Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Stuff to fix when unprotected

Artwork background

We should probably give some more background on Churchill notability as an artist. One approach is to mention that screen prints and other signed works by him often appear on eBay, e.g., [1]. But that's not such a good permanent reference, since it will change daily.

Artnet is a fairly good reference. The make a passing reference to Churchill's artwork at [2].

The problem seems to be that out of the 70k google hits, almost are these silly accusations about how basing a work on another work is copyright infringement (Picasso must be turning over in his grave with concern; to say nothing of Marcel Duchamp). Finding an ordinary gallery that just sells art is hard to pick out from the volume.

There are some interesting examples of Churchill's work here: [3]. The author of that blog is trying to make some snide point about the fact these works use existing imagery, but they are fairly nice examples. I confess I must scratch my head about these claims: have none of the "critics" ever seen works by the unquestionably great artist Andy Warhol. Churchill is no Warhol artistically, of course, but the notion of borrowing is quite similar (even the use of "pop" images).

Btw. I do wonder if anyone on the right wing blogs has heard of one of the most famous artworks of the 20th century:

Duchamp's parody of the Mona Lisa adds a goatee and moustache.

Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. Original painting from circa 1503–1507. Oil on poplar.

Why is this section here? Churchill is listed mainly because of the 9-11 and continued controversy. His artwork is part of the controversy, but is not referenced or written about in this article, so I don't understand the context of this section. Hoosier 01:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you are asking. Are you referring to the section of the talk page, or the section of the main article?

FWIW, if Fox News and gang had never discovered Churchill's 2001 article in 2005, Churchill would certainly be notable enough for an article. Probably it would be quite a bit shorter, but he definitely meets the "professor test/author test" having published a number of well-read books. As well, minus the whole imbroglio, Churchill's minor, but notable, artistic career would warrant brief mention in the article (about as much as it currently has); probably if he was only an artist and not only an academic, that wouldn't rise to notability, but as an extra facet of a notable individual, it would be worth mentioning.

However, given the discussion of efforts to discredit Churchill's artwork, we certainly need to introduce the fact he does it in the first place to make sense of the later "criticisms". Likewise, it wouldn't make much sense to present allegations that Churchill was hired improperly if we don't say that he has a University job in the first place.

As I've commented before, I'd actually rather just have an article on Ward Churchill that is actually devoted to Churchill... and have all the "public controversy" stuff over in The Churchill Affair or somewhere like that. Having most of an article on a moderately well-known academic actually be about an orchestrated campaign to purge universities is out of balance. But I suppose that's what we're stuck with here. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a seperation of the imbroglio stuff. Your explanation makes about the art area makes sense. There were TV, newspaper and radio reports of alleged copyright violations on at least one of his art works, and questions about others. However, it was not in the scope of the universities examination and investigations of his work, nor has there been any additional follow-up on the allegations. However it was part of the controversy and there are sources on the allegations of,"possible copywrite violations". I may add a few lines in the context of the controversy. I am searching for an,"expert source" on both the technical aspects of the art piece, the practice in the field, and legal opinions that clarify the issue. I listened to one interviewed on one of the morning shows in Denver, and came away with the impression he did not violate copywrite law. Hoosier 20:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's quite possible there is a technical copyright violation involved. Obviously, it depends partially on the permission issue, which is hard to know since Miles is dead. But the issue is sort of like when a hip hop artist samples a snippet of James Brown in their song. No one is going to think it's something other than a sample of James Brown, but there are legal questions of how much is fair use, how many changes are necessary to qualify as fair use, etc. Likewise, Churchill's Winter Attack is both unquestionably derived from Miles drawing, but equally unquestionably a new work. Churchill's is obviously drawn by hand rather than mechanically reproduced—though the Warhol example blurs the mechanical reproduction matter anyway. It has notable differences in form and coloration. I have no idea why it is a mirror image rather than a literal, but that's a slight novel element. But whatever the fact as a court might find it, no one would really give a damn outside of an effort to dig up some dirt on Churchill. Minus the politicalization, maybe Churchill would pay Miles' estate a portion of the sales, should it be brought to court, but the whole thing would be about as notable as the dispute I'm currently in with a past employer who owes me back monies (it's something I care about, but not anything much anyone else should). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh... all that said, if you can find a citable expert who says something about copying in artworks, that would be great context. I don't care whether the expert says that Churchill's derivation was or was not fair use. Any such quotation would give the context that it is a technical legal issue, not simply a matter of Churchill scratching off Miles' signature and claiming he created the work whole cloth (which is how the right wing blogs tend to mischaracterize it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some of the present article would best be made into a separate article on right wing attacks on the academy, especially the "new McCarthyism" and "treason" sections. That topic is larger than Ward Churchill and deserves its own discussion. At the same time it doesn't seem to fit neatly into a Churchill biography. The problem with splitting off a new article is that much of what Churchill was accused of in the media frenzy remains part of his own story. So the same material may need to be dealt with in two different ways in two different articles. (Pokey)

Because only right-wingers find this fool Churchill disgusting? *rolls eyes* GreatGatsby 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Teaching Award

I forgot to give a citation for the CU Alumni Association refusing to hand over the teaching award. I found it in a number of places, but probably the most neutral one is the Boulder Daily Camera. The original article requires (free) registration: [4], but the Google cache is open access: [5]

I actually got some stuff in the CU Alumni magazine, The Coloradan, (I'm an alumnus) that mentioned it too; but I throw those out, so don't have citation details handy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article should also note that Churchill received something like 55 votes, which is why I changed the sentence that originally read "overwhelming choince of Cu students." Pokey

Quoting United Keetoowah Band

I recently changed the quote about Churchill's membership in the Keetoowah Band to say what the source URL actually says. I had not looked through the edit history, but it turns out that the bogus quote was inserted by User:Keetoowah way back in July. Several editors back then had put in the correct quote, but our vandal user managed to sneak in the misquote after a bunch of reversions. I guess it shows vigilance is always necessary. I just started working on this article, but it sure make me wince to think the fabrication was there that long. Oh well, once it is unprotected, let's watch this to make sure the quote stays authentic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: Actually, there is an earlier statement on the Keetoowah Band website, if you scroll down farther. Nonetheless, the "updated and official" statement must take precedence in WP discussion over an earlier preliminary draft statement. It's hardly any less dishonest to treat a superceded statement as if it was final than it is to use a wholly unavailable draft. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any indication that the later statement contradicts or supercedes the first statement? We are talking about a very small office. Some of the people who run it are not highly educated. None of them are sophisticated in dealing with the press. I think that both statements have equal weight in terms of "officialness," and both should be quoted. They were made only a day or two apart. Pokey

Add Categories

1. Category:Marxists (or should it be Category:Marxist theorists? Close call)
2. Category:Native American activists

Section titles

A lot of them are either POV, or simply too flat or inadequately descriptive. I improved a few. Admittedly I have a bit of a literary sense, rather than the most plain factuality. E.g. the reference to the famous book title in "The governor calls it treason".

