From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive 2 New 2.1 One more try at notability 2.2 Good weeding 2.3 Title of Article, The use of the word "Allegations" 2.4 The "allegations" title 2.5 Introduction 2.6 Committee Votes

[edit] Archive

/Archive 1

[edit] New

[edit] One more try at notability

Dr. 70114205215, unfortunately, still really falls flat in understanding the notion of "notability" as it pertains to WP. It still doesn't have anything to do with the moral worth of different people; nor even with being "fair" to various positions or "sides." It never will have anything to do with that, and never has.

Once again, I never put forth that proposition. You just reitirating the strawman so that you can shoot down something that will standstill long enough so that you can actually hit it. --- --70114205215 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I took a break from this article over the Memorial Day Holiday and I noticed that most of my suggestion were implemented. The Committee's opinion has been quoted extensively and brough forth more clearly. I know, of course, that if I had attempted to implement these changes, I suggested above, then you or MONGO or NH1 would have fought them tooth and nail, just to prove you all could or for some other reason. But the important thing is that it got done despite yourself. Good job to you and MONGO and/or NH1 or Verklempt or whoever did it. I also know that this fact probably burns you up about 85% even though you only want it to burn you up about 15%. Try to have 97% happy day!!! --- --70114205215 15:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes Churchill's own responses to allegations against him notable is the fact that... well, he's the subject of the allegations. If Churchill were to claim that LaVelle made his criticisms because the CIA had implanted a microchip in LaVelle's head, that would be an utterly perposterious claim, of course. But it would be notable if it was the defense Churchill advanced. It wouldn't be notable if it were the hypothesis Lulu advanced. It wouldn't be notable if it were the hypothesis Dr. 70114205215 advanced. For that matter, it wouldn't even be notable if it were the hypothesis Porter advanced (the last case is borderline though, if Porter is a recognized authority in the underlying issues discussed).

If we were to decide the CIA-microchip was not appropriate to report because it was false, or even because it was defamatory, that would be original research on our part, and would not belong on Wikipedia. Maybe if we had some external source that spoke specifically to the position "There is no microchip in LaVelle's head" that could be relevant. But generic quoting from some book refuting paranoid fantasies about microchip implants, but not mentioning Churchill or LaVelle, would be off-topic (even though such refutations would be true).

Our much less extreme actual case follows the same principle. Churchill adduces is his defense the following arguments (among others):

1. LaVelle's opinion of the GAA should be held in lower esteem than Churcill's because LaVelle is much less widely cited than Churchill is.
   • The antecedant of the deduction is on safe grounds here, FWIW; the consequent may or may not follow (but it's not absurd).
   • If 20 years from now the citation index shows more cites for LaVelle than for Churchill as our now-registered user proposes, we can revisit the article at that time.
2. LaVelle's opinion of the GAA should be held in low esteem because his colleagues, such as Porter, believe his motives are tainted.
   • This is a lot like the above. We may or may not agree with the deduction, but Churchill argues it, which makes it notable for this article. Having read the Porter article, I find Churchill's characterization accurate (apparently 70114205215 does not; though I think that's a matter of not reading). But whether we find Churchill's characterization of Porter accurate is simply original research about which we must not comment.

FWIW, if some editor had independently dug up Porter's article, I think it would be unlikely to meet notability for this article (it's a really good article though, I'd love to see it discussed somewhere else). What brings it to notability is that Churchill (remember him, the subject of this article?) decided to cite Porter in an interview. Even if Churchill had mischaracterized Porter (which he doesn't), that would be kind of beside the point, and a non-notable matter of original research to argue. LotLE×talk 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Still farther along the same line is the wildly irrelevant original research 70114205215 is attempting (poorly) about Porter and LaVelle's employment histories. Despite the hot-headed indignation, I have not seen anything presented that gives me any definite opinion one way or the other about whether or not Porter ever taught at USD (though clearly LaVelle did, contrary to the first iteration of 70114205215's claims). But let's stipulate that Porter never taught at USD (a perfectly plausible possibility): that's entirely original research on 70114205215's part (just not very good quality research). Even if the fact were notable for this article (which it isn't within a day's drive of being), we cannot present our own independently discovered facts in that manner. The only thing we could present (again under the counterfactual it were relevant) would be some third party stating the point: "Professor Jones says LaVelle and Porter have never been on the same faculty". LotLE×talk

