Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 12

Churchill suggested that the people working in the World Trade Center on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001 were guilty of some kind of war mongering. But he is wrong.

In the human brain, there is a place where the fresh blood arrives. That is a very active area. Full of life and exuberance and joy. It is a healthy and very active and wonderous region. New York is that part of the brain. And those towers were the glimmering monoliths. And they were too. Beautiful, uniform, massive, redoubtable, with inflexible quality and character.

Young men and young women aspired to greatness, and they went to college and showed promise and pursued degrees and graduate degrees, and the businesses in those towers called the Deans frequently, and got the list. And made the offers. And ushured those folks out there and showed them nice apartments and the best parking garages, and signed them up to the health clubs.

And then one day, they looked up from their desk and watched a nightmare coming right at them.

And that doesn't sound very much like Adolf Eichmann. Please reconsider your argument. And by the way, the Indians say you're not an Indian. Can you please check the family tree again?

(I would like to suggest wikipedia consider adding this section from time to time. Perhaps such responses could be posted, and rated, and the top rated one will be displayed.)

I have deleted the Ward Churchill misconduct issues article for violating WP:BLP. I encourage the editors of this article to incorporate such material from that article as is relevant and does not violate our policies on biographies of living persons into this article instead. I will happily make the text of the article available to editors who need it; send me email to request this. Nandesuka 02:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you please specify the violations? That article was achieved through endless negotiations. A lot of sweat and blood went into that piece, with input from people of all different stances on the various topics. To delete it without giving any specific criticism or any possibility to fix the issues is overreaching.Verklempt 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If there are BLP issues to be fixed then let's discuss them; however, your heavy-handed deletion of whole articles is completely inappropriate. As far as I can tell you have not even outlined what the issues are. You just deleted them. That does not seem to be editing in good faith. You have not consulting in any way with the other editors. You actions seem to violate Wikipedia's policy of cooperation and consensus. What are the specific issues and why haven't you shared them with whole group? Wikipedia makes it very clear that merely ONE editor cannot remove whole articles without discussion. You haven't even mentioned what the BLP issues are--you just deleted whole articles. I would ask that you put the articles back in Wikipedia and then outline, just like other editors do, what the issues are so we can discuss them. That is the avowed policy of Wikipedia and the way that it is supposed to work. If there are BLP issues then outline them so that they can be fixed, but under the current system all we have is complete deletions without discussion or even an explanation what the specific issues are. I would ask that you bring the articles back and then discuss where you believe the problems are.--Getaway 12:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And a good riddance it was. It was basically a diatribe. I was hoping it could be fixed but the administrator did the right thing. It was very close to slander. Albion moonlight 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not even close to "slander". Slander only involves the spoken word. Wikipedia is written. Slander does not apply.--Getaway 12:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Getaway: now you're arguing on this trite semantic quibble?! Of course Albion moonlight should have used the word "libel" rather than "slander". And that's a silly mistake, of course. So what?

I'm actually not particularly convinced that the article was libel. It was definitely trending in a bad direction, predominantly because of the edits of Getaway and Verklempt. But I'm not sure it reached libelous. Then again, BLP is a fairly new policy—at least as enforced so rigorously. Most of the negotions that went on were under the "old regime" for biography articles. I do tend to think that Nandesuka overreached here (having probably not followed the article history much); but I can see his/her motivation. LotLE×talk 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is overreaching involved.--Getaway 01:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And this article too fit the bill. It too is a Coatrack that is in dire need of what the essay on coat racks refer to as Brutal Reduction. My best guess is that that the comedy of errors that led up to the deletion of the misconduct issues article will lead to the speedy deletion of this article as well. We have been afforded a chance to fix it. We should seek the assistance of the admin who deleted the issues article and fix this one. Is that asking too much ????? Albion moonlight 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight 10:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead is waaaay too long. Some summarizing and clarification is needed. What exactly is he accused of plagiarizing?--Gloriamarie 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. The plagiarism was described in detail on a page that an admin deleted without discussing it with anyone [1]. Here’s a link to a cached version of the deleted page: [2]. Cheers! Steve8675309 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 

Hi folks. I don't know what the edit war that caused the article protection was about, but the article has been completely protected for two months. Meanwhile, the main image for the article has been deleted, leaving an ugly red link. I asked a friendly Flickr user to make his image free, and he obliged, here it is. But technically since the article is protected, I shouldn't put it in. I can, of course, since I have mystic mop powers, but usually I shouldn't flash those around just for editing.

So three questions:

1. Is the editing dispute settled? Can we unprotect the article, like 99.9% of the other articles in the Wikipedia, without it immediately melting down into a pile of smoking rubble?
2. If not, can we reduce it to semi-protected, so at least registered users can edit?
3. If no to both of those, can I get a consensus of editors that I can at least replace the dead image with a live one?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone else reduced the protection level to completely unprotected, and it was immediately vandalized. It's at semi-protected now. Thanks for adding the image; I see someone cropped it. Eh. That's what happens when it's released, I guess. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Churchill was fired by the regents of the University of Colorado. The vote was 8-1. Please update the page with this information and the following cite. [3] Steve8675309 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also change the heading to say "former professor". Additionally, I'd suggest the following citation instead [4], as it's from a national newspaper rather than a local one. Striking comment - local source included the date of the firing. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another link for the story if you need it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• :Brace for a flood of 'contributions' of the anonymous type to this article... I also hope that more thoughtful editors bear in mind that Churchill's supporters will try to paint his firing as academic censorship when the truth is he was canned for academic misconduct, including plagiarism. It had nothing to do with his comments and writings about 9/11. There is a significant record of this man already misrepresenting himself, including outright lying about his ethnic background -- let's not let that be trumped by whatever bloody flag of 'censorship' someone will inevitably try to wave here. The man is a fraud and deserves what's come to him. Alcarillo 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is fascinating! Holon67 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course it is. Always has been. Alcarillo

Several profs have found fault with the...with the findings. They are charging the committee with distorting, suppressing, and fabricating evidence. Please view the committee's report, and the responses, in the section titled "some links" below.

I'm willing to swallow it if he's truly found guilty of academic misconduct, but the little dirt they did (allegedly) find, even if it does hold up as grounds for dismissal, is not enough to dismiss his entire body of work.

But I'm afraid you're right, we can expect a flood of "contributions." 64.81.167.175 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Could an administrator please delete the link to the deleted image at the top of the page? Thanks. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)   Done --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is unfair:

A former[1] professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Churchill was widely discussed and criticized in the mass media in 2005, for a 2001 essay in which he questioned the innocence of many of the people killed in the World Trade Center attacks, labeling them as "technocrats" and "little Eichmanns."[2] .

Nowhere in this article is the actual quote mentioned, in context or otherwise, nor are any of Prof. Churchill's many attempts to clarify.

I would expect this kind of writing from the sensational press, eager to sell newspapers, but this is supposed to be Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, a place for facts.

If the introduction is going to do as the press is gleefully doing, reducing this man's lifetime of work to one inflammatory quote taken entirely out of context, if that really is considered to be the part of his life most worthy of an introductory paragraph to a Wikipedia article under his name, then at least be fair and include the actual quote, preferably in context, instead of just paraphrasing it in such a way that it twists the meaning.

Churchill's words are inflammatory enough, so why isn't the press quoting him? Because when taken in context, they are actually defensible. People can disagree with him, or be outraged, but at least they can see how he arrived at his position. That's why nobody's including the actual quote in the press. Instead, they paraphrase him in such a way that the remark seems inedfensible. It makes for a nice barbecue, and nothing sells papers like a skewered bad-guy.

Churchill has plenty of enemys, in high places. This is a field day, a lynching. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, should remain outside the mob and present the facts.

What about the rest of the article? You know - the parts exposing his bogus claims that have nothing at all to do with 9/11. Percentage of article-wise, the 9/11 stuff takes up a pretty small part. Isn't that what you're asking for... for us to focus on the man, his works, and his academic problems? And if you are looking for more complete coverage of the 9/11 stuff: first, it would take up a disproportionate amount of space in this article, and second, it's pretty well covered here - with context included just like you've asked. Rklawton 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. I wikified the first instance of the controversy (beginning of 2nd para) to direct people to the 9/11 essay controversy article. Alcarillo 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess the the wikification covers it. It's a shame that after all his work, this is how he'll be remembered, but that's a different issue. Thanks, Alcarillo. 64.81.167.175 08:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence beginning the section "Misconduct Issues" contains a weasel word, namely the use of the word "findings".

This article rightly notes that the issue of Churchill's dismissal on the grounds of research misconduct is not resolved considering that he has brought legal action against the university.

Thus in claiming definitively and conclusively that "there have been findings of academic fraud and plagiarism" in the "Misconduct Issues" section, this article contradicts itself.

By definition, there have been allegations of "academic fraud and plagiarism", but you cannot merely assert (without providing a source, no less) that there exist solid "findings".

I'm changing this misleading statement from "findings" to "allegations".

Ottawastudent 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The university did "find" that Churchill was guilty on multiple charges. The university's determination was distinct from any legal proceeding. The solution here is not to replace one weasel word with another. It is to write the sentence using active verbs: "The Unviersity found Churchill guilty..."Verklempt 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my suggestion used a weasel word, however I do agree with you that using active verbs would serve nicely in this situation. Ottawastudent 03:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that those following this case provide wider background and commentary regarding the "self-plagiarism" issues involved. Whatever the political motivation of the proceeding, the bottom line is that from now on, American academic writers will also need to adhere to the new technical standards set by this precedent. In particular, as I understand the case, it is now considered an actionable case of academic dishonesty to copy one paragraph from a document you've jointly authored with other people into another document without citing all those authors. Less clear to me is what measures might work to protect authors in the future. For example, can the joint authors of a document "give permission" to one another for future "plagiarism" as they could for copyright, or does the nature of plagiarism preclude such permission? Can an author reuse a section of a jointly authored paper provided he feels that he wrote most of it, or does the section need to be entirely his work?

Also, given that Churchill was faulted for issues pertaining to simple pamphlets, does this signify that any writing an academic employee produces is regarded as an academic work subject to these standards? It seems like even Wikipedia editing could be affected by this precedent. Mike Serfas 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

we would need reliable sources linking this analysis to Churchill. Also copyright and plagiarism are completely separate issues. YOu can have a coyright violation with plagiarism and a plagiarism violation without a copyright violation. --Tbeatty 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These issues have been explored in great depth in the child article Ward Churchill misconduct issues. However, many editors, who are sympathetic to Churchill's comments, have been trying to have that information removed from Wikipedia. They have not provided realiable reasons so far, but they have accomplished having most of the article shuttered. The history is still available at that cite.--Getaway 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the CU Investigative Committee, the issue wasn't self-plagiarism. It was that Churchill fabricated evidence by citing to his own ghostwritten stuff as if it were an independent source. That is a more serious offense than self-plagiarism.Verklempt 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the report from the committee that investigated him, in pdf:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf

Here are two docs responding to the charges against him:

An earlier doc from May 10:

http://wardchurchill.net/files/misconduct_charges_letter_and_supporting_docs.doc

...and this one is from May 28, different details, in pdf:

http://wardchurchill.net/files/rm_indig_sch_052807.pdf

...and here's the letter Churchill released in February in hopes of clarifying his "Eichmanns" comment:

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0201-05.htm

And here's my four tildes: 64.81.167.175 07:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In 2004, Churchill asserted that, in the case of Columbus Day parades, the U.S. Constitution's Ninth Amendment for native Americans overrides the Fifth Amendment of non-native Americans and that such parades are unconstitutional. Legal scholars has dismissed this argument as carrying no practical weight in higher U.S. courts.

I am still looking for text material to this effect. The best I have is "Question #4" here, which is a transcript of this yourtube video.