• "The controversy" seems not quite right, since there are various ones, from various sides. I would suggest "Imbroglio" as an nicely evocative section heading for that.

No preference given due to ethnicity

There are several usable statements in this Rocky Mountain News article. Despite that paper's anti-Churchill slant, they are quote several CU statements that declare that Churchill's hiring had nothing to do with any ethnicity claim (which would violate Title VII, presumably, if they had): [6]

Caplis & Silverman's web site at one point had scans of emails between CU officials showing that ethnicity was a factor in the discussion to hire Churchill as a professor. They also reported this on their show. These documents are thus not original research. They are also verifiable in that anyone can replicate the FIA request to CU and obtain a copy of the documents. I believe that the CO press also reported on this, although I do not have a cite at hand. Please do not dismiss this as "rumor". Just because information is not easily linked to on the web does not make it original research or unverifiable. Pokey.

Are those the DJ's in CO who have taken up an anti-Churchill focus on their shows? I don't live in CO now, but my family out there has told me about some DJ's who have something of a crusade. If so, I'd treat the evidence with great suspicion. Obviously, not everything is on the web, but verifiability requires more than just saying maybe someone said it on a radio show, sans dates or specifics. If you can find a printed quote of these emails, including them with a cite to the print source would be perfectly fine to include (as much as is fair use, of course). But stating a hunch that you might find something on a FOI request ain't enough to include. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have copies of most of the documents acquired by Caplis & Silverman, the two lawyer DJ's in Denver. Included are Prof Churchill's Military Service Record, e-mails regarding his hiring (increasing diversity was one of the subjects) & the form stating that he is Native American. The last form would modify or make unnecessary the section regarding the difficulty of verifying ethnic/racial status as part of this section. Prof Churchill was able to do so.

I am new to Wikipedia comments. The ethnic component boils down to his ancestry, conflicting information in how he identifies himself, & whether or not he violated Title VII by claiming to be Native American. The last point was not included in the review of Prof Churchill by U of Colorado because it had been addressed in the 90's. I am relying on memory from last spring, but I do recall that it was part of the universities statement when its findings were announced, and therefore should be verifable.

In other words, it seems that the previous controversy regarding ethnicity can be characterized and would give context to this section. whosear 9-12-05

User:Whosear is another editor whose entire contribution history is to this page. There is an interesting pattern with this. It's unusual for pages to be edited so largely by editors whose only activity is on a single page.

In any case, I think we need access to these documents if we are to incorporate content from them into this article. A very large percentage of the accusations of Churchill have been pure fabrication, or at best tortured readings of very small exerpts taken entirely out of context. If emails stating Churchill was hired or promoted on the basis of ethnicity exist, those are definitely worth discussing in the article. However, we need to see some context. For example, according to the University of Colorado attorney quoted in the article, ethnicity is "self-proving"; or in other words, even if it were established beyond any doubt that Churchill has no Native American ancerstors, his belief that he had some or his voluntary affiliation with Indian nations, would constitute proper and legal claim of that ethnic identity for Title VII purposes.

Apart from the potentially complex legal issues, email comments need context. It seems quite likely that CU staff indicated a desire to increase diversity in the faculty. But whether or not that general goal (quite consistent with Bakke) means that CU hired him because he was Native American (in violation of Bakke) depends a great deal on the exact context and content of the emails. I must comment generally that it seems peculiar to accuse Churchill of some wrongdoing on the basis of a belief that the University of Colorado itself violated Federal anti-discrimination law (which is the premise behind the idea they hired him "because he was Indian"). It's not clear why Churchill would count on CU violating the law while making a "fraudulent" ethnic identity claim. Still, I'm rambling a bit... what's important is to see these emails ourselves.

Can you, Whosear, identify a URL for these documents. Or if you have them on paper, can you scan them and post them for editors/readers? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Scratch my comments on the AA form & Military record. The article has addressed both issues. Regarding the documents, I can post them. The question is, where & how? To Wikipedia (server)? According to the article, the AA form was signed in 1978, the same year as Bakke. I cannot provide much info as to the context of the e-mails except that they were when he was either hired as a professor or given tenure. Again, I have not reread them, but only recall that it said something to the effect of, "increasing diversity". I'll scan and then see if I can figure out how to post them tomorrow.

btw...I have no intention of editing the article. I can however add additional information that may improve the article. I started exploring Wikipedia to evaluate it as a source for my students (several had asked about it). I made one comment on this article, then I have not been back since last March due to family illnesses. I had researched the controversy, the main players, and was concerned about the editing on this article, and did not find it to be very creditable, which has lead to me not accepting ANY Wikipedia article as a source. My information has been passed throughout our school system, for other teachers to evaluate. Now I am revisiting Wikipedia. The article is so much better. whosear 9-12-05

I think uploading scans to WP would be fine. However, if for some reason hosting space is needed, I'd be happy to provide a home for any scanned documents. Email me at the address on my user page for details. I guess we need to see, but why would the AA form be from 1978 when Churchill was hired in 1990?