Once again, I know that it is difficult for you to see when Churchill has clearly made a mistake and I know that you are 48% torn about admitting that you are 85% sure that you are 100% wrong, but once again, it HAS NEVER BEEN my point that we should put in the article the fact that Churchill misspoke. I have not advocated that we put that FACT in the article. I have only pointed it out to make the simpel point that your hero, Churchill, does make mistakes. That's all. So your argument that I am somehow trying to argue that it should be in the article is, once again, a strawman that you have created in your imaginative mind to create the illusion that you are somehow responding to the issues at hand. It is very similar to Churchill making personal attacks on LaVelle to justify his falsification of evidence and research. --- --70114205215 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't care whether I'm called "Dear" or whatever (albeit, I recognize the sarcasm)... for that matter, I don't care if you call me "Shithead Lulu", if that makes you happy. My only concern is what gets in the article, and that it be relevant, verfiable, and NPOV.

But I'm pretty sure MONGO doesn't like be accused of being a "dog" commanded by me... I've worked pleasantly enough with MONGO on a variety of topics (after some initial head-butting), but "obediant" certainly isn't a word that comes to mind in describing him... "fair" is such a word though. FWIW, my hunch is that 70114205215 and Veklempt are actually to the "left" of MONGO in some vague political way; it's always comical to see editors accused of a bias that is so evidently not their actual belief. I think it's really a great testiment to MONGO that I've seen him accused of many wildly contradictory "biases" by POV-pushing editors... sometimes by ones on opposite sides of the very same issue. You can judge a man by his enemies :-). LotLE×talk 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear sweet lulu: I have never called MONGO a "dog." However, I must commend you in your attempt to put words in my mouth. That attempt is indicative of your arguing style: put in a strawman and then just absolutely kill that strawman. Good try though. --- --70114205215 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear sweet Lulu: In the quote that you cite, I NEVER, EVER use the word "dog." Please read it closely. There is no reference whatsoever to your good and loyal MONGO as a canine. Please read it again. Also, if the word "dog" is used. Please quote it here word for word. Methinks you protest too much, you are 98% certain of your superiority while those around you are 78% certain of your hubris. Nice Wikipedia article you wrote about yourself. --- --70114205215 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ain't it a bitch, Dr. 70114205215 that your edit history stays preseverved, and hence your denials of writing what you do become hollow?

Btw. If you add references, can you please start adding them in complete format, as described above. Leaving 95% of the work to other editors is a bit bad manners, IMO. LotLE×talk 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when were you put in charge of Wikipedia? Please, the hubris. --- --70114205215 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You clearly have some kind of fixation with making up false percentages to back up your false arguments, how peculiar. --- --70114205215 20:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to point out that you said jump and MONGO jumped. Let me quote you directly:

I was totally not going to bother you anymore with the ever annoying Churchill stuff. But then I saw you did some edits yourself, without my even prompting... so I felt less guilty about mentioning something :-).

Anyway, over at Ward Churchill misconduct allegations, there is an anonymous editor who repeatedly blanks all the parts where Churchill (or Churchill's defenders) make any comments in his own defense. Inasmuch as some "grounds" were stated in the edit summaries (and eventually on the talk page), they amounted to: "I don't like Churchill's tone". Well, actually, the blanking has narrowed over the course of several edits. It started out with about a dozen different paragraphs, then it went down to fewer. One of the blankings was a comment by Churchill on Thomas Brown, which I left deleted, since it's relevance was not pressing (and Churchill's tone was indeed particularly intemperate... though that should not automatically disqualify a direct quote). This editor has the IP addresses 70.114.205.215 and 72.177.223.95 (I assume the different IP addresses are innocent enough; either different locations or reassignment by his/her ISP... but the edit comments refer to each other in first person).