I have found this video and also this one of law professors saying that the argument would carry no weight in court. Certainly, we can find a way to put this in the article.--SallyForth123 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! The short of it is, in his view, "unnamed rights trump a named rights," and that's just silly. Rklawton 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not put the words in the subject's mouth, nor do I judge them. I just report them with the benefit of hindsight. He lost his job in an 8-1 vote, so my guess is that he is not going to get it back. The plagiarism and dishonesty charges do a lot of damage and this guy has already taken more than his turn to speak. If this were an American football game, it would be pile-on time.--SallyForth123 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are too many quoted phrases in this article. Wikipedia should be able write brilliant prose without resorting to quotes. If this subject made a historic speech that needs a quote, fine, but I do not think this guy is at that level. Please think about scan the article for double-quotation marks and replacing the text with our own brilliant prose.--SallyForth123 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it does not help that we say that "This newspaper said this..." and "That newspaper said that..." in the article prose. We should write our own brilliant prose and simply supply the supporting articles. We should boldly state facts. If we do not know, then say nothing. If some assertion that Churchill has made is disputed, then state so. I find the that current "quotey" approach in the "Ethnic background" section to be tedious to read. We should be able to make one or two assertive sentences to lead off that section and then put the whole Keetoowah thing in its own paragraph.--SallyForth123 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your stylistic recs. The "this newspaper" language emerged because of a recent troll who insisted that said newspapers did not say what they said. Now that he has thankfully disappeared, perhaps we can return to a more reasonable writing style, if only Lulu would behave himself.Verklempt 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another gripe of mine is "footnotitis" or "refitis". I think that this effort to get the footnote on the exact noun, verb or subject of the sentence is silly. All footnotes should go at the end of the sentence or, when practicable, the end of the paragraph. We do not really need to cater to people who cannot keep the entirety of one of our short paragraphs of information in their heads at any one time.--SallyForth123 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who think that objectivity is a good thing. Please click on the above link and read it. The American civil liberties union is backing Churchill. Albion moonlight 11:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So what??? This is an encyclopedia. It is not to take a stand either way. Your post above is just based upon your personal politics. I don't care if the ACLU is so-called "backing" Churchill. What is your point of your comment? This talk page is not designed or to be used to debate whether what Churchill did or didn't do is a good or bad thing. It is to be used to discuss making the article better. You have not expressed an opinion on how to make the article better. It sounds like you are defending the guy because the ACLU is "backing" him? In what way are they "backing" him? Are they stating that he is the greatest person to ever walk the planet? No. ACLU, who cares? I guess that this post makes the argument against including the link because AM's post indicates that the link is being used for partisan purposes.--Getaway 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity? ACLU? I fail to see the connection. Alcarillo 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than the belligerent tone, Getaway is right on this. The ACLU supporting Churchill's lawsuit doesn't mean it is (they are) correct (nor that it is wrong). The fact, however, might be something suitable for mention in the article—if so, it merits only very passing mention though. LotLE×talk 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending Churchill at all. I have noticed however that this article has attracted editors new to the article. Editors who may be capable of having a neutral point of view. I put that link on this talk page in order to encourage them to research the matter and to perhaps see both sides and pursue a balanced article. Getaway's personal politics seems to be getting in the way of his objectivity. His belligerent tone is quite telling. This in fact an encyclopedia. Some editors are using it to take a stand against Churchill. Is Getaway one of them ? The answer is obvious to some of us. Objectivity is a tool that allows one to achieve neutrality. Albion moonlight 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Lulu care to explain why he keeps deleting the passage about Churchill being hired under a diversity program because of his claim to Indian identity?Verklempt 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he thinks that it adds balance . But it is an interesting question........ Albion moonlight 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it at first because I've not seen evidence of the fact. Nor is "see the misconduct article" a valid source. I went through the entire PDF report, could find no mention of Churchill's hiring or tenure being related to his claim of ethnic identity. If it's there, by all means include it, along with a verifiable reference to the specific section of the report. But like I said, I searched for anything related to his hire, and the only thing brought up was that he was "controversial". See page top of page 100 of the report. Alcarillo 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at my last few edits, you can see something of the history of Verklempt wildly inventing claims unsupported by the sources he gives. The bit on diversity hire is another one of those vague right-wing speculations, with only the thinnest insinuation of actual evidence. As much as Verklempt and Getaway would like condemnatory information to dominate the article, it is not acceptable to recirculate rumors from anti-Churchill blogs, and claim that is "proof". LotLE×talk 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's hire under the diversity program was reported in the mainstream Denver newspapers. The cites are right there in the Misconduct Article. You did read them before you started making these wild ad hominem accusations, didn't you?Verklempt 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I see there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were referencing CU's misconduct report, instead of the now-deleted article Ward Churchill misconduct issues. The sources aren't exactly great -- just a publication and date. It would better to have at the very least the name of the newspaper story cited. This is for reasons of verifiability than anything else. Alcarillo 15:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lulu has repeatedly deleted a passage saying that the WU leaders did not confirm or do not recall Churchill's participation with the group. Any rational person watching that video clip will come to the same conclusion. So why delete it? Justify your position.Verklempt 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage is utterly and wholly irrelevant. The Churchill attackers want to insinuate that Dohrn and Ayer state that Churchill did not participate in any contact with WU member (trying to suggest Churchill lied; never mind that they cannot possibly speak for all actions by all WU members). The video says nothing of that sort, and in fact nothing at all related to this biography. It has Ayer saying that "memory is faulty and varies between individuals", then going on to praise the work of Churchill (more of the praise by Dohrn, actually). Misquoting one clause, then misconstruing its significance, is unfortunately the entire M.O. of Verklempt and Getaway. This is yet another rather gross example.

While we're at it, why not dig up a list of everyone else who "does not remember" Churchill doing... whatever. I personally have no recollection of Churchill being born in Illinois. Verklempt probably wasn't even present when Churchill wrote his Roosting Chickens essay. Hank Brown failed to witness Churchill's Vietnam service. All of it about equally germane as Verklempt's nonsense. LotLE×talk 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your analogies are pertinent. The WU was a very small group of terrorists. If Churchill had indeed taught them bomb-making, don't you think that the core members would have remembered him? Don't you think that he'd be mentioned in the FBI's exhaustive list of WU members and fellow travelers?

The passage in question is factual and well sourced. You are complaining about what it "insinuates." This project is about stating relevant facts. You are advocating excluding this fact, and you need to justify your position. When you advance trivial analogies, you demonstrate that your argument is not serious.Verklempt 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of that one link etc is speculation based on insinuation. --maxrspct ping me 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly is speculative in the blanked passage?Verklempt 22:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. The placing of that passage is speculative and based on inference. There is no argument claiming Churchill didn't assist WU, there is no evidence there. The inclusion of the passage is pointless. --maxrspct ping me 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understood your position, I would not have asked for clarification. The passage in question does not state that Churchill didn't participate in WU. It states that the group's leaders don't recall his participation and cannot confirm it. That is a factual statement, not even close to speculative. You have yet to identify a speculative component to the passage in question.

Furthermore, there is a point to including the passage. Churchill claims to have worked with the WU. But there is no evidence that he actually did work with them, and the group's leaders cannot remember him. Given all the information, an astute reader can assess the data and decide for himself whether to believe Churchill or not. Why do you want to conceal all of the relevant data? Do you not trust readers to be able to think for themselves?Verklempt 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevent data? It is not data. It is just two people stating that they cannot remember. It is a non-source for a non-argument. And re: your last line. Please 'ASSUME GOOD FAITH'. --maxrspct ping me 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about two random people, Lulu's distractions notwithstanding. We are citing the oral histories of the two leaders of a very small terrorist cell. It is a fact that they cannot remember Churchill working with them. That is not speculative. That Churchill is not mentioned in the FBI's exhaustive WU census is a fact as well. Furthermore, there is an argument on the table. Churchill has claimed that he worked with the WU. The absence of any evidence to support Churchill's claim is a relevant fact. Once again, I must ask you to make an argument based on reason and evidence to justify excluding this passage. You keep shifting your grounds. First you say it's speculative. When asked to specify what is speculative, you can't come up with anything, and you shift to saying "it's not data." I'm not certain how to address that last argument, other than to ask what is the problem with including it and letting readers make up their own minds?Verklempt 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So. Again. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Typical posting by you. Do not make accusations E.G SHIFTING MY GROUNDS. You are gathering a few fragmented observations/inferences and are making a case for Churchill not being involved with WU. This is what is called WP:Original research, and is a speculative variety of it as you wish to put together or persuade through 'hints' to the reader of your POV belief. It is not sourceable and the video is not a source to support an argument because it is not verifiable evidence that W.Churchill did not do this or that. --maxrspct ping me 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your third argument against this passage. You make it difficult to take your arguments seriously when you yourself are not committed to defending them.

Furthermore, how are you assuming good faith when you accuse me of POV or OR? I am not advocating any OR or any POV argument. I just want to replace a relevant data point into the article, one that has been blanked by a POV-warrior. I want to allow readers to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Why do you want to deny readers access to this data point? It is relevant to the passage, well sourced, verifiable, and does not violate any Wikipedia policies. So where is the problem? I await your Argument Number Four.Verklempt 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civil. You are beginning to break up.. I have just been explaining the same argument. Your last paragraph does not add anything, and is empty of any serious defence of what I criticised in my paragraph. Do stop coatracking, POV, speculation and original research for the sake of the article. I have nothing more to add. --maxrspct ping me 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no way for me to defend against straw man accusations, and so I don't even try. I'm still waiting for you to specify the sentence that you think is speculative. You have yet to identify a single speculative component of the disputed passage. Vague accusations do not substitute for a specific, reasoned argument from evidence.Verklempt 02:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing , - only one sentence. Don't accuse me of straw man tactics.. you are just playing out down the road from Godwins Law. The ditty is an insinuating commentary that is introducing an argument. This is leading on from and pickbacking on the Rocky Mountain News article on his time in Vietnam which has been used as a legitimate addition to the article.
From Wikipedia:No original research:

1. It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines new terms;
4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source

--maxrspct ping me 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage in question is not OR. This research was conducted by Grant Crowell, a journalist and documentary filmmaker. The source is a youtube clip from his documentary. It is an interview with eyewitnessses, the two leaders of the WU. Are you complaining that their memories are too untrustworthy to be included, or are you complaining that my summary of their statements is not accurate?Verklempt 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wp OR - "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" . You have not sourced the whole documentary or any argument that is being made by the maker. --maxrspct ping me 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Crowell makes his argument very clearly on the cited youtube page in its clip summary:

"Churchill told the Denver Post that he had worked with SDS and Weather Underground in the late 1960s. Churchill claimed that he taught members of the Weather Underground how to make bombs and fire weapons. However, Weather Underground leaders Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers do not recall Churchill ever participating in that movement. Filmed at the University Colorado-Boulder in December 2006 by Walking Eagle Productions."Verklempt 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats not an argument. That is an interview question. You have no argument to support with this clip. The only argument is your POV construction and insinuation of what is going on. What are you a GNAA super-troll?? Are you to re-emerge when we are all 60? "Yes,,, it was me.. we all planned a combined assault on wikipedia back then.. twas agreed in a dark smokey room. Do I get a medal now?"--maxrspct ping me 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote I posted above is the written summary that Crowell put up with his clip, not an interview question. In fact, it is exactly the same statement that was in the Wikipedia passage under discussion here. We've established that the passage is not OR. So please explain your next rationale for blanking it.Verklempt 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the comments underneath the youtube tv are bang on it.. not usable as a source. --maxrspct ping me 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with some of the comments, but the issue here is whether the statements by Dorn and Ayers should be included in this article, or whether they should be blanked. I agree that the youtube commenters are not appropriate sources, but Dorn and Ayers certainly are.Verklempt 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Video maker is obviously biased though he does not appear to make any significantly substantial argument on that youtube page. He is in conflict/dispute with at least some of those he has filmed on that day. The clip is from youtube, the interviewees make it clear they do not want to be quoted and see themselves as not the right people to comment. The video maker smuggled the camera into the meeting. Has made serious racial slurs against Ward Churchill [5]. Video maker has provided no contrary evidence that casts serious doubt on statements made by Ward Churchill. You are making no tangible argument yourself .. just the same insinuation as the video clip. Not usable. The clip is from youtube, violates Wikipedia:BLP and also violates these and other policies -->

From: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

--maxrspct ping me 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How many different arguments have you thrown against the wall now? First you claimed the passage was speculative, but couldn't say how. Then you claimed it was OR. Once you realized you were wrong about that, you've come back with an entirely new argument.