Btw. Welcome to WP then. The magic of collaboration is that articles that start bad, get better with time. Also, when you write comments, please sign them using "~~~~" at the end. That fills in a hyperlink version of your username, complete with timestamp. It keeps everything tidy and easy to follow. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lotus, thanks for your feedback. I've been organizing my files on Chruchill. I've found the e-mails, Military record, AA form, and other info. I downloaded it from the Caplis & Silverman website earlier this year, when they were investigating and advocating the firing of Prof Churchill. The forms do need context. I will search newspaper articles in the Denver press to see if adequate context exists. No verfiable information exists at the C & S KHOW website (I could e-mail Silverman, an afficionado of Wikipedia, to see if something could be set up, but don't know if I would get a response.) Otherwise, if I can't find a verifiable context, then I don't know how to use the documents. ~~~~

The internal CU emails indicating AA hiring preference for Churchill are cited in the Rocky, and the date is given in the article. I think this passage is fair and reasonably well-written. Pokey

The email given so far definitely does not say Churchill was given AA hiring preference. That's an extremely contorted and tortured reading of it, that maybe makes the claim reach barely plausible. But of course, I do not know what other documents I have never seen might say. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are being legalistic, then I agree with you. But the emails do show that hiring Churchill was considered to be "making our own contribution to increasing the cultural diversity on campus (Ward is a native American)." This approach is consistent with the goals of AA (increasing diversity), whether or not it strictly followed whatever bureaucratic procedure that CU had in place for AA hiring at the time. Most higher education AA offices simply collect data and set broad goals, and it is left to the people making the hire to figure out the details. From this email it seems clear that Churchill's claim to being Indian did play at least some part in his getting hired (Pokey)

There's really no other way to be than legalistic when discussing a legal distinction. Given the Communications chair's email is indeed from 1991, quite a while after Bakke in 1978, it would be quite extraordinary (and illegal) for the chair to hire Churchill "because of" his ethnicity... which is what the right wing press usually alleges.

The email seems perfectly ordinary to me, as a former academic. Take away the ethnic angle, and just think about "nice to have" ways of talking about candidates. If I were still teaching in a philosophy department, and I wanted to hire a given candidate for a job in epistemology, I might write an email arguing "Hiring Foo will increase our coverage of medieval philosophy as well, because of his AOC." I would not write such an email if Foo was not otherwise qualified, nor for that matter if I did not already want to hire Foo because of his/her AOS or other features. The email says that Churchill's ethnicity is an incidental positive, but is premised on an independent desire to hire him.

So even if you presume that Churchill's ethnic claims are not only false, but knowingly false—and moreover that ethnicity is not "self-evidencing" as stated by the University—it is still more-or-less absurd to claim that there was some kind of illegal preference given.

Still, it is quite tortured to contend that Churchill didn't believe he had a few relatively distant NA ancestors (even supposing that's not actually true). For pretty much any non-Indian whose ancestors have been in the USA for more than about 150 years, family lore of various Indian ancestry is widespread, whether true or false. I was told as a child of the very same thing about a distant Cherokee ancestor (I even know a name of this great-great-... grandmother). Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, it really makes no difference to me. But a lot of folks like to imagine some significance to their ancestry. Not just Native American: people equally fictionalize their "deep" Irish roots, or Italian roots, or Ethiopian roots, or Japanese roots, or whatever... even if they are, in fact, thorougly "Americanized" for numerous generations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is strong indication in one of the Rocky pieces that Churchill knew that his family stories were false, but I don't have a cite at hand. The potential illegality here is not on CU's side. I don't think anyone has charged CU with acting improperly in giving Churchill a boost for being Indian. The question is whether Churchill committed ethnic fraud by intent or accidentally. (Pokey)

This is pretty darn thin. If nothing else, the Rocky Mountain News is almost entirely discreditable as a source for this (and "some article" is non-specific). But in any case, how on earth could the RMN possibly know that Churchill "knew his family stories were false" (in 1990) other than by some magic mind reading (that also used a time machine)?

In any case, if CU had "given Churchill a boost for being Indian" that would without any question violate Bakke, hence be illegal. So if you say (accurately enough) that CU did nothing illegal, then ipso facto Churchill did not benefit from any claims to ethnic identification (whatever he may have known or believed on this, or whatever might actually be the case). So the alleged wrongdoing amount to conceivably having made a false claim from which he gained no benefit whatsoever. <sarcasm>Wow, that's certainly worth the fulltime attention of national broadcaster</sarcasm> (almost as bad as, say, Bill O'Reilly exaggerating his sexual prowess... well, not really even close, given that Churchill's possible misstatement wasn't in a context of sexual harrassment). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabrications as witchhunt

Lulu, when you say a large number of accusations against Churchill have been pure fabrication, what are you talking about? If you can document his claim, that should be part of the "McCarthyism" section. But I am confident that you cannot document this claim. The astonishing thing about Churchill is that he does seem to be guilty of most of the things he is charged with, at least the ones aired in the press. Pokey

Maybe you're right that there should be a bit more in that section. But just reproducing all the probably literally libelous speculation in right-wing blogs (or on Fox News, or in the Rocky Mountain News) gives them more credence than they merit. I'll work on fleshing it out a bit with some small excerpts from some of the anti-Churchill ranting. But then, most of the article is pretty good in presenting this: for example, the Governor's claim of "treason" would hardly reach laughably absurd if it didn't come from the Governor. And the idea that borrowing in derived artwork is the same as plagiarism is also almost unbelievably stupid as an accusation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Governor's treason charge is rhetorical, not legal. If it were an actual legal charge, then I agree that it would be overblown. But we expect politicians to bloviate. As for Churchill's appropriation of Thomas Mails' art, that is for a court to decide. The fact that Churchill borrowed from Mails is not fabricated. Churchill admits it. The question is whether or not the borrowing violated copyright law. Mails' son doubts that Churchill had obtained permission. These are matters of legal opinion. There is no fabrication involved. (Pokey)

Would you please sign your posts, Pokey? That is, using the normal four tilde mark that expands to a link to your user account? Anyway, the Governor misuses the word "treason" in an absurdly contrived way. You're right it's not a legal charge, say under the unconstitutional Smith Act. But it is a fabrication quite literally. If I were to claim "Governor Owens murders school children"... with the explanation that by "murders" I mean "reads to", it would hardly give the claim much credence.