Now it's mostly narrowed to some comments by Churchill that aren't at all intemperate, that simply observe that Churchill is widely listed in the Citation index, and a critic named LaVelle is hardly listed at all. The IP editor rants hysterically about how Churchill's claims are libel/slander and nonesense like that, which hardly helps discussion. FWIW, I actually think Churchill's argument here is slightly ad hominem, or at least a not-completely-compelling, argument from authority. But as editors, it's not our job to present only "good" arguements made by directly involved parties to some issue. However Churchill himself decides to make his case is prima facie germane, just not necessarily convincing. And actually, I don't think an "argument from citation-index" is completely off base; relative prestige of scholars is sort of what we use to decide encyclopedic value, after all.

Anyway, I'm thinking maybe you can give a little nudge to the IP editor about the fact mass blanking at least borders on vandalism. I mean, it's not quite like the editors who replace an article with the word "gay" repeated a thousand times (have you seen Raul's Law about this?). But it is deletion of rather large swatches of material added by a number of editors (not just me), that have been in there for a while. I'm not sure if the fact the deletions obviously follow a political agenda make them more or less like vandalism. LotLE×talk 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that you are willing to admit to MONGO that Churchill's argument is ad hominem but of course you never pointed that over here. Also, from the tone of your posts you seem to believe that only your edits are worthy of approval. What hogwash! Also, you assume that I have a political agenda. That is a figment of your imagination. However, if you are going to engage in figments of imgination then I am going to assume that you have a political agenda. Finally, nothing and I mean nothing that I have done is vandlism. Don't make things up. It is poor editing and it makes your work look bad. --70114205215 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good weeding

Lulu, good weeding on the smallpox section. The GAA section could still use the same.Verklempt 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, I think we have some agreement on this. The committee finding itself supercedes much of the quoted details that went into their consideration. The sources—LaVelle, Brown, etc—should still be mentioned, but I agree that we can bypass a lot of the back-and-forth between the parties by presenting the committee report, which at least attempts to be balanced in its evaluation. I think the moderately long quote from the committee that I give on the GAA shows this: they don't simply endorse LaVelle or Churchill, but they show where Churchill misrepresented evidence while simultaneously acknowledging where Churchill was right in some broader sense.

I'll try to find ways to reduce the GAA section further. That committee summary gets to the heart of it... I don't know if you noticed, though, that I already took out several direct quotes from Churchill and LaVelle that were essentially covered by the committee summary and/or by our concise paraphrases in the article. LotLE×talk 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Article, The use of the word "Allegations"

It seems clear to me that the word "Allegations" in the title is incorrect. The University of Colorado has finished its investigation and the committee found "serious academic misconduct." It is NOT a question of allegations any longer. The title of the article and many of the introductory sentences need to be changed to reflect that FACT. We are talking about facts now, not allegations. --- --70114205215 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that every one of the insinuations has been proven.--MONGO 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but many of them have. So for the title to imply that NONE of them have been proven is incorrect and must be corrected. --- --70114205215 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The change would, of course, directly contradict the language the investigative subcommittee itself uses: i.e. they discuss each "allegation" using the word "allegation". I'm not sure exactly what term Dr. 70114205215 might want so as to fully maximize the anti-Churchill bias in presentation... maybe Final judgement from the gods themselves that Churchill is wrong about everything, both morally and factually.