I agree that the source is biased, but so what? NPOV demands that various sides of an issue be presented, to allow readers to make up their own minds. Any intelligent person can watch that video and decide for themselves whether the argument is convincing or not. To exclude it is to impose your own POV, by pretending that a controversy does not exist. Your complaints about RS and OR amount to WP:Wikilawyering on behalf of a one-sided POV presentation of the issue. Those policies are indeed important, but they are of trivial relevance in this discussion, and NPOV should take precedence.Verklempt 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is speculative as the source and placement of it speculates and insinuates without any evidence. NPOV is still subject to notability and original research policy. It seems that if you can't have it your way, Wikipedia article polices become trivial or diminish because they are of no further use to you. Wikilawyer yourself! - Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The clip is not verifiable, and crafted and appended in a way that belongs in armoury of conspiracy theorists. --maxrspct ping me 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not verifiable? Anyone with a computer can view the clip and make up his own mind. How would you rewrite the passage to eliminate the conspiratorial element you perceive?Verklempt 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the rewrite is simple: it consists of zero words mentioning an utterly irrelevant video. Not even one that is verifiable in the inane sense of "downloadable". Likewise, we should omit the latest Jessica Simpson sex tape that makes it to Youtube... not withstanding the fact that readers can "make up their own minds" about its relevance. (Note: I have no idea whether there actually are any Jessica Simpson sex tapes; I think I saw a headline at the checkout at my supermarket). Even as sophistry goes, Verklempt is scraping very deep in a large barrel to try to find a thread of connection between the Ayer/Dohrn video and a 1987 Denver Post article (all to somehow magically produce the conclusion that Churchill lied about something).

All we know is that Ayer states that his own memory is imperfect, and that he does not remember an event at which nobody ever claimed he was present. Actually, I don't think including the Post reporter's claim about Churchill's WU/SDS contacts is all that important to start with; but it at least rises to the level of giving a vague feel for his early life, and politically formative experiences. LotLE×talk 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Dorn/Ayers video as exculpatory for Churchill. Either he taught bomb-making to terrorists, or he pretended to teach bomb-making to terrorists. Isn't being a pretend terrorist better than being a real terrorist? Furthermore, we are not talking about one event and one person. Dorn and Ayers say they never heard of Churchill until he started publishing.Verklempt 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lulu has repeatedly deleted a quote from Ernestine Barry, who was the Keetowah tribe's enrollment officer. She is the tribal authority who is best qualified to speak on Churchill's claim to enrollment, and to his claim that the tribe verified his genealogical status. Why delete the quote? Justify your position.Verklempt 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has a perfectly good statement, well cited, of Churchill's status with the UKB. To add a diatribe against Churchill by Berry (on the apparent sole grounds that "she's an indian") is a damn obvious coatrack violation. But Verklempt also knows this full well... that's his intention, after all. LotLE×talk 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Lulu! You have deleted the Ernestine Berry's comments four times in one day (actually in about three hours)! You are officially engaging in an edit war. Why don't you stop. The quote is from someone who actually reviewed Churchill's application for tribal status. She reviewed all of his material and she is has stated flat out that he could not provide any evidence of his claim. Her quote is based upon a reliable source. It has been in the article for almost two years and NOW you are arguing that it is a BLP violation. Why? There is no better, more reliable source than a member of the tribal counsel that reviewed Churchill's application. There is no better source. You want to leave in the Rocky Mountain News article, but the Rocky article is NOT the best source because the best source is the tribe that made the review and the decision. And who is a better source than a member of the tribal counsel that reviewed it. And who is better than the specific tribal counsel member who is charge of the reviewing and deciding membership decisions??? Berry was that person and you are making the ludicrous claim that her comments are irrelevant. That is absurd. She is a member of the tribe. She was on the committee that reviewed his application. She was in charge of the committe that reviewed his application. There is NO, NONE, NADA, other source better than her. You just don't like what she had to say and you want to remove it from the article. I am concerned that Wikipedia is not allowing a tribal member to have a legitamite chance to respond to Churchill's claims. Why do want to remove the comments of a qualified, reliable source on the topic? Also, why are you violating the rules and reverting over three times????--Getaway 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Be honest getaway you got blocked just like lulu did. Albion moonlight 06:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 06:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be honest. Anyone reading my comment above will immediately see that "She's an Indian" is not the "sole grounds", or any grounds at all, and see that you have misrepresented the issue. Barry's official status as tribal enrollment officer makes her the best qualified person to comment. The quote's relevance goes beyond Churchill's status with the tribe. It also addresses Churchill's claim that the tribe has verified his genealogical claims. Without this quote, that issue is not addressed in your version of the article. Please justify your blanking in terms of the issue at hand.Verklempt 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit comment reads: "This paragraph completely misrepresents the source. It's absolutely original research." And so you blanked the entire para. First, please explain what you think Dorn and Ayers are saying in this clip. I am baffled as to your accusation that the para misrepresents what they said. I thought it was a very close paraphrase of their comments. Second, this passage is not even close to original research. The "research" in this instance was conducted by Grant Crowell, a journalist and documentary filmmaker. The youtube clip is from his documentary film, and he is directly addressing the issue raised by the 1987 DP article. There is not even a whiff of OR here.Verklempt 05:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the cited YouTube video in no way supports the statement it was cited in support of. Using that as a reference, therefore, completely misrepresents it's contents. Is that statement somehow ambiguous? Nandesuka 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely baffling. You have not tried to answer my first question. The passage you blanked was not "supporting" any external argument. It merely reported what Dorn and Ayers said. Please offer your alternative description of Dorn and Ayer's answer to Crowell's question. What do you think they were trying to say?Verklempt 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nandeuska. I suggest that you quote them verbatim. I googled Crowell he is quite the Churchill basher isn't he ? Did he ever work with "Cointelpro" ?? Albion moonlight 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have considered that solution of verbatim quotes, but the speakers are not terribly articulate, and this article already tends to quotitis. I thought my paraphrase was right on the money. What do you think is inaccurate about it? I still don't understand the basis for anyone's objection to the paraphrase, given the lack of specifics.

Re Crowell, he clearly is anti-Churchill. Some years ago, Churchill took offense at one of Crowell's cartoons, compared to Crowell a Nazi, and publicly wished for Crowell's execution and dismemberment. However, Crowell's POV is not on display in this Wikipedia article. We are simply trying to incorporate the results of his research by quoting Dorn and Ayers on Churchill's WU connection.Verklempt 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are "baffled," I'll explain again. The paragraph I removed was of the form "Statement of fact. (citation that allegedly supports statement)." When I checked the citation, I discovered that, in fact, it did not in fact support the statement. That's called "lying," and is generally frowned upon in serious encyclopedias.

Hope that helps. Nandesuka 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think my summary of the source is accurate, why don't you answer my question and provide your own preferred summary? Wouldn't that be more in line with Wikipedia culture than accusing me of lying? Wouldn't that be more constructive than simply blanking the para altogether? I don't understand why you refuse to address the specific question at hand: What, specifically, is inaccurate about my summary? What, in your opinion, would be a more accurate summary?Verklempt 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are that inarticulate then it reinforces the idea that a paraphrase would be inappropriate. It would be original research. I am also curious to find out what Churchill has to say about all of this. If he sues anybody over the SDS and Weatherman stuff it becomes a whole new ball game. Nandesuka is trying to protect Wikipedia. Your reading of BLP POLICY seems to be at variance with ours. And hey that's not a problem for me. The original research bit may seem like a technicality to you, but to someone who thinks this is an attack article it is important. Use the direct quote and see if that floats. I cannot speak for Nandesuka but it may be worth a try.Albion moonlight 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual info on the Pacifism as Pathology essay page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism_as_Pathology:_Notes_on_an_American_Pseudopraxis was WRONG (see Talk) about the 1998 book Pacifism as Pathology, i.e., sub-title and author -- which book lists as Churchill. See my corrections there, explained in talk section.

Since this page is contentious thought I'd preview what want to put in and see if there are comments.o I would like to change I corrected it to read thusly and the bolded part belongs in the article plus other comment also in bold:

In 1998 Arbeiter Ring Publishing published the essay in a book entitled Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America and listing Ward Churchill as the author. (ISBN 1-894037-07-3) The book included a preface by Ed Mead, a new introduction to the essay by Churchill and a commentary by Mike Ryan. The book sparked much debate in leftist circles and inspired more aggressive tactics within the anti-globalization movement in the following few years.^[1]

Carol Moore 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Lulu has the right idea by reverting the Ernestine Berry comments. It is documented hearsay. This article needs to be either drastically reduced or balanced . The purpose of this article should not be to attack or display Churchill's ethics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Albion moonlight 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If by "balance" you mean it should contain equal parts praise and criticism, that would be extremely imbalanced, since the bulk of public discussion about Prof. Churchill has been negative. By balance, I hope it is meant that the article should be representative of the actual issues that made him a public figure, and that it does not skim over important facts; and not that it must be skewed to give an impression that he has been equally championed and criticized. Preston McConkie 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No! Balance in a Wikipedia context means ZERO praise and ZERO criticism. The point of any WP article isn't to tell readers whether the person or thing is really, really good or bad. It is to neutrally state verifiable and relevant facts about a topic (without putting undue weight on some matters over others, given the overall significance and notoriety of a given topic).

This is what underlies the problem with Getaway's craptastic comment on "the most important matter". Including his speechifying (via other people's quotes) is only important if an editor's purpose is to "prove how awful Churchill really is; and refute everything he's ever said or written" (Getaway's sole purpose in editing WP). If instead, we're writing an encyclopedia (as some of us are trying to), nothing is important except inasmuch as it minimally and neutrally documents facts about the topic. LotLE×talk 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just more of Lulu's personal attacks of people that do not agree with his opinion. Lulu is very similar to Churchill in that instead of providing solid substantive responses to issues Lulu merely engages in ad hominem attacks. These types of personal attacks (e.g., "(Getaway's sole purpose in editing WP)") merely embarass Lulu and hold him back as an editor. Albion, as a new, young editor yourself try not to pick up these types of Lulu habits in your own editing. It will only hold you back like albatross around your neck.--Getaway 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is an encylopedia and not a newspaper or a forum for attacking any living person. It looks like you may be new to Wikipedia. If that is true and you have not read and or understood Wiki's policy of BLP you may find that your idea of balance is at variance with wiki policy. I prefer what wiki refers to as brutal reduction. As for the issue of balance feel free to read the Wiki idea of neutrality. I also fail too see the importance of Ms Berry"s comments. Albion moonlight 09:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Berry's comments are important. She was on the committee that reviewed Churchill's failed applications. She is knowledgable of what information he provided to the committee. She is an enrolled member of the tribe (something Churchill isn't). She is knowledgable of the rules to get approved as a member of the tribe. She is knowledgable of the why Churchill was given an honorary membership and is knowledgable of why the honorary membership was taken away from Churchill. She is the most knowledgable person of the situation. She is more knowledgable than reporters for the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News, for example. Now, I can see why apologists for Churchill would not want Berry's comments in the article because she is the most knowledgable person of Churchill's fraudulent attempts to get membership in the tribe. But Wikipedia is not about writing an article that only pleases Churchill's apologists. There must be balance and she provides the balance to Churchill's incorrect claims. Now, you, albion, might not see the importance, but there are editors who do see the importance and you and Lulu cannot simply choose to ignore concensus because concensus does not agree with your opinion.--Getaway 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The public controversy over Churchill's undocumented claim to Cherokee ancestry goes back over a decade. It is clearly an appropriate topic for inclusion in this article. And who is better qualified to comment than Barry? She is the official expert on the question.Verklempt 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Lulu but I never go against consensus. I am not an apologist for Churchill but I am an apologist for BLP policy. I also think that in the long run this matter will wind up in arbitration, The apologists of Churchill may have more to say about these issues as well. I may add information as we go. But I truly believe that your hatred of Churchill will force you to revert any attempt to achieve |WP:NPOV by anyone. I will give Max and some of the others time to weigh in before I decide whether I think you have a consensus. I really do abhor edit wars. They go against the spirit of Wiki. Albion moonlight 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course you go against concensus. You have even agreed to revert anything that Verklempt or myself makes--which by definition violates concensus. Also, your comment above gives the impression that you believe that only you have the ability to devine concensus. Your comment states, "I decide whether I think you have a consensus" and comment makes no sense because you are not the only person who makes a decision on what concensus is. Also, the Churchill apologists are not the only arbitors of what is concensus is either. You may want to jam your view down our throats but that violates concensus and your comment above indicates your less than stellar attitude toward concensus. Also, following Lulu's understanding of concensus is not the best way for a new editor like yourself should emulate. His reputation for trying to find concensus is not good.--Getaway 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF?! Getaway now believes that "anything that Verklempt or I edit is by definition consensus". This has moved from mere bad faith to serious psychological disorder! (An inability to spell "consensus" doesn't necessarily indicate a very good understanding of the concept either, FWIW).