On the art work, plagiarism is also simply the wrong word. Churchill stated the derivation when he sold the work (but not every reseller apparently preserved that), and it certainly wasn't anything subtle. I don't think Duchamp "fooled" anyone either in his derivation of Leonardo (see above). Given some really horrible developments in copyright law, it is indeed possible that Churchill's work violates copyright law. I tend to believe Mails' son is wrong about the permission, but I'm just guessing (I wasn't there); and with or without permission, the fair use question would need to be decided by a court. For that matter, the Rosa Luxumberg drawing I put up would be a copyright violation on the original photograph if the latter wasn't in the public domain (which is a matter of five years difference in year of origin). But none of this is about plagiarism, which has a much more specific meaning that "copying that is subtly to the outside of fair use". Plagiarism means copying with an intent to hide origins and derivation; such an intent would be absurd to posit, no matter how malevalent you might suppose Churchill to be, simply because the derivation is so self-evident, and the prior work well known in the artistic sub-community where Churchill sells his works. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a typical example of fabricated claims by a major news commentator [7]: O'Reilly: OK. Becau - you know. But he wants the government to be overthrown

Or another O'Reilly comment that shows the witchhunt angle (along with the wild fabrication):

March 7: O'Reilly criticizes CU president Elizabeth Hoffman, who has resigned in the wake of the Churchill controversy and a football scandal. He says she was "totally intimidated by Churchill," and claims that Churchill will "take the entire University of Colorado down with him."

Or,

O'Reilly: "But who is the real Nazi here? [YOU, O'Reilly!] Hitler and his crew KILLED millions of civilians and justified it. Churchill BELIEVES American civilians are legitimate military targets. There's no question Churchill is echoing the Nazi philosophy." [emphasis added]

Hmmm... not exactly a fabrication, but the prevalence of death threats is somehow suggestive of the witchhunt angle:

Should the likes of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Dennis Raimondo [sic], et al. act out their sedition ... expect their bodies to be found shot full of holes ... Leftist professors will be strung up. It will be every man, woman, and child for themselves."[From ultrarightist David Horowitz's Frontpage Magazine web site]

But O'Reilly did _not_ fabricate when he says that Churchill wants the US government overthrown. Churchill routinely calls for this to happen in his speeches. The rest of your examples are just bloviating nonsense from the right, not unlike the overwrought bloviating nonsense that Churchill habitually spews from the extreme left. This kind of rhetoric does not rise to the level of a "charge" that any reasonable person would take seriously. It's just extremist rhetoric. Churchill dishes it out, and he gets it in return. I don't see this as worthy of a place in the Wikipedia. I don't even think the "treason" section belongs in there, because it's only more of the same. (Pokey)

Actually, no. Churchill has not stated this. Only the crudest misreading of Churchill writing gets to this misunderstanding. And Hoffman most certainly was not "totally intimdated by Churchill". And so on. The few examples are just from a few minutes searching on Google, I'm sure I can find even grosser fabrications without all that much work. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Churchill routinely leads chants of "US out of North America." My discomfort with your examples is that they are not real charges and thus do not rise to the level worthy of empirical analysis. My opinion is that this article should stick to real issues that can be analyzed based on evidence, and leave out the back-and-forth over rhetorical froth that is typical of Crossfire. If the charge cannot be proven by evidence, then I don't consider it worthy of inclusion. That's why I think the "treason" nonsense should come out, and the debate over Hoffman's "intimidation" should never go in. (Pokey)

You agree then that the Governor's idiotic posturuing with the word "treason" should be taken out of the article then? I tend to agree with you on this. If you remove it, I'll be supportive... though I think I'll avoid doing that edit myself because some anti-Churchill editors have accused me of being pro-Churchill. Obviously, my real position is being pro-encyclopedic; though I confess I succomb to being ticked off by some of the Bill O'Reilly-style ranting that some editors have put in the article.

I haven't put any of the stuff mentioned here into the McCarthyism section. I just dug it up at your suggestion. But I actually think that President Hoffman's comment about this and the one other quote is sufficient to show that some people believe the accusations against Churchill are part of an orchestrated campaign. Actually something about David Horowitz' long-term planning for exactly this kind of attack might be worth mentioning... but I don't want to turn this into an article on Horowitz or Lynn Cheney (they have their own articles, I presume; though I've never actually read those). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Protected

Lulu just contacted me regarding this article, and it seems like it was a good idea he did, this edit war seems to be fairly heated. Let's leave all the editing ideas on here for a bit while things cool down, i've protected the page so we can hopefully do that. If you'd like a third party to check the edit proposals, just ask, but otherwise i'll stay out of it. karmafist 03:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I've created a WP:RFC Request for Comment on this article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ward Churchill. However, it's somewhat experimental and uses a similiar form to a user RFC rather than the traditional "this is just a notice that there's a problem" format for articles that happened before, so bear with me. karmafist 20:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Ok, I've unprotected the article. From that RFC, it appears that Keetoowah is the problem more than anything, and last night I blocked him per 2 months as prescribed via the interpretation of the arbcom's ruling on him in October. karmafist 19:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

I certainly don't want to make false allegations: but it strikes me as odd that new user User:Pokey5945 joined only to edit this article, and did so immediately after User:Keetoowah was blocked for his combative behavior. Most of the changes by Pokey5945 were trying to re-introduce more anti-Churchill POV; however, rather than simply roll back the edits, I kept those that seemed sufficiently reasonable, but tried to fix things back up paragraph at a time. Still, it feels odd for users to join WP for a single purpose, with no other edit history. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop with the conspiracy theory. In my view I removed pro-Churchill POV. While I have not edited this article before, I have watched it since the controversy broke. And since Keetwoah was bounced, a pro-Churchill bias has been sneaking in. I did not introduce anything that cannot be documented. Pokey

My spidey-senses were not tingling because you had never edited this particular article before, but rather because you had never edited any other article (under your current username). Obviously, anyone signing up edits some article first, but... well, there's a pattern I've seen on WP of brand new usernames editing highly politicized or controversial article topics (i.e. usually with an agenda). However, your last few edits have been good, and added helpful new information. So I apologize for any misgivings I expressed above.

Let's work together, and make this an even better article (and likewise any other topic we happen to intersect on in the future). All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes? Course?

