. However, to say that my edit did not come anywhere close to obeying WP:NPOV is disingenuous and your characterization of my edit as WP:POV was not WP:AGF. My edit clearly was an improvement to the article by removing the prior POV that existed. So there is at least one person who had the good fortune not to have encountered Churchill prior to 2005 who has managed NPOV. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... my edit comment in removing the POV aspects of the diff you point to was: Tone down POV and OR attribution of motives of speakers[2]. And as we've been through about a million times already, you can say that Campos "described himself as appalled" or O'Reilly "described himself as outraged", but you can't say in an NPOV was that they were appalled/outraged. Other than the minor POV in your wording, your edit was perfectly fine, and I never said otherwise; mentioning Campos' appearance added some info. I can't believe what a tirade that extremely mild and strictly policy-required edit sent you into, or that it still hasn't stopped! Or that even after lots of alleged apologies, you keep on with all this WP:PA stuff. Ughh! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I guess you are saying that you have seen a "close to NPOV edit" from someone who has edited this particular article, but had not heard of Churchill prior to 2005. Glad to have that cleared up. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill and Marxism

This is a slightly thorny issue. I added the Category:Marxists a while back; based in large part on Churchill's engagement with Marxism in, i.e. Marxism and Native Americans.[3] Churchill certainly utilizes a lot of Marxist concepts and is familiar with its tradition and thinking. But his comments on whether he is himself a Marxist go in different directions, depending on context. Then again, it was Karl Marx who famously proclaimed: "I am not a Marxist"... so the question is not necessarily entirely simple. I would say that Churchill is certainly "a thinker in the Marxist tradition", and that's why it seemed useful to let the category reflect him (but not notably, Category:Marxist theorists, which is more about people who shaped the tradition than simply followed from it). My sentiment is that it's more useful to include Churchill in the category than to exclude him; but like many of those listed, he is not unequivocal in his self-inclusion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the category. I'll accept your explanation of why it belongs. I was not aware of his Marxism and Native Americans; I was basing my classification off of his statement (can't remember where, or precise wording) that the precondition for change in the U.S. is ending Native American oppression, because the U.S. is founded on it, and on some Marxist criticisms I've seen of his work. Kalkin 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to you, DKalkin, on putting that category back if you're convinced. I don't want to step on toes about this; I recognize it's borderline as a category membership. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A bit more on Churchill's relation to Marxism can be found in Churchill's essay: False Promises: An Indigenist Examination of Marxist Theory and Practice. As well as the abovementioned book, he also wrote Culture versus Economism: Essays on Marxism in the Multicultural Arena (both of these are listed in this WP article, FWIW). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scandals

I added this category and Max rspct reverted it with the comment inappropriate category as unproven allegations part of academic dispute. I'd like to point out a scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. There is no threshold of proof required for a scandal, only that it is widely publicized. I think that fits, so I put back the category. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the scandals category is appropriate to the sibling Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) article, but is not really appropriate to this main biography article. The alleged scandal lies in the alleged misconduct, not simply in Churchill being born on such-and-such date, writing such-and-such books, and other such bio stuff. Otherwise, the category could equally be added to every biography of a figure who was in some way controversial, which seems like overcategorization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Lulu. Jamse 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Category is inappropriate.. Perhaps the category needs renaming, since this an encyclopedia not a tabloid. A scandal is usually named as such after conclusions have been reached by notable, unbias sources not just wild accusations. At the moment there is no negative judgment (on this level, or court/academic comittee level) on Churchill. How would folk feel if we added Ward Churchill to censorship category? Same kind of POV effect? -- max rspct leave a message 13:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise—and because I had it in the back of my mind anyway—I split off the essay controversy, both the condemnations based on it and the accusations of witchhunts. That leaves what is here as a pretty straight academic bio, which I strongly believe is best. However, I think there's a certain point to Doug Bell's flagging the previous main article with "cat scandal"... spinning off the essay controversy lets me flag that child/sibling with the category, pretty appropriately. Of course, different people will differ on where the scandal lies (i.e. Churchill using inflammatory language or persecution of academic speech)... but in either case, the category works.

Actually, I don't think the 9/11 controversy is a scandal. The scandals are the accusations of plagiarism, disputed claims of Indian heritage, academic fraud, art fraud. Controversy and scandal are not the same thing. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think the whole scandal category is a little bit silly as a whole. But given it exists, I was motivated to do the refactoring in good measure as a way to satisfying your desire to have the scandal cat attached to this article. I presume whatever you might find a scandal isn't the fact Chruchill was born, or published some books, but rather the stuff not refactored into the 9/11 essay controversy. I'm not attached to that cat in that sibling, so feel free to remove it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)