Hilarious. Lulu can diagnose a "serious psychological disorder" from reading comments on a Wikipedia talk page! Talk about someone who has an ego that knows no bounds. (Dear Albion: Is this the kind of editor you hope to emulate??) What else can Lulu do? Read Wikinews and find the WMD in Iraq? How about solve the mystery of whether Mozart was murdered by reading through the back-biting bits on the talk page of George W. Bush's article? I know what he can do: he can start a whole new form of psychology called "Wikipedia Therapy" and he can diagnose and solve all matters of psychological disorders by reading the tea leaves of Wikipedia's front page, "Today's Featured Article." Man, is Lulu brilliant or what?? May be he can write another Wikipedia article about himself.--Getaway 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, violation of WP policy is not allowed, period. The absolute rules come before consensus on narrower issues. This includes WP:NPOV and WP:BLP which Getaway so regularly violates. LotLE×talk 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to bring the temperature down on this page. Obviously people with a strong to moderate POV of some type will be attracted to change this page, but let's try to suppress exposing it. I just want to get in a couple sentences of facts on what I experienced as the greatest relevance of Churchill. But all the hostility does not make for a productive editing environment. So let's all take ten deep breaths. And since no one objected to what they were above, I'm going to make those changes now, so please don't throw too many pies.  ;-) Carol Moore 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Getting Lulu to calm down. HA! That's not going to happen. He's been hot under the collar for almost two years.--Getaway 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

About the word "balance," again: It is not part of the criteria on BLP. As an experienced and working journalist, I know that the word "balance" is frequently used as cover for ignoring consensus. For instance, when 100,000 Jewish protesters marched in New York City and 100 pro-Palestine protesters showed up, and the NYT gave equal quotes and coverage to both groups, that was not balanced, it was skewed. That type of journalism is based on the idea that every claim must be "balanced" by a counterclaim, no matter how ludicrous.

Welcome to WP, Preston McConkie. You claim on your user page to be a journalist, which is indeed a valuable form of writing. It's also something very, very different from writing an encyclopedia. I have no idea what event about protesters/counter-protesters you're talking about, but certainly there is a misguided misunderstanding of balance that goes into coverage of current events.

Most of what you mention is entirely non-relevant to an encyclopedia, however. Our goal here is not to count up advocates and critics in some sort of current-events opinion poll sort of way. It's a much longer-term project of describing historical events and ideas. While neither you nor I can predict the future (despite the claims on your user page about your ability), the perspective we want to imagine is described in WP:NOT. Try to imagine what readers 50 years from now would want in this biography. That's what we want. All the he said/she said nonsense about trying marshal vaguely insulting quotes sure ain't it.

Moreover, in an academic biography 50 years from now, Churchill will be discussed for his books, with a footnote to the whole CU firing matter. As much as the various ideological warriors want to express their animosity for Churchill as stridently as possible, none of this is very interesting in relation to the biography subject. It is merely that it's all that some very ignorant people happen to know about the subject, what they've learned from crass and transient tertiary news sources. While I don't think anyone here will get the point, it would be a bit like devoting the entire biographies of Louis Althusser or William S. Burroughs to the far worse thing they each did than is anything Churchill has been accused of, even in the fantasies of crazies of Fox News. LotLE×talk 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Althusser and Burroughs are actually pretty good comparisons to Churchill on that one dimension you are alluding to. The major difference is that Churchill's assaults on his wives are less well-documented. Nonetheless, there is strong circumstantial evidence that he was partially responsible for the death of his third wife.Verklempt 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article tilts toward documented criticisms of Churchill, it is only because the vast bulk of public discussion of his career has been critical. Churchill's writings were never widely known among the public until the outcry began, as evidenced by the fact that it was more than two years after his "little Eichmans" statement that the furor began.

Furthermore, the statement by Albion, "I also think that in the long run this matter will wind up in arbitration, The apologists of Churchill may have more to say about these issues as well", seems to say that Albion believes known facts and corroborated statements must be withheld from Wiki just in case something favorable to Churchill happens--in the future. If the issue ends up in arbitration, that should certainly go in this article. But what may happen later is hardly a reason for leaving out pertinent information from a documented, credible source. Preston McConkie 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, welcome to WP. Albion Moonlight was not making any claim about events around Churchill's life in the above. He was referring to the possibility that the behaviors of editors like Getaway and Verklempt would move the matter in arbitration on Wikipedia. There was no speculation or statement about what might happen around Churchill himself in that comment, that was solely a WP-internal questin. LotLE×talk 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Let me help our esteemed colleague Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. The article might go into arbitration over the actions of Lulu and Albion. They have decided to stick together like a couple of meatpuppets and revert any changes that Verklempt or Getaway might make. Also, Lulu's comments about what people will know of Churchill 50 years from now is, of course, the mere opinion of one Wikipedian named Lulu. Churchill's writings will never, ever be worth much in the world of Native American research. The vast majority of his writings are in self-published, non-edited, non-peer reviewed political hack journals and magazines. Ten years from, much less than 50 years from now, most folks will look back at Churchill's writing output and his attempts to gain respect by claiming to be an Indian when he isn't and say to themselves, man, that guy really had a racket going on at Univ. of Co. But no one, but no one will actually read his work or cite it because for the most part it is writing that is based upon his own personal opinion or, in a few documented cases, information that he simply made up. He will go down in history as one of the great academic research fraud cases that was documented and rooted out.--Getaway 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gataway, I support inclusion of the disputed material into the body as a valid source. That said, you yourself mentioned how certain ones engage in "ad hominem attacks". I recommend to all participants on this page, both the individuals whom you cite and you yourself, please refrain from ad hominem attacks in kind. They do not advance dialogue to a meaningful level.Mister Fax 18:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do Getaway, and now Mr Fax also, repeatedly insert the exactly identical reference to the CU ethnic studies page twice at same location?! I entirely agree it's a good reference and that it should stay. But what on earth point are they trying to make by duplicating it in almost adjacent location? Is this going to be another cry of "censorship" because the identical reference only occupies one footnote rather two? Is this going to be another cry of "censorship" because the identical reference only occupies one footnote rather two? LotLE×talk 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone cry, "Censorship!" That is your word Lulu. I guess my plan to drive you absolutely crazy has worked. You are "hearing" (seeing?) things that do not exist.--Getaway 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is a highly controversial person and the article certainly reflects that. I have some issues with the neutrality of some of the sections, including the one on his ethnic background. When reading the references, the paragraph doesn't seem to represent everything the article is saying. I'm sure there are more instances of this through out the article. While a reference may indicate a fact, it isn't NPOV to only address that part of the reference and not the rest of what it says. Wildhartlivie 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you have stated that you think that section is not NPOV. Now the question becomes: How is it not NPOV? Please provide a specific example.--Getaway 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that section is sufficiently NPOV either, it still has an attack quality. But I don't really understand the point about whether the paragraph "represents everything the article is saying". Nor the thing about addressing part of a reference (references are frequently and properly used to support some specific fact, not to discuss everything in a referred-to source). Can you clarify Wildhartlivie? LotLE×talk 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I happened across this article, I had no idea who this person was. But in reading through the article, it really feels to me like it leans toward attack.

As for the NPOV, an example:

However, the United Keetoowah Band responded to Churchill's claim by clarifying that he was never an enrolled member, but an honorary associate member for a few months in 1994, as were Bill Clinton and other honorees. Keetoowah enrollment committee member Ernestine Berry stated that, " [Churchill] could not prove he was an Indian at all."

The tone of the quote is that Churchill was running a scam. Yet, the reference also says that to have full membership one must have 1/4 blood and leaves out the (Cherokee) part of the quote. The article referenced also does not mention Bill Clinton or that the associate membership given Churchill was honorary, or that it had been revoked. To me, this slants the entire paragraph to non-NPOV and does make it sound like an attack. Wildhartlivie 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You posted that "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed". Please explain where the factual inaccuracy is. Churchill himself has stated flat out that he does not have 1/4 blood of any tribe or any of the tribe put together. Bill Clinton was an honorary member, that is a fact. The paragraph, at one time, clearly stated that Churchill's membership was honorary, but a very active Churchill-sympathizing editor has taken out that fact. However, at any rate, you have not pointed out where the factual inaccuracy is. Please point out the where the "factual accuracy" problem is.--Getaway 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The factual accuracy is questioned because the article that the paragraph is taken from does not say the membership is honorary, it says it is an associate membership. The word honorary does not appear in the reference. The article does not mention Bill Clinton at all. Whether that is a fact or not isn't relevant. The inclusion of his name in the paragraph with the reference implies that it does exist in the article referenced. It doesn't matter at all what another editor has taken out, because the article given as a reference for this does not state that at all. These are points that brings the content of the paragraph into question.

Personally, I have no viewpoint on this individual. In passing through and reading the article, these things jumped out. In the interest of the article being balanced, these issues really need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point of question for me is the section regarding Vietnam. There are 9 references in that paragraph. Reference #2 covers his claims about his service. #3 does the same. #4 confirms the light truck job, but qualifies everything else by saying that the POW Network person states the information they have was just his last assignment. #5, 7, 8 and 10 have no links to check the reference. #6 offers a different viewpoint of the service record and #9 is more of an essay column with no real content that addresses the veracity of the record.

As I said, I'm really very neutral in this, but these sorts of things slant the article. Wildhartlivie 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie. This article has had a lot of POV problems for a long time; you correctly identify several. Two editors in particular (Getaway and Verklempt) have devoted themselves full-time to getting every negative thing they can find into this article (and the other sibling ones). My own hope is to have a neutral and encyclopedic article about this bio subject—however, said editors are convinced that means I'm Churchill's advocate, or toady, or worshiper, or something. So my edits get reverted and contorted pretty automatically by these two editors.

I would greatly encourage you to be bold, and rewrite those sections you feel to be non-neutral in a more neutral tone. Getting "fresh eyes" into the mix seems like an excellent idea. And given that you simply do not have any background viewpoint, you are probably better than me to determine what is neutral. I have known about and read Churchill's work for many years before the 2005 controversy over his 2001 essay, or all the upshots of that controversy; and generally, I am indeed sympathetic—though not uncritical—about Churchill's academic work. It is admittedly hard to read a section without reading it through my background knowledge. LotLE×talk 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you said that you hadn't heard of Churchill before coming across this article, but that it "feels" like an attack article. That is not sufficient reason to challenge the factuality of the section on his ethnic background. You appear to be arguing that individual references do not contain all the information in the section, and therefore imply that any blanks that are filled in from other sources do not belong there. But this isn't a trial, it's an encyclopedia, and while you're waxing nitpicky on procedure, you are NOT coming up with any evidence that the asserted facts are inaccurate. Just complaining that the evidence provided isn't overwhelming enough to suit you is not grounds for challenging the accuracy of the section. For those who have paid attention to Churchill in the news for the last two years, this is all very familiar stuff.

I anticipate that the fact-challenge template will disappear soon if you or someone else doesn't come up with some significant counter-evidence. The fact is, if this article is written accurately, it has to reflect a lot of criticism against Churchill, because he didn't become a public figure until all this criticism started surfacing. Virtually all public discussion about Churchill has hinged on the negative reaction to his "little Eichmanns" statement, emerging evidence of his fraudulent claim to be Native American, and accusations by authors that he plagiarized their work. So if we take out the criticism, there's no purpose for the article; before the brouhaha, there was no public awareness of this man's existence.

Consider this: the article about Adolf Eichmann also reads like an attack article, if by "attack article" you mean that the bulk of it is dedicated to listing his ... indiscretions. But is that an excuse for just giving the version of his life story that flatters him while nitpicking the footnotes in the critical material? Ask yourself, how did Eichmann become an important historical figure to begin with? Ask yourself the same about Churchill, and you can then see why the article naturally flows into particular themes; and still, there is plenty of discussion in this article about Churchill's life and work.