Sorry that I'm pissy... but just take a look Dr. 70114205215's edit history comments recently (actually, apparently on all the other pages s/he's edited, where I haven't, as well): presenting something neutral and encyclopedic is as far from a goal of his/hers as is imaginable... it's just about advancing a political agenda. LotLE×talk 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course...wikipedia is some people's favorite venue for hate mail.--MONGO 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear sweet MONGO, please show me where I have engaged in "hate mail"??? Please provide a solid reference for that personal attack. I haven't engaged in any "hate mail" and I find that to be a comment by you which is typical of your debate style. You are not focusing on the substance of the discussion but you are throwing around terms such as "hate mail" without any evidence to back up your claim. Are you proud of that form of debate on your part? You shouldn't be. --70114205215 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I haven't been called sweet in some time now...how pleasant. I think you are absolutely the sweetest. I didn't know I personally attacked you...I merely stated that wikipedia is some peoples favorite venue for hate mail...meaning, some wish to use wikipedia to POV push their hatred into biographies and articles. Hugs and kisses, sweetness.--MONGO 04:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw. Does Dr. 70114205215 even know what the word "allegations" means?! The word does not imply the untruth of the thing alleged, it doesn't even mildly insinuate in that direction. An allegation is just... well, an allegation. It's not a "true allegation" or a "false allegation". LotLE×talk 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have upset the tag team of MONGO an Lulu. However, Lulu you seem always on the edge of sanity with your rants and discourses. It is, after all, just Wikipedia, but I understand that you have a lot wrapped up in it since you have created a Wikipedia article about yourself and you feel the need to prove without a doubt that you are brightest bulb in the window displayed called self-promoting Wikipedians. However, now that we have exchanged personal attacks let's get down the issue here. An allegation is an assertion without the benefit of proof. See allegation. However, when someone calls a Ward Churchill a plagiarist, then that person is not only making an allegation, an assertion without proof, but they are making a statement of fact. Why? Well, a committee at the University of Colorado has investigated the non-PhD holding professor, (who claims that he is a member of the Cherokee, Creek and Metis ancestry, but he can't seem to provide evidence of membership in any of the three tribes that he claims) and has decided that Churchill is guilty of plagiarism, so a it is NOT just allegation but a FACT that Churchill is a plagiarist. It is on his permanent academic record. He is known and verified plagiarist, not an allegation, but a fact. Sorry, but you are wrong. Now, I know you have this belief that you are 95% certain that you are 99% right about the meaning of the word "allegation" but you are 100% incorrect in your understanding of the word, allegation. Oh, by the way, Porter and LaVelle have NEVER, EVER worked together, but you still believe in that falsehood. --- --70114205215 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From User:70114205215 edit history: Fay Cohen controversy - The whole section on Fay Cohen is just absolutely chucked full of Churchill's whiny excuses. Poorly written. Added some substance to balance the complete defense of WC 'Nuff said. LotLE×talk 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well also the weirdness about Porter and LaVelle's work histories. I continue to have no opinion about whether they ever worked together; I simply recognize that the non-evidence that Dr. 70114205215 presents does not answer the question either. But then, the question continues to remain irrelevant to this article, as it has always been. LotLE×talk 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lulu: just admit that you don't know the definition of allegation, but yet in your hubris you argue that you do. How embarassing for you and your own Wikipedia article, that you wrote!!!! You wrote your own Wikipedia article!!! --- --70114205215 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey! Three errors in only two propositions:

1. Obviously I know the meaning of the word allegation, and hence don't imagine some weird misreading of it.
2. Obviously I did not write the WP article on me; apparently Dr. 70114205215 is unhappy with the fact I am minorly notable.
3. The best place for trolls is under bridges.

LotLE×talk 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What follows is some relevant discussion from the parent article:

[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)

[edit] Introduction

The current version written by Lulu reads like a Churchill apologia. The reference to Zerzan is irrelevant to this child article, unless you are going to mention the fact that Churchill plagiarized Zerzan. The allegations against Churchill were not brought because of his analysis of US foreign policy. The firestorm was over Churchill's insult to the 9/11 victims. Had he left out those insults, it's unlikely anyone would have ever noticed him. Thus Lulu's version is not only POV, it is also inaccurate.Verklempt 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the claim that I wrote the current lead, BTW?! For the most part I did not, and it was mostly as it is before I ever first edited these articles. But I have been one of a number of editors who have collaborated in changes. I did refactor the child articles, but that was 95% just cut-and-pasting. I guess the agenda makes more sense if you can call the lead "Lulu's" in an effort to imply some moral fault by me. Maybe if you were to edit some article outside this one you'd get a better sense of what it means to have cooperative writing of articles. LotLE×talk 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Churchill was the one known for the comment but I haven't seen any evidence that he coined the term little eichmanns...do we have supporting evidence for either side of this?--MONGO 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Churchill explicitly gives the citation to Zerzan directly on mention of the phrase (which is presented in quotes to indicate its outside source). The citation is John Zerzan, "He Means It. Do You?", Anarchy, No. 44, Fall-Winter 1997-98. This places the source pretty clearly before Churchill 2001 essay. Obviously, Zerzan was not responding to the 9/11 attacks specifically; but he was discussing workers for the World Bank, and other foreign-investment agents, such as those Churchill focusses on in discussing WTC vicitms (which included World Bank HQ).