I don't understand the below paragraph. Unfortunately, at least for me, the Daily Camera links provided lead to blank pages (not entirely blank, but no articles); my guess is that's an issue with the Camera website, which may or may not be fixed.

Three other authors have come forward to accuse Churchill of publishing their work without their permission. [40] Robert T. Coulter, a lawyer and member of the Potawatomi Nation, has accused Churchill of taking a class that Coulter taught on the status of American Indian nations and having those notes published without written permission in a book of essays that Churchill had published. In addition, Churchill allegedly added endnotes to the article that were not in the original article. Coulter has not only criticized Churchill's use of the article without permission, but also the addition of the endnotes. He said: "I would never have permitted that — especially Ward Churchill. He's not a lawyer. He doesn't have the skill or expertise to add [endnotes] to a paper on my own subject." [41]

Specifically, Coulter's comments here don't make sense as written. Churchill is "accused of taking a class"? That's not an accusation as far as I can see though. Then it says Churchill allegedly published notes w/o permission: what notes? Churchill's own notes taken in class? Notes handed out by the instructor? Then just after that it claims that Churchill used "the article" without permission. Whose article, Coulter's? If so, how does the misused article relate to the "notes"?

Does anyone else have a clearer idea exactly what is alleged to have happened? It sounds like there is something here that should be in the article, but it's very muddy what is claimed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My recollection is that Churchill republished a handout that was passed out at a conference presentation.

Also, what happened to Churchill's supposed serial plagiarism of the Water Plot pamphlet? That material has all disappeared. Pokey

Teaching award placement

I put the teaching award non-grant back to the New McCarthyism section. It's much more interesting there. The fact that Churchill is a good teacher who students would vote so is pretty trivial in itself. There are apparently at least three of those awarded each year, to teachers of classes of varying sizes. And Churchill has been teaching at CU for 15 years. I'm sure it would be nice to receive, but if 45 awards have been given to various faculty since Churchill started at CU, getting one of them isn't all that unusual for faculty members.

The thing that makes the award notable, IMO, is the unprecedented refusal to award it per the alumni association's own rules. That shows a real cave-in to political pressures. There's really not any sliver of connection between the various charges themselves and the award: the award is for teaching quality, not for "least plagiarizing professor" or "most acceptable opinions in a professsor". The contortions of the alumni association to find a connection shows somethign about the political atmosphere.

Btw. Excellent edits recently Pokey. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/20 December 2005/Ward Churchill

Hello everyone: I'm a mediator from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Today Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters made a request for us to provide mediation assistance regarding NPOV issues about this article. Perhaps Fluterst can make his/her opinions on this issue known on this page? Olorin28 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of Fluterst's edits exhibit an unmistakeable anti-Churchill bias that is inappropriate. On the other hand, some of his/her edits are worth keeping or building on. I do not want to see Fluterst blocked from participating here just yet, but I agree that Fluterst should attempt to edit more objectively. The bottom line is that this article is contentious, even among well-meaning, non-vandalistic editors. Let's try to refrain from using wiki politics to shut down the voices of those we disagree with. To me, *some* of Fluterst's revisions border on vandalism, but I don't want to give up on him/her just yet. (Pokey)

I mention this at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/20 December 2005/Ward Churchill also. But if you've been following this page, you'll see that most of the edits by Fluterst that are not in themselves outrageously POV are rollbacks to earlier versions of the page, where improvements have been made since then.

For example, in the ethnicity section, I put a fair amount of work into reorganizing the paragraphs and smoothing the transitions so that there was more of a logical flow to it. That wasn't a matter (in the main) of adding or removing any particular descriptions or quotes, just an organizational thing. But the version Fluterst has reverted to is one with the older, rather scattershod, organization (see this talk page or its archives for a discussion of how that section should be organized). Bad flow isn't a POV issue as such, but reverting a whole section to erase the work of several editors (me included) is bad manners (and suggestive of meatpuppetry, given Fluterst sole participation in this page... and I guess O'Reilly's article too, which is connected as the most prominent anti-Churchill voice outside WP).

Another example of Fluterst's changes are a bunch of circumlocutions in the descriptions of Churchill's books. I'm not the one who took out that extra verbiage (e.g. "...what he believes to constitute..."; but the context already indicates we're talking about the thesis of a particular book, not necessarily objective fact). But once I saw the change, I agree it definitely reads better in the simplified form. Now you might disagree about whether the caveats and circumlocutions are helpful in a particular sentence, but Fluterst isn't carefully wording for clarity and disambiguity... he's just rolling back to some version of a section, from say 50 edits ago, that matches his overall bias better (i.e. not because of the presence or absence of the circumlocution, but because of some other snide anti-Churchill comment that was somewhere in the old version). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi y'all, wassup? Fluterst 04:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Teaching award

I'm curious, User:Pokey5945, where you found the vote tally for the teaching award. The numbers don't sound particularly implausible (54 of 2085 votes for Churchill, in his class-size category). It perhaps seems slightly to insinuate something negative about the award by pointing out that a pretty small minority of student voters picked Churchill. CU has something like 23k students, so only a tenth of them voted, and it probably has something like 800-1000 faculty, so that's a lot of directions to split the vote. And presumably, only students who had taken Churchill's classes could in good faith vote for him (but those wouldn't necessarily, if they liked another prof better whom they also studied with).

Anyway, I don't care about that. The award is really a completely trivial thing in itself, with no inherent notability. Lots of academics with articles have won similar things, but nearly none of the articles bother mentioning this. The striking thing is that the alumni association would bother withholding such a trivial honor for no reason even remotely connected to Churchill's teaching quality (what the award is for). The cited article, however, does not give any info on the vote breakdown (though the general "more than 2000 students voted" is consistent). Some of what it does have might be relevant to the section, though the main relevant thing is a quote from Churchill himself rather than a 3rd party, which might be less good:

Churchill said the case is more like a professor withholding a grade "because a student has been accused of bouncing a check at Walgreen's."

He said the group is penalizing his exercise of free speech and does not have the authority to withhold an award granted by students.

"What (Zimmerman) is really saying — obviously — is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me," he wrote in an e-mail Thursday.

"The fact is that I've won the award, and Zimmerman is withholding it for reasons having nothing at all to do with the criteria of the award itself."