I think it would be far more appropriate to challenge the pertinence of particular references, or perhaps call for a better citation here or there, than to challenge the factualness of this whole section. Preston McConkie 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it is completely unfair to complain that sources presented in this subsection aren't sufficient, without going through the much deeper discussion of the issue in the main article on Churchill's misconduct issues. The link to that main article is provided at the beginning of the subsection on ethnic background, and constitutes the most important "footnote." The fact that you're new to this issue is a major reason you should not have challenged the subsection's accuracy without first doing some diligent research and at least coming up with some counter-evidence. "This article sounds mean" isn't a reason to challenge its accuracy, especially by someone who has no background on the issue. Preston McConkie 11:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to miss my entire point. The references given for statements of fact in that paragraph do not support the information given in it. If the reference doesn't provide the support of the facts presented in the paragraph, then it does call into question the validity of what it is intended to support. It has nothing to do with the evidence being sufficient, I am saying the evidence isn't there in the reference for it.

I would suggest before anyone get any more defensive that one read take a step back, out of the midst of what you already know, and the paragraph I noted above, then read the page that is used to reference it. The two do not match. I have already pointed out 3 statements in that paragraph that are not in any way, shape or form present in the reference given for it (i.e., the membership is honorary, the membership was only for a few months in 1994, and the statement about Bill Clinton). If there is sufficient evidence out there about it, then by all means, provide appropriate reference for it. Again, I am not saying the article isn't good enough to convince me of his ethnicity, I am saying the reference given doesn't support statements in the paragraph. The same stands for the first paragraph about his Vietnam service and the references given.

It is incumbent upon the people preparing this article to give citations that support the content for the reader to whom this isn't familiar stuff. I realize that some of the people who are working on this article have a lot invested in it, which is all the more reason it should be properly referenced. A reader visiting this page should not have to go do diligent research to verify if the information presented here is valid. That is what your references are for. And in at least these two instances, the references don't do it. Read it again: I am not disputing the existence of the controversies, I am disputing the conclusions and facts being presented drawn from the specific references cited. Wildhartlivie 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And please don't just arbitrarily remove a tag because it ruffles feathers. I changed the tag to question the references given. The time invested in arguing the point could be spent correcting the references and the information provided from it. An encyclopedic article is to inform the reader who doesn't know all the facts. That's why they come to the page. The facts need to be supported. Wildhartlivie 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review this article, it will give you a better understanding of that section of the main article: Ward Churchill Outrageous Misconduct —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getaway (talk • contribs) 14:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Yes and keep in mind that it has been labeled as an attack article by more than one wiki adminstrator. It withstood speedy deletion but that was largely due to the disinterest of the wiki community in general. Oh yeah and while your at it check the factual accuracy on that one as well. Albion moonlight 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of a Wikipedia admin is no more right than another editor. That is the exact reason that the article is still here. Also, that comment by you is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Also, the speedy deletion was overturned because the request was arbitrary, heavy-handed, and unwarranted. You are assuming that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is wrong just because the outcome did not agree with your opinion. That is not appropriate way to view consensus.--Getaway 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the factual accuracy of the ethnic background section that wildhartlivie brought into question and discovered he is quite correct. The information is not backed up by the citation. Fix it or forget. I will you some time to check it out and source it properly. Otherwise I will delete it as vandalism, Albion moonlight 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight: Your comments are starting down the road of someone who wants to be known as a questionable editor. If you delete factual information such as we talking here then I will revert it again and again and again. You are making threats to the other editors that disagree with you. Once again, consensus in not on your side. And making threats like that will not win consensus over to your side.--Getaway 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to read the other article to understand what the section is trying to say, nor do I need further clarification of what the issue is. I know what the issue is. I also know that when I read the two related works, one does not reflect the other. My problem is with the references that are cited in this article. They do not match the paragraph for which they are the reference. Period. The second sentence in the first paragraph of the Ethnic background section reads:

However, the United Keetoowah Band responded to Churchill's claim by clarifying that he was never an enrolled member, but an honorary associate member for a few months in 1994, as were Bill Clinton and other honorees. Keetoowah enrollment committee member Ernestine Berry stated that, " [Churchill] could not prove he was an Indian at all."

The only thing in the article on the referenced page that is covered in the above sentence is:

The Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians said Wednesday that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is an associate member of the tribe but not a full member, which requires a person to have at least one-fourth Cherokee blood. "He was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all," said Ernestine Berry, who was on the tribe's enrollment committee and served on the tribal council for four years.

The word honorary does not appear in the referenced article. The few months in 1994 does not appear in the referenced article, and Bill Clinton does not appear in the referenced article. The reference also says that no membership had been revoked.

I am perfectly capable of reading. I worked for the Journal of Sociology for 4 years when I was in college. My job was reference checker and line editor. I am well experienced in this area and I know that one does not need to be an authority on a given subject in order to match transcripts and references. My issue is with this reference. It does not support what the sentence says. There is a problem with this reference. I do wish the persons who are invested in this article would take a step back and READ the two pages. When a reference is invalid, it gives the appearance of bias. By the by, isn't that part of what Churchill was accused of doing himself? Wildhartlivie 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hew man I believe you and you are doing a very good job of proving it. Unfortunately these spurious edits that you are pointing out may not be honest mistakes. Albion moonlight 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, I was able to quickly find two sources for the information on Bill Clinton and "honorary." The best source comes from a statement issued by the The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council. Finding it was incredibly easy; I just went to Google and input keywords [ward churchill tribe membership clinton].

So, those two details are now accounted for. I couldn't find anything to support the "for a few months" statement, which actually seems to be contradicted by some of the information I came across, so I've deleted those four words (by the way, I didn't write any of this content myself, so I'm not editing my own work). Since I've addressed the issues you raised, I'm taking it upon myself to remove the tag in the Ethnic Background subsection.

My question is, if you were so distraught about accuracy, why didn't you do even a minimal web search to see if the facts were, indeed, verifiable? It's easy to go around tagging other people's work, but since you went to the lengths of looking up all the references, how much harder could it have been to do a simple Google search? These articles are not authored by a single person, so this isn't like your job knocking down other people's work at a university. You're supposed to be contributing, not just crabbing.

If you'd done a reasonable search and found no supporting citations, then it would have been far more appropriate to tag the section. And Albion, what's up with the accusation "These spurious edits that you are pointing out may not be honest mistakes"? You're calling an edit spurious without doing any checking of your own--and threatening to delete the information as vandalism! Well, there's no question you're abusing the system, is there?

I'd like to suggest operating on a principle similar to that described in Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. How about Researching for the Enemy? If you care about the truth more than harassing people who write content you don't think is "nice," you could resolve a question before it unnecessarily becomes and edit war. Right now, you seem more bent on being critical than contributory, and Albion seems mostly bent on issuing insults and threats. Preston McConkie 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wildhart, it's ridiculous to say you don't have to read the linked article to be able to bash the summary in the subsection. Let me refer you to the First Pillar of Wikipedia, which says in part: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection ... a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy ... or a collection of source documents..."

The reason expanded articles exist is partly so people who want more details have some place to go; if you have a more heavily annotated, specialized article, and you provide the link to it from the summary subsection, that allows you to ethically write a subsection that isn't encumbered with endless blue reference numbers, and allows the footnote section to be smaller than the actual article.

You're really being a baby here, saying it's somebody else's job to do the editing. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. If you've bothered to hit the "edit this page" tab, you have some responsibility to contribute, not just complain. Albion may treat you sympathetically, but you'll find that his kind of editor is, fortunately, quite rare here. Most are actually quite professional. Preston McConkie 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is not my responsibility to clean up the messes made by other editors. If a sentence or section is making claims that its citations do not support, anyone has the right to delete it on the grounds that it is original research. I am not going to delete it now but others might for other reasons. You should consider putting a stop to your rude personal attacks. All that accomplishes in my case is to make me want to delete every contribution you make. You have proven to me in the past that you can be a gentleman so please keep in mind that there is no reason to be rude. Your aggression could easily become your undoing. Albion moonlight 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, once again, you, Albion moonlight, are truly confused about the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot just go around and arbitrarily delete work that you don't like. Also, no one has attacked you personally.--Getaway 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore you still show no real signs of understanding wiki's policy on BLP. or the heart of wikipedian philosophy as stated in the seven pillars of wikipedia. Albion moonlight 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Albion, quit trying to intimidate people. "Your aggression could easily become your undoing." Puh-lease. If aggression led to undoing, I think you'd have been undone long ago. And besides, I'm responding, not instigating. You're throwing around accusations and threatening to delete legitimate statements as vandalism when they clearly aren't vandalism; you're threatening to delete any contribution I make regardless of its merits just because I've pointed out that you're abusing the system and acting unprofessionally. Do you expect to prove your professionalism by deleting anything I write without cause? And do you expect me to allow it?

I can easily see why Getaway loses his temper so fast in here; you've taken the role of a partisan and then accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing. My work in WP speaks for itself; if there are penalties for people behaving aggressively and unprofessionally, I expect them to devolve upon you before me. As a journalist, I'm used to having to stand up for what I write when it's attacked by people whose sacred cow has been gored. I've taken on a city attorney over the interpretation of state sunshine law and taken the conflict to the Arizona Attorney General's Office, where the ruling came down in my favor. So don't expect to intimidate me with a line that sounds like advice from a bad Jedi master.

And Albion, I don't expect Getaway to understand the philosophy behind the seven pillars of Wikipedia. There are, after all, only five of them. Preston McConkie 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wildhart, since you've tagged the Vietnam section, please explain what you think is not established by the citations. I'd like the chance to go over that section of the article the same way I did with the Ethnic Background section. You express some dissatisfaction with the citations, but you don't specifically say which claims in the section are not properly backed up. If your complaint is that you don't think the sources are authoritative enough, that's a different issue than the one addressed by the tag, and the burden falls on you to establish why they aren't authoritative.

For now, I'm going to delete the Vietnam tag because we haven't been given any concrete examples of unsupported claims in the section. Feel free to put the tag back on if you come up with something--and if you could, please do some minimal research to see if supporting sources are available, rather than just harassing editors. Preston McConkie 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know what, Wildhart? Don't even bother. I've read through the Vietnam section, and every single assertion is established by the first two citations. Your complaints about the other citations could perhaps be that they are superfluous, but I can't understand how you could tag this section the way you did. Preston McConkie 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to intimidate anyone but you obviously are. I am asking you to be civil and stop with the personal attacks and you twisted that around to be an act of intimidation on my part. If you want to start an edit war over that tag. I can not stop you. My typo concerning the 5 pillars of wikipedia was written before getaway made his edit. It was directed at you. Check the times that are listed on each one and you will see what I mean. We can get along and still disagree can we not, ? I think you are capable of it but you do not seem interested. You seem to view civility as a sign of weakness. It isn't, Albion moonlight 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Albion, you seem determined to have the last word, but I didn't start the incivility. I commented on your threats to delete good-faith content as "vandalism," your accusations that "spurious edits" that turned out to be completely valid were "not honest mistakes," without having done the tiny research necessary to prove or disprove your supposed suspicion; followed by your highly unprofessional threat to start deleting anything I contributed regardless of merit. Responding to such outrageous remarks by calling them exactly what they are is not incivility. The reason this whole argument exists is because an uninformed reader decided to challenge content simply because it wasn't "nice." It seems you have a hard time dealing with unpleasant facts; you then wax highly uncivil in response; then you cry foul that the mood has gotten tense.

I would really like to engage in some good-faith discussion, but I see no reason to respond serenely to your partisanship, uncivil accusations and continued threats to rip out other people's work just because they've annoyed you. Stop making accusations when you haven't investigated anything, stop threatening people, and start exhibiting the professionalism and civility you claim to value. Preston McConkie 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the Ethnic background section look much better. The issue is, and has always been, that the text represent what the research and supporting evidence say, not what the editors who have done the research think it says. The purpose, as a balanced encyclopedia, is to present the facts. No one was bashing anything, and I'm quite sorry if the people who have personal investment in the development of the article take offense when the balance is questioned. It isn't a personal attack, it isn't harassing and it isn't bashing. And by the way, my job wasn't to bash other people's work, it was to work to make the best article possible given the information at hand. My point was that the references didn't support the statement.