It somehow seems ironic that the same editors who insist Churchill mis-cites sources themselves insist on mis-citing and misrepresenting sources. To describe an explicit, quoted mention of another source as "plagiarism" is unfortunately the sort of thing we've seen among these anti-Churchill ideologues. It's sort of like the claims of copyright violation when Churchill paints a derived work from a public domain photograph, and explicitly names the borrowed source. The contortions are just amazing. LotLE×talk 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on Lulu. Stop the BS with the phrase "anti-Churchill ideologues." What a load! It is just plain horse-hockey. I guess that makes you a "pro-Churchill ideologue." What horse-hockey! Just stick to the facts and discuss the article. It is getting tedious with your flaming, over-the-top constant complaints that if anyone dares disagree with you (or of course MONGO) then they are, as you have stated, "POV pushers" or "anti-Churchill ideologues." Give it up and focus of the facts and not your collateral BS personal attacks. Have some self-respect. You are embarassing yourself. -----70114205215 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow...that sure is a change from all the sweet talk you gave us earlier...you're breaking my heart. This is a biography so if you have proof let's hear it, otherwise, hit the road, jack.--MONGO 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear MONGO, I have offended thee. I just was pointing out that Lulu and you (that rhymes) like to make the BS argument that you are both pure souls that do not have agendas at all, but of course anyone that dares disagree with either you is then a "anti-Churchill ideologue" which of course is BS. Now, I hope it does not offend you too much to point out that your act about being pure of heart and non-agenda driven is what it is, totall crap. But of course that is it is. Total crap. Oh, I still remember when Lulu sic'd you on me to state that I crossing the bounds of decency for pointing out your POV pushing. But I just call as I see'm. -- --70114205215 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does Churchill cite Zerzan for this phrase? I can't find any such citation in Churchill's essay. Every iteration of the essay I've read plagiarizes Zerzan's phrase.Verklempt 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, p.33, footnote 126. I have the damn book right on my lap, it's not going to carry any weight to invent some misremembered fantasy. LotLE×talk 06:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Churchill gives no citation in his original on-line essay.Verklempt 06:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Churchill coined the term "little Eichmans". Churchill appears to have plagiarized the insult from Zerzan. But why is the etymological origin of this particular insult relevant to the lead-in of this child article? If it has any relevance, it belongs in the 9/11 child article, not this one. And certainly not in the introduction.

The issue here seems to be over what is relevant to include in the intro paras. Since this is the allegations article, it should focus on the allegations themselves. It's also reasonable to touch on why the allegations became a public debate, but a longer explication of that is already in the 9/11 article, and does not need to be reiterated here. Lulu is insisting that a defense of Churchill's insult to the 9/11 victims be included in the intro para, and that to remove said defense is somehow POV.Verklempt 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's relevant is certainly not inventing claims that Churchill did not make as a characterization of the essay. I know you'd like to cast it as some caricature of what the essay actually says, since that might better justify the accusations, but that's not what an encyclopedia does. In particular, Churchill does not "compare the victims to Nazis", except by several steps of reasoning made by Verklempt rather than by Churchill.

And he doesn't even "call them 'little Eichmanns' except in the quotational sense of referencing Zerzan (Churchill agrees with Zerzan here, clearly; but there's a difference between quoting and calling). While Eichmann was indeed a Nazi, that's actually about as relevant to the point made as is the fact Hitler was a vegetarian (or maybe he wasn't, but such is a meme). The comparison isn't to some distinguishing feature of Nazi ideology, but to Eichmann as analyzed by Hannah Arendt, i.e. as a banal bureaucrat whose evil is his indifference to any particular ideology, not his endorsement of that particular one. The same comparison might be made with some Soviet, Chinese, or indeed American, bureaucrat who "kept the trains running" without caring about the underlying purpose (while not being actually unaware of where they were going either). But Arendt wrote about Eichmann specifically (and indeed that name is more familiar to most readers), and that's why Zerzan borrowed the specific example.