More than 2,000 students voted for the 2005 Teaching Recognition Awards, granted annually in four class-size categories.

Ray MacFee of business won for classes with more than 150 students, Brett King of psychology won for classes with between 76 to 150 students, and John Hansen of speech, language and hearing won for classes with fewer than 25 students.

Students selected Churchill for the award for classes of 25 to 75.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Credulity to claims

Much of the "research misconduct" section still reads very oddly. I know these things have been repeated in the press, but many of them really don't come close to passing the "smell test". For example, if Churchill claims that 100k Mandan indians were killed by the introduction of smallpox, that is indeed fairly implausible. Not because the fatality rate was not extremely high (up to 90% in some populations without immunities), but just because there was not that high a population to start with. But being wrong about some fact is hardly "research misconduct"... most of my colleagues are wrong about most of the things they write in their books :-). Heck, I may have even made a mistake or two in my writing.

Or again, maybe LaVelle is right about the General Allotment Act, and Churchill is wrong. Or maybe Churchill is right and LaVelle wrong. I strongly doubt that any of the editors here have an expert knowlege on this particular fact (and I am 100% certain that the RMN is not). So what we have is two experts in a field who disagree on a fact. Why is this a "research misconduct" question at all?! FWIW, my own hunch is that what the law narrowly stated is different from how it was enforced in practice, and it's probably possible for both LaVelle and Churchill to be right in slightly different respects. But I'm no expert on this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lulu, you should go back and read the RMN's roundup series from early June. Churchill has gone far beyond simple error. If that was all there was to it, his university's misconduct committee would not have forwarded his case all the way to the end stage of the process where they are now rounding up experts to review the charges. The committee functions as a grand jury, and found prima facie evidence of misconduct sufficient to indict. On the GAA, all you have to do is read it. There is no bq there, and Churchill has admitted that. (Pokey)

Would you please sign your posts, Pokey? Use the WP four tildes, please.

Tell the truth, have you yourself read the whole General Allotment Act? And moreover, have you examined all regulations the Dawes Commission, Commisioner of Indian Affairs and/or the Secretary of Interior may have promolgated pursuant to the act, for the whole period between 1887 and 1934? If Churchill himself says he was in error, just give us a source for that, and it seems non-contended. But if LaVelle feels the act means one thing, and Churchill thinks it meant another (or was enforced in a certain way)... well, that's an academic disagreement that we non-experts cannot decide.

The misconduct committee was setup by an administration to find some misconduct by any means necessary (and stacked with politically aligned members). The governor demanded university heads roll if none was found; and the incoming (acting) University president was selected in large part as someone who would be sympathetic with the purge of leftist professors. And even given all that, they haven't been able to find anything of any substance. The most they could manage was to pro forma not close the committee.

If every single thing ever alleged, however thin, was all true, no one would give it more than a passing mention (and probably not beyond the department level) for a "regular academic". There is certainly not one single academic or writer I've ever met on whom you could not find "dirt", or at least the appearance of dirt, if you loosely characterize the questions. I've used material I co-authored in other contexts too; I've stated facts wrong occasionally; I've certainly advanced positions that the majority of my field disagrees with (I'd hardly be a researcher if I hadn't). If a fulltime staff of reporters scoured this for every vague appearance of impropriety they could half-construe, they'd probably find more claims in my meager writing history than in Churchill's extensive one. And I'm a lot more honest and forthright than most (former) academics I know. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to use the signing feature, and would appreciate a lesson. One the misconduct commmittee--it is a standing committee made up of faculty. It was not set up to get Churchill or conduct a witch hunt. From the RMN: "In a recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News in his CU office, Churchill conceded that the Dawes Act does not specifically refer to a blood quantum. 'No, it doesn't say that word in the Dawes Act itself, the General Allotment Act per se,' Churchill said."[8]Finally, the story here is that Churchill is under investigation. Eventually the committee will report some result and there will be more news stories and maybe lawsuits. In the meantime, this article should report what is known.(Pokey)

Enter four tildes ('~') at the end of your comment. When you save, that will expand into your full username and a timestamp, with a link to your user page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

General Allotment Act

I think this bit is looking much better. I had not been aware of the specifics of the dispute, but I see the argument between LaVelle and Churchill (and more important, readers now can understand it). The LaVelle characterization of the Act is similar to that the RMN has, so we need not repeat both slightly different wordings of the same general condemnation. The eugenics claim is important though. It's fine to point out that Churchill uses that word, rather than such being consensus; but mentioning it is important to making sense of Churchill's comparison of the Act with Nazi eugenics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a non-expert clarification, I'm certainly not suggesting putting my interpretation in the article itself. But as I understand Churchill's claim, the 1887 Congress in passing the Dawes Act intended to coerce tribes to adopt a blood quantum standard, even while not per se putting it into the law. The Dawes Commission might have exercised all sort of regulatory and administrative pressure to convince tribes to adopt this standard. Apart from how bad the Act was at heart, this sort of extra legislative pressure is commonplace: for example, the feds often do not require states to act a certain way as such, but they tie distribution of monies, such as highway funds, to compliance with, e.g. national standards for drunk driving laws. Likewise, pressure was exercised on tribes to put a thumb on the scale of their membership criteria. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You are reiterating Churchill's defense here. The problem is that he has never demonstrated any such external pressure. The bigger problem is that Churchill lied and said that the GAA itself was the source of BQ.Pokey5945 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that Churchill has a defense. No.. that's not quite right, the point is more that Churchill does not need a defense to start with (he needs to defend the underlying scholarly claim, of course; but not the conduct of making it). Like LaVelle, he is a subject area expert (which neither you nor I is). To claim flatly that whatever LaVelle claims is true, and whatever Churchill claims is false, is POV-pushing. Churchill, as a subject area expert did not lie about GAA, he characterized it in a manner that LaVelle does not endorse. We don't even know at this point whether the rest of the subject area experts in this (which is probably a couple dozen scholars in total) have beliefs closer to LaVelle or to Churchill. For that matter, I haven't even seen the exact wording of Churchill's alleged mischaracterization.