The reason someone doesn't come in and start making huge changes in an article, and instead chooses to broach the issues at hand on the talk page, is because a) that is the correct procedure to follow and b) people have invested themselves in controversial articles and get very defensive when an outsider seems to mess with their work. To make changes without discussion opens the door to editing wars. If the point is to make the best article possible, people really need to divest themselves of ownership and look at the work with a new and critical eye. Does it do what it is supposed to? Instead, editors often become emotional about it and jump to the defense. They end up not seeing the forest for the trees. So a person with an objective criticism is both brave and foolish. But if one isn't brave enough to question something, then Wikipedia is at risk of being what critics accuse it of - a biased concept with people only editing what serves their own interest. That's how I ended up working on the Columbine articles, not from personal interest, but in seeing things that needed done.

No one wants an article that is encumbered by references, which is why it's quite important that the references chosen do their job. That is one of my issues with the Vietnam section. There are seven direct citations at the end of the first paragraph, four of which aren't checkable and therefore are extraneous. Wildhartlivie 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wildhart, I agree with everything you just said; you've altered my opinion some by your sound reasoning. I think things would have gone much more smoothly if Albion hadn't interjected with his, "Yeah, you get 'em, Wildhartlivie! Show those bastards!"

Since only two of the many references in the Vietnam section are necessary, I think the rest should be dumped just to keep the section as leans as possible. Footnote diarrhea may seem like the best way to overwhelm nay-saying editors, but it can be confusing as well when you're earnestly trying to check to see if the work was done properly. Preston McConkie 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eichmann is dead. Wiki's policy on BLP frowns on attacks upon living persons. Factual accuracy is (more often than not) in the eye of the beholder. I have mentioned this to Preston mcconkie before but here are 2 back to back quotes from wiki' policy on biographies of living persons,

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options." Cover the event, not the person. ::: Albion moonlight 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC

Albion, your point is well taken. I think it also reinforces a point I've made before: without the "little Eichmanns" controversy and the other controversies that followed, particularly the ethnicity and research/plagiarism controversies, there would never have been a Wikipedia article about Churchill in the first place. His publications are obscure and arcane. He was a marginal academic, a professor with only a master's degree.

Insignificance is the reason I recently recommended a biography for deletion, because it was about a man whose only claim to significance was that he played two professional soccer matches back in the 1960s before being dropped from a British team. I had nothing against the man, but his biography was simply too marginal to deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia.

If you say Churchill's controversies don't deserve significant mention in his bio, simply because he's a living person, we would then have to say his bio doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia in the first place. Again, Churchill wouldn't be so lucky as to have a directory of his obscure books and articles, and certainly not an image of one of his drawings, included in the world's largest online encyclopedia, if it hadn't been for him enraging tens of millions of people with his post-9/11 remarks. After all, it took two years for someone to stumble across the essay and report it in the national media. Before that he was safe to make all types of claims about his past and his ethnicity, and he never risked exposure because no one cared enough to check. He could plagiarize and invent sources, and no one found out because no one was reading his books.

So there simply isn't a case for including a history of his life, a list of all his works, and even an example of his artwork, and then NOT including an equally representative summary of the credible accusations brought--and frequently proved--against him. Without all the controversy, he'd still be a nobody and wouldn't have a single article about him in Wikipedia. Preston McConkie 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, sadly, what simple ignorance (and a sufficient determination to maintain that ignorance) gets us to. It would take all of 5 seconds to look at the edit history of this article, and find out that there was an article about Churchill long before the 2005 attacks on his 2001 essay, and everything that flowed out of it. In fact, when this article was first created, biographies were notably underdeveloped on Wikipedia in general (that's one of the areas that have really strengthened in the last three years or so); the significance of having one on Churchill prior to 2005 indicates that he is a sufficiently notable biography subject, quite independent of the know-nothings who have written this, and who think Fox News is a serious academic publisher. LotLE×talk 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for basically proving my point, Lulu. You're right, I made a false assumption, but the article as it existed prior to the Jan. 28, 2005 mention of "Little Eichmanns" by Bill O'Reilly is at least as good for proving my point. Here it is, in its full glory:

"Ward Churchill is a Native American activist and professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder. Ward is very vocal on all Native American issues, the FBI and police states. His latest book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens deals with United States imperialism and its consequences, especially regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks. The "Roosting Chickens" comes from a Malcolm X speech about the assassination of president JFK, as the violence that Kennedy did not stop came back to 'roost'."

A whopping 83 words! Only his post-O'Reilly notoriety led to the vastly expanded attention he's gotten, and the greatly bulked-out biography and list of his work in Wikipedia.

And Lulu, kindly don't dump your comments in the middle of my own. It doesn't take a special Wiki policy to point out that that is disruptive and rude. I've taken the liberty of moving your comments to the end of my earlier remarks. Preston McConkie 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit more on this shocking ignorance offends me further. Quite apart from a WP biography, which is indeed a bit of a haphazard fact, anyone who didn't merely have an agenda of hate could, y'know look at the damn citation index (or siteseer, Google Scholar, etc). If you simply rule out every single thing that occurred since 2005, Churchill still, and obviously, merits a biography. Much more so than probably 85% of the academics who have Wikipedia biographies (all but a few percent of whom also legitimately should have bios). He simply has a larger, and more widely read, and more cited, publication history than average academics... by no means anywhere close to the <1% of academics who are "stars", but solidly in the "obvious biography" camp. This has nothing to do with Churchill being right or wrong, or good or bad... it's just a matter of shrugging off the damn blinder for two seconds, long enough to user your brain rather than your emotional hatred of some guy you know nothing about. LotLE×talk 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I could easily live with no bio on Churchill what so ever. Nominate it for deletion if you like I will back you 100 % Albion moonlight 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Albion, you can't be serious! I'd like to see you nominate it for deletion, as I'm most curious what your reasons would be. In my opinion, for better or worse Churchill has irretrievably become a notable public figure. Preston McConkie 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in fact quite serious but I will only back someone who initiates the process. With that said I can also live with almost any decision that is made by a sustainable consensus . I do have my own opinions but I have learned to be flexible over the years. If this article was not a biography it would be a lot less encumbered by wiki policy because it would be about the things that you say made him a public figure. One of the ways this could all be handled is to drastically reduce the Bio and to use the misconduct issues page to deal with his notoriety. Drastic reduction is listed in the wiki blp section as a viable way to deal with a coat rack article. Unfortunately Something similar to what I am suggesting was tried with this article and it wound failing miserably . Still if you were to be able to get getaway and Verklempt to go along with it it just might work this time, Only this time we would need to seperate the bio from the issue article completely, It would be a long shot but it might work, But like I said I can live with almost anything that has a sustainable consensus Albion moonlight 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, Albion, lay off the silly threats about spurious administravia. This article is an obvious speedy keep; and there is no question that that's what would be done if someone were so contrived as to AfD nominate it. I'm on your side, of course, about being ticked off by the anti-Churchill crusaders who want a soapbox rather than a biography. But the way to fix it is to... well, fix it.

As I've said, the shocking ignorance of the know-nothings who learn only what Fox News tells them offends me. But this is an article that obviously should exist, and should have (and did) exist prior to Fox News telling the hoi poloi that they should hate (and know a tiny bit, very distorted, about) Churchill. Our new "journalist" even managed to retrieve the pre-Fox version (what he shows isn't the actual latest pre-Fox, but the point about it being short before that is true). It's not the point Preston thinks he's making, of course: I can find lots and lots of bios on academics that went from stub to fleshed out in the last three years (gee, didn't I say that exact thing in my comment above?), most of whom never entered any public controversy. For the most part, that's just the very positive trend the WP biographies have undergone in the last few years.

While I recognize that even the discussion of Churchill's academic work probably got enhanced indirectly because of the controversies, this article actually has fairly good balance overall... yeah, there are some sentences here and there that are WP:BLP violations or otherwise POV ranting, those are only a few. And a few others where citations are used sloppily or for deceptive purposes. Generally, however, the article covers Churchill's writing fairly well, and gives moderate and reasonable coverage to the controversies. LotLE×talk 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These references are intended to support a description of the UKB's position on Churchill's claim of Keetoowah membership. The best source would be the UKB's statements on the subject, but these appear to no longer be on their website. Next best are news reports quoting UKB statements, or people who were UKB officers at the time. The DP reference quotes a former UKB officer. The two RMN references that have now been twice reverted quote much of two statements issued by the UKB in May 2005. The AIM statement contains two sentences that bear on this paragraph:

"He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe."

The AIM is not authoritative on this issue: the UKB is. These sentences are the AIM's account of what the UKB said, and since the AIM have cause not to love Churchill (see the Activism section), they cannot be presented as an impartial interpreter of the UKB's position.

The pertinent part of the Indian Country Today article consists of quotes and paraphrase of another RMN article (Prof's Indian roots disputed, by Stuart Steers, 2005-02-03). As far as it bears on Keetoowah associate membership, it is indeed third-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.30.95 (talk) 00:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I intend to remove the AIM and ICT refs as superfluous and third-hand unless someone has a convincing defence of them. 81.110.30.95 09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, please don't make changes where you delete references and add new references at the same time. This forces an editor who disagrees with your deletion to make and all-or-nothing choice. I'm sure 81.110.30.95 has good stuff to add, but that doesn't mean everything else has to go to make room for it. The deleted material regarding Churchill's published work does not appear to be refuted by the new material. The earlier material says Churchill "largely" published outside the university presses and peer-reviewed journals; the new material is laudably more specific but does not contradict the earlier material. It refers to a minority of Churchill's essays being published in refereed journals, and makes no reference to the publisher(s) of his books.

If the edit explanation line is too short, please explain your edit on this page. If there's no explanation here, there's nothing to restrain anyone from making a deletion. Preston McConkie 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you check the edit more closely, you'll see that it didn't remove any reference. In any case, I don't see why other editors are "forced" to choose between leaving the edit and reverting it. 81.110.30.95 09:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems correct to me. The edits by 81.110.30.95 provide a secondary source for the same fact stated in the existing tertiary source, and are therefore preferable. LotLE×talk 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the lead slightly afresh, I notice the sentence: In these subject areas, he has made several controversial and provocative claims, often in a confrontational style.

I think that would actually read better as "numerous ... claims" rather than just "several". I don't want to make the change if other editors believe that such would be "pro-Churchill" or the like (as these disputes seem to claim). I just think it would sound better, but the current form is not inaccurate.

Opinions? LotLE×talk 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am happy either way. I am also glad to that you brought it up for discussion first. Perhaps their is hope after all....Albion moonlight 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve###### and Getaway are right in their recent edit to get rid of vacant verbiage in "In 1997 he was promoted to full professor after an extensive peer review."

Tenure review is peer review, and I certainly hope committees are extensive (or at least thorough) in all tenure reviews. There's no need for spurious praise to make this more than it is. Yes, Churchill had various hires and promotions: just state them, don't ogle at them. LotLE×talk 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In an ordinary academic career, these things would go without saying. But Churchill's career is not such. The immediately preceding text relates that he was hired without a PhD, and given tenure within a year bypassing the usual review process. Elsewhere the article states that this was done under the University's affirmative action policy. So when he does undergo review, it is worth noting. Would everyone be happier with the phrase used in the cite, "after evaluations by numerous national experts"? 82.14.88.5 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You would need to show evidence of such evaluations, for the reasons you stated. I think the sentence is fine as it stands now. The process of his promotion is not worthy of more detail unless there is evidence of deviation.Verklempt 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Verklempt here. Show us an article that discusses something specifically unusual in the promotion process, and maybe there will be something worth mentioning there. But probably not, even so. Readers can figure out that it's relatively unusual for a non-Ph.D. to be promoted as department chair; but beyond that fact itself, we don't need to tortuously observe the uncommonness. Moreover, Churchill's large publication list is given in the text, so readers can piece together that he's prolific and well cited. LotLE×talk 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph does not contain claims or allegations, but rather relates a sequence of events that all concerned agree happened. It is a bit clumsy, but at least it describes the situation without getting into the motivations for or relationships between them, both of which are hotly disputed. The first sentence mentions that he was a Prof at the time, because that was an important factor in the controversy. 86.31.104.171 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very poorly written, and overemphasizes the controversy, especially for something in the lead. All that needs to be said is that his comments have attracted media attention, and that he was a professor who was investigated and eventually fired. And negative statements about a living person must be sourced or removed, no matter who the person is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revision reads in a far more pejorative way (and therefore is much more of a WP:BLP concern) as well as just plain flowing much worse (i.e. paragraph break separates the concepts, which you deleted [repeatedly]). The context of him having been a prof of ethnic studies at CU is necessary to make sense of him being fired from that position.