It's extremely germane, even in introducing this article, to note exactly what the controversy was, rather than claim it was something else. There is indeed another several articles that address it in more detail, but a summary at least has an obligation of not being actively false. And the perceived "sin" of Churchill wasn't, as Verklempt's edits all claim, of coining a phrase, but of repeating it (in an only slightly different context than its original coiner, but also with the background of the new "third rail" of American politics). LotLE×talk 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, you are attempting to defend Churchill's comparing innocent victims of terrorism to a notorious Nazi. I rather doubt that his invocation of Nazis was as innocent as you make it out to be, but that is not the issue here. The reason that Churchill was investigated on all of these allegations is because people saw the "little Eichmans" as an insult. Your "interpretation" of the controversy is a defense of Churchill, and totally misrepresents what his opponenets were angry about.Verklempt 05:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, Churchill's use was an insult to the WTC victims. But it's not qua "notorious Nazi", it's as a "notorious bureaucrat". This is not any defense or interpretation, it's just what Churchill's essay says in rather plain language. You're welcome to be offended by the insult. And you're welcome to disagree with Churchill's analysis (I can think of lots of plausible ones: most World Bank folks would likely claim that their actions do more good than harm to the 3rd world, for example). But what you are not welcome to do on WP is claim the essay says something that it plainly does not. It violates WP:OR, it violates WP:NPOV, and it's just plain obnoxious. LotLE×talk 06:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, I definitely see that his comment was indeed along the anti-corporate theme than a comparative analogy to those people being nazis. I get it...doesn't mean I think his comment was in any way pleasant, but I do know what he meant by it.--MONGO 07:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"What Churchill meant" is not the issue here. That can be explored in the 9/11 child article. The function of this lead is to explain why people got incensed enough about Churchill to start investigating him. And the reason is that most readers saw Churchill's comments as an insult to the victims. When you read Churchill's remarks in context, it is pretty clear that he intends to insult the victims, especially the passage about them "braying...incessantly...into their cellphones." Churchill's explicit denial that the victims were innocent is also seen as an insult. The controversy did not begin from what Churchill intended; it came about from what his readers inferred.Verklempt 07:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we are all on the same page as to why some many people were pissed off at him. I was not pleased by his comment either, but obviously his intent was not to say that some of those that died that day were Nazis, his intent appears to have been almost as bad but different...that Eichmann was as complicit in his assistance to the Nazi machine as some of those that died that day were to the corporate machine...I recognize that I am being simplistic in my wording.--MONGO 08:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First let me say that I am very new to Wiki-world and understand fully that I am somewhat wandering about aimlessly in terra incognita. To date I have made comparatively few edits and almost all have dealt with minor grammatical errors. The edits that I made to the first two paragraphs are the biggest contribution/transgression that I have attempted and I would like to emphasize that they were made primarily with an eye toward grammar and flow. As it previously written, the first paragraph seemed to lurch into the second and I felt the transition needed to be smoothed out a bit. With respect to the first paragraph, I believe that, in this article, the emphasis should be on the essay’s role as one of the factors that lead to the investigation of the allegations against Churchill, and a little bit less on how much it offended. Anyway, as I previously stated, I am much more concerned with the correctness and flow of the wording rather than with the content. At this point in my Wiki-existence I am here to learn and if the edits I have made are the Wiki-literary equivalent of cutting the cheese please don’t hesitate to point it out. My goal with this is to graduate from wandering about aimlessly to milling about smartly. Sláinte.--Cafeirlandais 15 June 2006

[edit] Committee Votes

I just listened to the entire press conference, and according to it, 2 members voted for a 2 year suspension without pay, and 3 voted that dimissal would "not be improper" but two of those three thought a better choice would be a 5 year suspension without pay. What is the source for the votes listed here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alisar (talk • contribs).

It's a little hard to sort out if you haven't followed it. There was an "investigative subcommittee" that looked at the details of allegations. That committee had it's 2/2/1 split on recommendation. But the subcommittee was not formally charged with making a recommendation, just with investigating. There's a larger "standing committee" that voted with more of a tilt against Churchill: 6 for dismissal, and I think 2/1 for lesser sanction; but they did not themselves investigate, just read what the subcommittee wrote (well, who knows what they actually did, but that's the formal fact). The standing committee formally advanced its recommendation to the acting chancellor. The chancellor, in turn, really only makes a recommendation to the regents, who haven't acted yet. LotLE×talk 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)