I don't know if you are an academic, Pokey5945, but I have been one. This kind of disagreement is perfectly ordinary. That's not my area, but in my actual area the same thing happens. I might write in some article the so-and-so mischaracterizes Nietzsche, and the meaning of the text is something very different; so-and-so might retort that Lulu completely misunderstands Nietzsche's intent, and if you read these other books so-and-so's interpretation is correct. And so on. Just because I claim that someone has utterly failed to understand Nietzsche (and makes false claims pursuant to that), that doesn't even come close to thinking they engaged in fraud or misconduct... at most I think they engaged in ignorance and idiocy (which ain't "improper" in a rules sense). :-) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a debate over the meaning of a literary passage. Churchill has claimed that a US law contains a requirement that even Churchill himself admits it does not contain. At the very least Churchill has made a serious error. At worst he has committed fraud.Pokey5945 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Churchill, and very explicitly, he did not claim that a law contained something it did not. Are you a legal historian of this law? What the is very precisely is a debate over the meaning of a "literary" passage. When we talk about the "establishment clause" of the bill or rights, or its protection of "privacy" we are not talking about whether a particular word occurs in the Constitution, we're talking about what the words that are there mean. Likewise in this debate over the meaning of the GAA. I'm not claiming Churchill's interpretation is right (nor that it is wrong, I do not know); but to pretend that it is something other than a scholarly interpretation is just rampant POV-mongering. Heck, even if you are a legal historian, Plkey5945, you are not the consensus of legal historians (though such may exist... or may not).Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To followup: if you can find a quote from a book of Churchill where he writes: "The GAA, section 3 paragraph 4, uses the phrase 'blood quantum'", then he's just factually wrong. But if you find a passage where he writes: "The GAA imposed a blood quantum standard" then we're in the realm of legal interpretation, and academic dispute. I'm pretty darn sure we're talking about the latter thing. But I'd be happy to be shown wrong with specific citation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

First, Churchill is not a subject area expert. He's not a lawyer, not a law professor, and doesn't even hold a Ph.D. Nor is he writing for a specialist audience. LaVelle is a Harvard-trained law professor at a major university. The community of legal scholars agrees with LaVelle. There is no support for Churchill's claim. Even if you stoop to an argument from credentials, it's not a contest between equals. Second, you are setting the ethical bar very low for Churchill. Churchill repeatedly leaves the impression in the mind of his reader that the GAA is responsible for setting a 1/2 bq. You are allowing him to weasel out of this lie by saying that he never cited a specific passage. Of course he didn't! How could he? There is no passage that says any such thing! You allow Churchill the possibility that the GAA "ushered in" a bq, to use Churchill's words, when Churchill has never explained any such linkage. Why? Because it can't be done. Churchill didn't elucidate the linkage a) because there is none, and b) because he would have to admit his initial lie about the GAA. Churchill is wrong on the specifics and wrong on the big picture. I suggest that you read LaVelle's article. Your characterization of this as a "debate" implies a postmodern epistemology that doesn't acknowledge the difference between telling the truth and telliing a lie, and instead sees only debates between power discourses. Whereas any literate human can read the GAA and see that there is no bq there. It is astonishing that you are unwilling to admit Churchill's dishonesty in this issue. Why twist yourself into a knot to disprove what is obvious?Pokey5945 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to really claim with a straight face that Churchill is not a subject area expert in this. He is professor, and former chair, of a an Ethnic Studies department at a major university. He has written a dozen academic books that relate to this, and many articles. His books and articles are widely read in college curricula, and cited by other subject area experts. It is unusual for experts such as Churchill not to have a Ph.D. or J.D., but it happens (Stanley Aronowitz is a good example in my field). You are happy to believe Churchill is wrong, I'm not even particularly claiming he's right. But it's just absurd to call this something other than an academic dispute. It's also a bit duplicitous for you to declare the consensus of the "community of legal scholars" based on... well, nothing; or maybe on a couple popular article by RCN. If you want to write your own scholarly dispute of Churchill's claim, a legal or history journal would be a good place for it... but Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering what Churchill would have to do for you to consider him to have violated scholarly research ethics, or any other ethical standard for that matter. You seem ready to bend over backwards to explain away every single one of the criticisms of Churchill. What will it take? Would he have to fabricate a genocide that nver happened? Plagiarize repeatedly? Oops, he already did that, and you're still defending him. Why?Pokey5945 03:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Service Dates

I have no idea what Mr. Churchill's service dates actually are but to serve in Vietnam from 1966 to 1968 would require more than a twelve month tour which would be highly unlikely as the tours were all one year and while volunteering for additional tours was certainly common enough a draftee would not have time to do so. It would add to the credibility of the article if these dates were corrected or clarified. Danm50 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome clarification of the actual dates, but I've seen these in news reports also. But definitely never put meta-commentary on the article within the article itself (dunno if the anon was Danm50). Perhaps Churchill assignment was extended involuntarily? Or perhaps he reenlisted? Or maybe this represents just a couple days of the start and end years, and the whole of 1967? I don't know what the fact is, these are just guesses. Or maybe the reported years are wrong. 141.154.165.60 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters while accidentally logged out)

The vicious attacks on Ward Churchill

Ward Churchill appears to be the latest author attacked by a strikling super-conservative country. I have been reading a lot about American sociology lately, as it relates to the violent suppresion of the left.*

I knew little about Churchill, and had a negative view of him because of his 9/11 article and infamous "little eichman" quote. I then stumbled upon one of his articles:

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. Volume 4, Number 1: 15. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: year (link), Which talks about the history of the suppresion of the Left, to its very origins, the Pinkerton Detective Agency.

It was absolutly incredible. Ward Churchill is an incredible historian. What do these attacks on Ward Churchill do? They cause Americans to shy away from reading Churchill's work, and they send a clear message to others who may want to attack American foreign policy: that you can lose your job if you criticize America, that you will be attacked viciously if you criticize America. It is the latest form of American suppression of the Left.