There was a mistake in my version, but it was not more pejorative - it said he was a professor until 2007, when he was fired, and that he'd been under investigation. And it certainly didn't hurt the flow, since it didn't refer to "The University" at the start of every sentance. I'd prefer it if you'd be less confrontational, and quit removing the citation I added.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that you've reverted to the same version 3 times now. Please don't do it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific question of whether the firing sentence needed to be cited in the lead has already been discussed to death on this talk page (you might try reading this talk). In fact, given that the article already discusses the matter in greater detail, with multiple citations, the consensus to omit the one skewed citation from the lead was the correct one. But I'm fine by leaving in your gratuitous, duplicate citation if it means that much to you, for reasons mysterious. The extra sentence about Churchill's additional work for the University prior to his professorship is also slightly tedious for the lead (it's discussed in the body), but again it's something I can live with.

So yeah... your edit is in every respect worse than the prior consensus. But no longer so bad as to be unbearable. LotLE×talk 05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "worse" is subjective, considering the state you had it in. And there's no question that something as important to his career as the professorship should be mentioned in the lead, which is meant to concisely summarize the article. But you might read WP:BLP: no unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person, even if you don't personally think it needs it, or even if you don't want to bother sourcing statements, or even if you think "consensus" doesn't require it. This is a serious issue, I'd have thought you would understand that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, his professorship was mentioned in the prior version (every prior version for the last two years, in fact), so your comment is some sort of red herring, or merely confusion on your part. His prior job as an AA officer at CU had not been mentioned in the lead before (but it was in the body); the prior version seems exactly correct on that: it's worth mentioning, but nowhere near lead material.

I've done a lot more work on WP:BLP, as well as WP:RS, WP:V and the like than anyone else who has editing this article. None of these rules say that "non-contentious facts discussed in greater detail in the article body must be footnoted in the lead". The only thing you've done is move an existing citation a bit higher up in the article, you have not added any new citation or had any effect one way or the other on WP:NPOV or WP:V (BLP is merely irrelevant on this narrow point). This duplication of a citation isn't any great harm, but it's hardly something to climb on a high horse over either... you managed to arrive at something slightly worse, with a lot of bluster getting there. LotLE×talk 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lulu is right about it being slightly worse (though obviously an improvement on unjustified blanking). In 2005 he gained media attention? And despite the repetition, it does still read as slightly more pejorative than before. I still don't understand why you think his firing is in any way contentious. 86.31.104.171 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The professorship was only mentioned in relation to the controversy, with no context. The controversy is certainly not "uncontentious", and need to be sourced (or removed, as was my first move), duplicating citations is a frequently used practice, I really don't see your problem with it. The current version is far from perfect, but it's much better than the way it was.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If by "context" you mean that the professorship was in the same sentence as the discussion of media attention: yeah, that's true. Leads try to be concise, and getting a couple facts into the same sentence is a good idea. I don't think any reader would think he had suddenly been made a professor only for the purpose of firing him from that job. The AA job is now in the lead for no discernible reason, but whatever. Likewise, a vacant citation to a non-contentious fact is indeed duplicated... which, fine, doesn't do any real harm either. It is certainly not contentious that there was a controversy: the contention is about what the motives and meanings underlying it are (which the lead has remained neutral about). I really just don't get all the sturm und drang just to get something that reads more awkwardly, but I concede it. LotLE×talk 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. []--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does he always wear sunglasses?Lestrade 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

To cover up more of his face.Verklempt 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why cover his face? Why wouldn't he want people to see his eyes?Lestrade 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Have you never seen him without his shades? He is a very ugly man. Also, a habitual liar probably has many good reasons to hide his eyes.Verklempt 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eye focus shifts involuntarily during a lie. This, however, does not mean that a sudden change in the direction of his gaze while making a statement would necessarily indicate deception. A coherent pattern of deceptive behavior would have to be manifested. Has he made more than one false claim in the past?Lestrade 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Are you kidding? Churchill has lied about his ancestry, about his Vietnam service, about the activism he claims to have done in the 70s. His book and articles are rife with fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. His entire life is one huge, ongoing impostorship.Verklempt 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Balderdash. He's one of the most important US ethnic/historical and political commentators in recent times. Someone I know reckoned he is actually an agent provocateur.. on the basis that he can say so much and get away with it. But now the relative protection of academia is crumbling because the reactionary set have found a way to oust him. As for plagiarism - not proven. Academic misconduct? He's taking legal action over that judgement .. and the bottom line is that he WAS NOT subject to peer-review during the process. --maxrspct ping me 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In my job, the customers are people between the ages of 18 and 26. Their money provides my income. They also happen to be in the age group that constitutes the military. Therefore, they would be the people who must travel and die fighting in foreign lands. Naturally, they don't want to die in this manner, so they are against the military in every way. In order to accommodate these people, who pay my wages, I also absolutely oppose the military, as well as all adult authority in general. But I never claimed that I was an Apache, Comanche, or Shoshonean Indian and I never merely traced photographs and called them my own artwork. None of this is proven and it definitely invites legal action. I didn't have the benefit of peer–review, either. The article provides positive, neutral, objective facts about Professor Churchill, who just may well be one of the most important US historical/ethnic and political commentators in the last three decades, in my humble opinion. No one can claim that it is balderdash or a senseless jumble of words. We really must submit to the law of the land here, instead of assuming that the article is in any way a mere reflection of someone's point of view. As Professor Georg Hegel once wrote, "Law and duty, however, have for that reason the significance not only of being–for–self but also of intrinsic being; for this knowing, because it is self–identical, is precisely the in–itself."Lestrade 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Sense you guys are speculating. I sometimes wonder if the Cointelpro or its founder Richard Held could have been involved either directly or indirectly. Read this [6] Held has apparently been accused of some very unsavory behavior and I wouldn't put it past him. But then again Churchill may be little more than a loudmouth who wrote exposes on the FBI and the cointelpro. Who knows ? : Albion moonlight 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lulu, you said that the essay is explicit on "some", but I've been unable to find such a passage. It does say that "those in the World Trade Center [...] formed a technocratic corps", etc. Please indicate the part of the essay you're referring to. 86.31.104.171 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked again at the original publication. It is indeed true that Churchill only added a\ more explicit footnote to the later book to say "Of course I didn't mean the janitors and facilities personnel" (only those who worked for the CIA, World Bank, etc. in the buildings). The original reads:

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

The language says that he's writing about those in the WTC who "formed a technocratic corps..." But indeed, there is no specific apportionment of what percentage or number of those killed at the WTC fall in this category. Still, I just turned around the lead phrase to indicate "many of those...", which is both more descriptive and assumes less. LotLE×talk 21:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite: "They" refers to "those in the World Trade Center" (i.e. those killed there); he is stating an equation, not a restrictive relative clause. Indeed mentioning the non-technocrat dead would somewhat weaken the argument he is making. OK, so it's a rhetorical trick, but that's what he wrote, and it's an aspect of the essay that contributed to the controversy. So this article should say simply "those...", as the essay does.

I'm not sure about "were involved in provoking the attack". It's true to the essay, but it's a little awkward, and I'm not sure that it clearly expresses what made the essay controversial. Of course it's very hard to do that in a few words without distorting the essay, but I think that "disputed/denied the innocence of those killed in the WTC attacks", while less informative, did what's needed. In truth much of it probably centers on "little Eichmanns", but mentioning that would require too much explanation for the lead. 86.31.104.171 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the "technocrats" bit is a restrictive clause. Especially when you look at the paragraphs surrounding the one usually quoted. In those he both contrasts with the military personnel at the Pentagon, and also with the "collateral damage" during various attacks by the USA (i.e. the target versus everyone killed).

What makes it particularly difficult to summarize pithily is that there's a gap between "what Churchill wrote" and "what various people used the essay for". The folks who expressed outrage indeed started with the general topic of Churchill's essay, but read through a cloudy lens of the thing they wanted to express outrage about. The thing criticized wasn't precisely the thing written. Obviously you are correct that Churchill himself was also deliberately slippery in exactly what he was naming, for rhetorical flourish. LotLE×talk 03:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be simple to ascertain whether Churchill is of American Indian ancestry. Simply obtain information on his parents and determine whether they were Indians.Lestrade 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

His genealogy has been extensively researched. See the cites in the main article. Two newspapers have done the research. We also know from police reports that Churchill's driver's license lists him as white.Verklempt 20:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

His parents do not even claim Indian heritage.--76.31.119.58 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose actually reading Churchill's own work on ethnic/tribal identity (which is after all one of the main things his academic work delves into) and quoting his own understanding and explanation of what it means to be an Indian is too much for us here? Why the man himself apparently makes the claim to being Indian? It's at the heart of the main controversies surrounding the man, this self understanding. You apparently want to imply that - no let's be blunt, here - basically accuse him of misrepresenting himself, and of lying about his ethnicity. But the issue is far murkier and more interesting (if perhaps threatening to many people's concepts of things) than this article - or those who seem only bent on depicting Churchill in the poorest possible fashion while maintaining a pretense of NPOV admit. Note that the charges of academic misconduct in part have to do with his work on the Dawes Rolls. Look that topic up. It's immediately clear that whatever the nature of that aforementioned newspaper research, or whatever may be listed on Churchill's driver's license, that the issue is a very tangled one. And that the information here almost certainly does not do justice to the matter.

I'm no authority on Churchill's work, having just read a couple of interviews and essays of his online tonight. I'd heard O'Reilly and read NRO slam the man for his intemperate words on 9/11 back when he was the moonbat du jour. Remembering that, and killing time, I checked the notorious essay out, realized that my impression of the affair was distorted (big surprise, considering how fair and balanced those messengers are) and decided to read more. This man's story is too important to distort, given the issues surrounding his case. And I think this article does just that. Perhaps a quote from the man himself, or a link to his work, or his reported statements pertaining to his ethnicity might be appropriate. After I do some more reading, I might be in a position to provide just that. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chascurtis (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This section has recently veered into POV territory by overemphasizing Churchill's supporters relative to his critics. Since it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on the proper balance, I propose that all mention of Churchill suporters and critics be removed from this section in order to achieve NPOV.Verklempt 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would leave a rather bare and puzzling section. That Churchill and his supporters have sought to cast this as a freedom of speech issue is surely part of the story. And it's only one paragraph of mostly direct reporting, though it could do with some tightening up. It repeats the same points a bit, e.g. in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th sentences. The academic freedom argument is probably better represented by summarizing the ALCU position than by quoting LeCompte. Kanguole 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (newly registered, after editing this article using IPs since July 26)

If that stuff stays, then material should be added from Churchill's academic critics, in order to achieve NPOV.Verklempt 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Congress "…shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…." (Article I, The Constitution of the United States). Therefore, everything and anything that is not libelous can be included in the article (and I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater).Lestrade 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Read this and use info as you will. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 09:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First it was the effort to insinuate something negative by mentioning the Captain Kangaroo received an honorary degree also (among the hundreds or thousands of recipients from the same school). Steve's claim is false, of course. The actor portraying the role was Bob Keeshan, and it is he who received an honorary degree, not a fictional character who did so. Failing that, it was the deletion of the fact that Churchill had been awarded one.

Steve's POV games are stupid, petty and trite. Of course honorary degrees are different (and generally less significant) than are regular ones. Depending on the school, title and context, however, a certain real prestige is granted with an honorary degree. Such is certainly the intent in giving them. For example, Jimmy Carter or Bill Cosby, who both hold earned doctorates, have notations of the honorary degrees they have received in their WP articles, as do a great number of other biographies whose subjects have such honorary degrees.

