Talk:Ward Churchill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Good articles Ward Churchill has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Contents

[edit] Previous discussions

[edit] Article name

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

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

[edit] Improving

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

Also posting at FAC:

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

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

[edit] 1987 Denver Post article

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

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

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

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

[edit] Native American writers

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

This has been discussed frequently on the talk page. Whatever his "blood quantum", Churchill writes on NA topics, which is more than enoug for the category. LotLE×talk 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but everyone else on that list is a NA, whose lineage has not been questioned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The only other one on the cat who jumps out at me as having "questioned ethnicity" is Will Rogers (and his son). But I'm not terribly familiar with every name listed. It seems like a silly and pedantic issue to me, but if you can find anyone over at the NA wikiproject who agrees, I don't care if you remove the writer cat. Try the talk page over there to get some feedback. LotLE×talk 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Chuchill, anarchist?

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

[edit] The "allegations" title

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

I agree that the subcommittee report is quite damning of Churchill, but it's not a jury, nor are the charges criminal... nor, for that matter even "civil" in a judicial sense; the findings are administrative. Moreover, exactly what the University Regents and/or the faculty committee as a whole will do is not yet known; nor, for that matter, whether an appeals process and whether it will be pursued, is also not known.
Aside from that, the material covered in the section (and at much more length in the child article) isn't limited to the issues the subcommittee considered. For example, the stuff about whether Churchill has NA heritage, and whether he claimed to, was something that the subcommittee ruled out consideration of, as not relevant to academic fraud.
I was trying to think of a title that was more specific to the nature of the section, given the release of finding, but I really can't think of anything that remains NPOV. Saying something is an "allegation" does not mean that it is untrue... if anything just the opposite, it leans in the direction of suggesting its truth. LotLE×talk 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the section title should be changed. CU's extensive report removes the academic doubt of the allegations, so for all intents and purposes they are now facts. What the University does about it is irrelevant. Also, if the material on his fake indian heritage is misplaced then it can be moved to a more relevant section. How about "Academic Misconduct", since that is what the Committee was tasked to discover (and did discover)?
A further explantion of the Committee's "academic misconduct" should also be listed, specifically 'four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” '--CReynolds 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:Weasel words like "Allegation" should not be in the article at all. Travb (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

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

[edit] "Academic"

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

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

[edit] Ward Churchill, ACTA and Public Opinion

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

[edit] The Recommendation of Churchill's Firing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] O'Reilly factor

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

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

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

[edit] David Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill

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

[edit] Churchill fired today--please update page

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[edit] South Park trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] categories

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

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

[edit] NPOV dispute - Artwork

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

First, I would like to emphasis that my edits to the article and comments here relate mainly to the organization and placement of the content, and not so much to the quality, purpose or slant of the content. As the main article states, and to the best of my knowledge no one has disputed this, Churchill’s notoriety as an artist is, at best, minor. (And if that’s the case, how big can a controversy surrounding his “artistic” work really be?) In general, I feel that the whole issue of whether or not Churchill has purloined the artistic work others is most properly addressed on the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations page in the section titled “Allegations of copyright infringement and art fraud”. Since the work “Winter Attack” is the piece most cited by Churchill’s critics as being not his own I believe it may be a bit too controversial to be mentioned in the main article as a prime example of his work, but definitely should be included on the allegations page. I would offer that one of his better known, and undisputed, works should be mentioned in the main article, but my knowledge of his work is too limited to suggest one. Should the allegations be mentioned at all in the main article? Absolutely. But the article should focus mostly on his work as an artist and not on the allegations. Readers who would like to read more about the criticisms or concerns with his art should be redirected to the proper page. To that end I included a link to that section in the edits that I made. Cheers! Cafe Irlandais 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I will add my two-cents on this topic. I tend to agree with Cafeirlandais's analysis on how the article should deal with the Fake Indian's fake artwork; however, I find the comments of Lulu, where he calls Steve8675309's edits "vandalism" to be incorrect and abusive. There was no "vandalism" involved. It was just another way to present the material. Lulu has a tendency, when editing this article, to see any changes, not agreed to by him, to be simply, in his words, "vandalism." It is an editing tactic that keeps people away from making any changes, but it does not jive with the principles of Wikipedia where Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative effort and anyone can edit. His handling of the work of Steve8675309, IMHO, to be heavy handed and unnecessary. One reason the Fake Indian, Ward Churchill, has gotten himself into such hot water is because he pushes around REAL Indians as if they are second-class citizens. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWard_Churchill_83f2.html"