I am just interested if there is a list of authors, or a book or article about those who have been "Swift Boated" like Churchill. If so, I would like to add this to the article. I think Americans need to know how America's sophisticated Propoganda system** operates. Travb 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes:

* Violent historical suppresion of the Left: Sexton, Patricia Cayo (1992). The War on Labor and the Left: Understanding America's Unique Conservatism. Westview Press. ISBN 0813310636., which asks such questions as why has America had more people killed in labor disputes than any other country? Why doesn't America have a labor party like other industrialized countries? Why are union numbers so low in America compared to other industrialized countries?

As Ellen Schrecker said: Political repression in America...is American as apple pie --American Inquisition: The Era of McCarthyism, Tape 9: Joe McCarthy and the Loss of China.

** "I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."

--Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.

When I first visited Russia, in 1986, I made friends with a musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor. One day we were talking about life during 'the period of stagnation' - the Brezhnev era. 'It must have been strange being so completely immersed in propaganda,' I said.

'Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was propaganda,' replied Sacha.

That is the difference. Russian propaganda was so obvious that most Russians were able to ignore it. They took it for granted that the government operated in its own interests and any message coming from it was probably slanted - and they discounted it.

In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest triumph is that we generally don't notice it - or laugh at the notion it even exists.

--Lessons in How to Lie About Iraq August 17, 2003 by the Observer/UK[9]

Travb 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When you write that "Ward Churchill is an incredible historian" you hit the nail on the head. Much of what he writes is simply incredible. It so biased as to amount to political propaganda, and in places he verges into out and out fraud. He does no primary research. He simply reads standard works done by real historians and spins what he reads into his extremist political viewpoint. I agree with you that he has been attacked by the right, just as he attacks them in return. But the bottom line is that Churchill is guilty of the most serious charges of plagiarism and research fraud.Pokey5945 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality, factual errors

• First paragraph

Failing to mention Ward Churchill's disgrace, resignation from University office in the first paragraph is frightful propagandizing. It's the only reason most of us have heard of him. No respectable encyclopedia article would omit a prominent reference to his disgrace, the reasons for it, his response and so on. Yes it's to some extent covered in the article but a one line summary is needed in the first paragraph. It's absence is justification alone for the article to marked for a lack of neutrality and significant fact error. Fluterst 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• The rest

I will gladly review each painful paragraph of this propaganda if someone can put up their hands as a moderate contributor. Fluterst 08:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as a moderate contributor. I am not anti-Churchill, and I don't care one way or the other about his political views. I am appalled by his lack of ethics, which has been demonstrated over and over by overwhemling evidence.Pokey5945 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to think of yourself that way. And indeed, your contributions to the article itself have been quite reasonable, in fact affirmatively helpful. But no one reading the diatribes on this talk page would walk away with the impression you say you wish to give. Rather, anyone ould assume that you are vehemently and ideologically anti-Churchill, and happy to shape selected evidence to try to support your preconception. Just so you know. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've said nothing about Churchill's politics, not word one. I do find him guilty of serious ethical lapses. I began to contribute here only to counter your constant attempts to excuse Churchill.Pokey5945 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously... take a breath, and try reading what you've written on the talk page. Even the comment immediately above. Your presupposition is that the obligation of this article is to "condemn" Churchill, and according to this a priori a "failure to condemn" is a "constant attempt to excuse". But this is an encyclopedia article, not an advocacy editorial. The rule here is WP:NPOV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What I write in the article is distinct from what I write on the Talk page. I have worked hard to be neutral in my editing, and I am at least as successful in neutrality as you are.Pokey5945 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a sentence on the popular awareness/discussion of Churchill in 2005. It's not perfect, but we do need something with a middle tone. That is, Fluterst has repeatedly inserted completely unencyclopedic and POV rants about "disgraced", "hated", etc. In frankness, I think it is best called an "orchestrated right-wing smear campaign", but that also prejudges the issue. What we need for the lead is a brief comment (don't try to describe the whole essay content in the lead, we do it extensively later) that neither claims Churchill is right, nor claims his critics are right. I think my sentence is fair, even if a little bit vague. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Orchestrated" implies a conspiracy. This is unsubstantiated. "Right wing" is only partially accurate. Many on the left are also appalled by Churchill and have spoken out against him. "Smear campaign" assumes that Churchill is innocent of the charges against him.Pokey5945 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The charges change daily, but Churchill is most certainly innocent of the vast majority of "charges" against him. It's conceivable that he trivially violated some copyright, at some point. Most certainly this was orchestrated. David Horowitz and Lynn Cheney were two of those actively "shopping around" a possible "villian" since about 2000. Sami Al-Arian managed to fill the role for a while, but they really wanted someone more centrally in political theory to attack. Also, Colorado has turned into something of a hotbed of this purification of academia effort. Still, all that is a different article, not this one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Churchill will skate on most of the charges, not because he is innocent, but because there is a lack of will to do anything about his violations. The charges that Churchill will not be able to walk away from are the plagiarism and the fabrication of genocide. The plagiarism goes far beyond "trivial copyright" violation. He's reproduced entire essays and put his name on them, more than once. Again, you repeatedly rise to defend Churchill and minimize his ethical lapses. Why? Do you really believe that plagiarizing and fabricating genocide are trivial?Pokey5945 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The allegation of plagiarism is of a paragraph from his ex-wife. So yeah, trivial. Or the silliness with possibly-not-fair-use on the derived drawing. The so-called "fabricating genocide" is again trivial: it sounds like Churchill may be wrong (though I'm not sure exactly what he actually claimed, and where)... but for an historian to be wrong in an analysis is, well, utterly trivial. I mean, it's important to academic repute in the sense of whom to cite and the like, but as some sort of ethical failing, it barely rises to absurd. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The article, as is, does a fairly good job at summing up the allegations of academic fraud by Churchill. The plagiarism is not "one paragraph from his ex-wife" but includes Cohen from Dalhousie University and Robbins. And, its not just that he was wrong on his analysis of the sources, it was that he deliberately misrepresented the material. TDC 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC, you neglected to include Churchill's serial plagiarism of the "Water Plot" pamphlet. I want to ask Lulu again: Do you think that fabrication and falsification are possible for someone working in Churchill's filed to commit? If so, what would he have to do to meet that standard, in your opinion? It sounds to me as if you're saying that historians have free rein to use data as they please, without any ethical controls whatsoever.Pokey5945 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)