The Cosby example, moreover, somewhat illuminates the Keeshan case. Keeshan, like Cosby, was a comedic actor/writer who focused on creating educational programming for children. Keeshan made significant contributions to improving and expanding the use of television for the benefit of education. Of course the character he portrayed was not that of a scholar, nor was Keeshan himself a scholar per se. But his contribution to society was such that an honorary degree is highly proper, and recognizes a genuine accomplishment. LotLE×talk 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One might also observe that Churchill's honorary PhD is reminiscent of his honorary membership in the Keetowah Cherokees. He's ersatz on both dimensions.Verklempt 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the references on that paragraph is to the full list of honorary degrees from Alfred University (I didn't notice Keeshan or Kangaroo on a cursory scan). Kanguole 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, Steve simply invented the claim about Keeshan whole clothe as well. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that detail. It doesn't really change the matter of his soapboxing to add that he fabricates. LotLE×talk 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Had you any evidence of such fabrication on Steve's part, it would be reminiscent of Churchill's fabrication of US Army presence at the Mandan village in 1837. Churchill has since admitted that the Army was not actually there.Verklempt 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed it: Keeshan's was in 1969. Anyway, I was pointing out that the link is there for anyone who wants to evaluate the meaning of the award. Kanguole 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The honorary degree isn’t notable. Politicians and celebrities get them all the time. There’s a retired senator with more than one hundred honorary doctorates [7]. His wiki page mentions none of them. Keeshan’s page doesn’t mention his from Alfred U. The editors of his page considered his induction into Clown Hall of Fame more important and included that.

Wiki bio pages regularly omit these things. And this one is obviously being passed off as a substitute for a real doctorate by editors pushing their biased points of view. Steve8675309 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeshan made the Clown Hall of Fame, and they left Churchill out? Where's the justice?Verklempt 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just a matter of time until they let him in. And make him a Tenured Full Professor. Steve8675309 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Today Maxrespect has twice reverted an edit reporting a decline in Churchill's support from the academy. The edit cites to an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal by a professor. The edit is factual, and supported by additional journalistic sources. It is on-topic in the section about Churchill's supporters. Please justify the repeated blanking.Verklempt (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording is pov. And source violates NPOV - contentious source. Go check it out. --maxrspct ping me 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1)Editing in good faith means improvement, not blanking. YOu have not described what is pov about the original, nor have you offered an alternative. 2) The source is no more contentious than the ones cited in Churchill's support. NPOV requires a balance.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop the intentional dramatics. As you know blanking usually means an entire section or the whole article. I reworded that popularity claim.. and will add more. I may still take it out per BLP/NPOV rules --maxrspct ping me 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Verklempt is getting hyperbolic. A familiar opponent of Churchill makes a throwaway insult, based on selective evidence, in an editorial opinion. If the phrasing is very restrained, I suppose it can reach notability. But Brown's opinion isn't established fact; nor is his argument about the signers of two very loosely related open letters from colleagues a very good one. LotLE×talk 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1)Churchill concurs with Brown that his support at CU has dwindled from the original 199. Churchill says the same in the cite I inserted. This point is not at all contentious. 2) While it is true that Brown has been openly critical of Churchill, that alone does not justify excluding his opinion from Wikipedia. What version of NPOV would permit quotes from Churchill's supporters but not his critics?Verklempt (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Brown’s statement is from a peer-reviewed (refereed) scholarly journal [8]. From WP:V: “In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals…” Steve8675309 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of the statements of support for Churchill were published in a peer-reviewed journal? Any at all?Verklempt (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in Browns vitriolic essay is Churchill agreeing with him over decined support? --maxrspct ping me 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's in the Boulder Weekly interview you deleted, not the Brown journal article. A responsible editor will get familiar with the topic and the sources before making substantive edits.Verklempt (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What has he written about the casinos, as well as the subsequent investments, derived of the profits?

What about the indigenous lexicography, linguistic contortion?: native; Indian,.......? It is so frustrating to deal with these contradictions that it sometimes seems better to have none of it. Then there's the issue of Latin, Latino, Lazio, Latium, Italy, Spain.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The M. Annette Jaimes essay is a fine reference, the more so as it was one of the essays that Churchill told the investigating committee he had ghostwritten in full. But I think it makes the point that he's using "Métis" in its literal sense, i.e. mixed-blood, as used by the National American Metis Association. (Churchill is not writing in Canada.) After a paragraph in which he says his ancestry is a mixture of Creek, Cherokee and Northern European, he signs himself as "Creek/Cherokee Métis", not "Creek/Cherokee/Métis" or "Creek, Cherokee and Metis". Indeed those would make no sense next to what he has just written.

In the NCSU blurb, he (presumably) also describes himself as "a Creek/Cherokee Metis". So it adds nothing to the "Jaimes" essay. Only the indianz.com site says "Cherokee, Metis and Creek", and that's just an anonymous intro pointing at a Denver Post article. We don't know its source: maybe they got it from Wikipedia, but there's no indication it was Churchill. Kanguole (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's Churchill in an interview with Jodi Rave in November 1993 (unedited raw text):

Q: How do you feel when people bring this up. I mean make a big deal about your supposedly, well I read in the article that you say you aren't enrolled.

A: Never have, In fact I say I am (I'd rather not/not going) to be enrolled and I'm adopted Metis which they are careful to explain, specifically means French and Indian mixture in Canada, but there is no classification for that mixed blood status down here, so I sorta borrowed it. You know and thats why I borrowed it, because I don't want to misrepresent it, I don't claim to be part of a Nation specifically and on their roles.

Kanguole (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good research, Kanguole. It only goes to prove that no matter how much Churchill sympathizers work to defend Churchill it only works to dig a bigger hole for him. (1) The Rave interview was in 1993 and in it he claims that he will never be enrolled in tribe, nor that he wants to be enrolled in a tribe. However, in the years after his interview with Rave he attempts to get enrolled in the Keetoowah band of the Cherokees--in direct contravention to what he claimed to Rave. (2) Now, the Metis ARE a recognized tribe under Federal Canadian law. (Remember in one of your edit summaries you incorrect claimed that Metis is not a tribe.) (3) Also, Metis also means--as he flatly state--that generically it is mix of FRENCH and Indian blood. If you read the rest of his comment he states that he is also GERMAN, not FRENCH. So by his own words he is not Metis, under the generic definition of Metis. (4) However, even though he states he is German, not French, then he goes on talking and, if you read closely what you quoted above, you will notice that he states that "I don't claim to be part of a Nation specifically and on their roles." That is NOT a definitive statement that he is an enrolled Metis tribal member. However it is CLEARLY a claim to be a Metis (not the generic term, but the tribal affiliation), just not eligible for Nation membership or "on their roles." It is clear that your attempts to rid the article of the Metis issue have just got more difficult for you. (5) However, in a spirit of compromise I believe that we should quote him from the Rave article as a definitive affirmation by Churchill HIMSELF that he claiming Metis status/affiliation--just not membership status. Thanks for the work. You have provided a better direct quote of Churchill claiming Metis than I have been able to provide so far.--InaMaka (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Churchill or his genealogy but I do know a thing or two about aboriginals people of Canada. The Metis are not a tribe (called "bands" in Canada). Metis are registered with the MNC provincial organizations for the sake of governance, not genealogy. So an American like Churchill wouldn't be "on the rolls" even if he had Metis ancestry. They don't even register people in Eastern Canada. Also, Metis does not, in the modern sense, mean only people of French and Native ancestry but includes others, especially those who used to be called "half breeds" who were of British (mostly Scottish) and Native ancestry. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. And even if what you state was true, this page is not about defenses of Churchill. It is about making the article better. Now, having said that you are absolutely wrong. There is a Metis Nation. From the Metis National Council website: The Métis Nation. The Métis people constitute a distinct Aboriginal nation largely based in western Canada. The Métis Nation grounds its assertion of Aboriginal nationhood on well-recognized international principles. It has a shared history, a common culture (song, dance, dress, national symbols, etc.), a unique language (Michif with various regional dialects), extensive kinship connections from Ontario westward, a distinct way of life, a traditional territory and a collective consciousness. See Metis National Council. Now, as to the article, we don't really know if Churchill was attempting to claim a third tribe or not. We just do not have enough information to decide, so it should remain out of the article for now. However, based upon Churchill's past of claiming other tribes to which he does not belong then there is a presumption that he was attempting to grab a third tribe. However, as I state, at this time Churchill is being ambiguous enough that it is unclear what he is claiming. The only thing that we know for certain is that he claimed to be 1/16 Cherokee one time and 3/16 Cherokee another time--which is an example of why he was fired.--InaMaka (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong. And I'm guessing you're not Canadian. You're mixing up the Canadian and American usages of the same term. The Canadian constitution, specifically the Constitution Act, 1982, does recognize the Metis as a group, along with First Nations ("Indians") and Inuit ("Eskimos"), only First Nations are subdivided into bands. This was done by the notorious Indiant Act which predated patriation of the Constiution by about a century. Inuit and Metis are recognized as groups and the government does negotiate with them and they collectively assert their rights, particularily through court challenges. The government created the new territory of Nunavut as part of an agreement with the Inuit for example. But they are not tribes. A "nation", in Canadian parlance, is not a tribe. Indeed, Quebec has been affirmed to be a "nation" by the Candian Parliament yet Quebec is also not a tribe.

I don't have a position on Churchill per se. I have some feelings on him but I don't know much really. I was certainly not defending him. But I saw the assertion of a facts, which was noted to be in an edit summary and thus, presumably, a justification for that edit. I'm assuming also that your assertion that the editor's fact was wrong was a justification to revert that edit. Since I knew the assertion to be wrong, I thought it worthwhile to address. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Churchill is mis-using "metis" as a synonym for "mixed blood", not as a reference to the Metis nation. If the article addresses this issue, it should attempt make Churchill's inaccurate nomenclature clear. However, I don't think the metis issue is necessarily worthy of comment. Instead, I would prefer to move the ethnicity section that is currently on the misconduct child over here to the main page. There is no question that Churchill has falsely claimed to be enrolled in the Keetowah tribe.Verklempt (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cherokee Indians must rate as one of the most prolific and fruitful groups on earth. I have heard and read of a great many people who claim to be part Cherokee. They are the only Indian tribe that has increased, albeit only by an extremely wide interbreeding with other ethnic groups.Lestrade (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm going to assume good faith and imagine that you had a point that I just missed. Or was that just a sarcastic remark about the subject of the article? --JGGardiner (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article belongs to a increasingly large group of people. In the U.S., there may be several millions of citizens who claim to be partial Cherokee Indians. Is there a Wikicategory of Part Cherokees?Lestrade (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Oh, your post was about categorization. I knew there was something I'd missed. Yes, there is a category, Category:People of Cherokee descent, which is a subcat of Category:Cherokee people. Some subjects of only partial Cherokee descent have, however, been placed in the main category. That includes people like Cher, James Garner and Burt Reynolds. Some well-known subjects, such as Johnny Depp, who have Cherokee ancestry noted in their articles, are not categorized. I assume that this is not an oversite but rather because many editors are skeptical of such claims. Other subjects, such as Bill Clinton, who famously told Sherman Alexie that he was 1/16th Cherokee, don't even have the claims noted in their articles. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

oversight

The widespread physical activity that resulted in so many people claiming to be part Cherokee seemed to have begun before the Revolutionary War. Has it continued to the present? What are the birth rates today in Oklahoma for infants born with Cherokee and non–Cherokee lineage? Ward Churchill's genetic background may have been determined when a few German or English immigrants passed through Oklahoma on their way to California. By the way, I am 1/64 Cherokee.Lestrade (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

If you're interested, the Cherokee article is lacking in the demography department. Of course, this article implies that Churchill is wrong about his Cherokee heritage. After Bill Clinton did say to Sherman Alexie that he was part Cherokee, Alexie said that a lot of people try to start dialogue with him by "walking up and telling me they are Cherokee". I don't want to make a judgement about Churchill myself. I don't know enough about it. But a lot of Americans are part Cherokee and a lot are probably wrong about their Cherokee backgrounds. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading about Ward Churchill's Cherokee heritage, I was wondering if the Cherokee men were promiscuous with outsider females or if the Cherokee women gave freely of their charms to outsider men. Possibly it is a mixture of both, where numerous outsiders are encouraged to participate in Cherokee tribal family activities with either the Indian men or women. For such a wide range of Americans to claim Cherokee descent, something of the sort must occur continually. Did Ward Churchill ever elaborate on this question? Lestrade (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade