Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 3

message: right|frame|Ward Churchill- Perpertrated $2 Million Fraud pretending to be "Native American" gained notoriety by saying 9/11 victims received an appropriate "penalty"
Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American academic currently under investigation for academic fraud who has also fraudulently claimed partly Native American descent, despite being officially recorded as white. Until controversy erupted over his remarks about 9/11, he was a somewhat obscure although well-paid leftist activist and author.
Key Ward Churchill Facts
* He is a wealthy, privileged white male pretending to be Native American
* He became infamous for accusing the victims of 9/11 to be morally equivalent to Adolf Eichmann who masterminded the Holocaust
* He is being investigated for academic fraud both for pretending to be Native American and repeated plagiarism
----
I include this for the purposes only of debate. I certainly believe Ward Churchill to be a criminal however just as a Jewish editor can write of Hitler, I feel I can write objectively about Churchill, despite my strong opinions, which I have set out on my user page.
I cannot see any factual errors or point of view issues with the above. Is any of the above untrue. He does claim to be a native american despite having no evidence at all. He has made a lot of money as a result. He did say 9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns." He is being investigated for plagiarism. He is a leftist. 
This is an important debate and whitewashing Churchill's public record is indeed very Orwellian (well Orwell would oppose it actually although not be surprised by it). We have on this discussion page a number of people whose contribution on Churchill has been repeatedly ignored by those with a strong POV who have whitewashed this article blatantly.
Perhaps when Churchill is finally terminated there will be a revisiting of the issue. I understand many CU donors and alumni are growing tired of him, just a matter of time.
JailWardChurchillNow 16:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsatisfied with a whitewash article, now Viajero illegally edits Talk

message: User:911focus, in the text you just added
:whom he derides for trying to prevent window breaking and other minor acts of outrage at the demonstrations which he sardonically derides as mere "sign-waving".
to which demonstrations is Churchill referring? This is ambiguous. -- 21:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  911focus: which demos? 

message: User:Rex071404 wrote above:
:this quote of yours "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory" is the epitome of racial stereotyping. I am part Native American (no joke) and I am extremely shocked you would say this.
Rex071404 also brought this matter up on my talk page, and I am taking the liberty of replying here. In my understanding of the term, "racial stereotyping" has a strong perjorative component. A notorious example would be the practice by some police departments of stopping black drivers more frequently than white ones, the assumption being that blacks are more likely to be engaged in illegal activities (or whatever). I don't think Fred was being perjorative with that comment; it was a simple observation. While we can argue whether Fred is correct, I don't think we can claim he was being offensive. After all, we all carry traces of our ethnic background in our faces. -- Viajero 10:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Viajero refers to is racial profiling. No one is suggesting that Fred is doing that. However, on this Wiki, there is a redirect from Racial stereotype to Ethnic stereotype and on that page, one finds this definition "...an overly-simplified representation of the typical characteristics of members of an ethnic group...". This I feel, is what Fred is suggesting; that somehow Ward Churchill has facial features which typify him to be Native American. Implicit in such a suggestion, is that Fred could elucidate for us what facial features he sees in Mr. Churchill that allows him to assert (as he did) "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory. Fred is not a forensic sketch artist with a background in human anthropology. And since he's not, his obervations about Mr. Churchill's appearence can only be coming from a layman's obervations. That being the case, I'd rather Fred keep his opinions about personal appearance to himself. And I'd also like him to recognize that his limited personal knowledge about human appearances does not qualify him to draw inferences about a person's race (or ethnicity). Certainly skilled and trained observers are able to see general patterns of appearance among large groups of persons with similar heredity, but such observations ought only be made in the context of scientific study - not for pigeonholing people in our minds 'he looks like an Injun to me'... Granted, Fred did not phrase his statement that way, but this is the message I took from him. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   13:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reponse to Rex071404 

message: Ward Churchill is white. He all but admits it himself. For a "native American" activist, this is a central and crucial fact that deserves prominence in this article.
Ward Churchill would not be noteworthy at all except for his remarks about the victims of 9/11 which deserve the highest prominence. They are very confronting views, and while I don't agree with them, deserve to be prominently displayed with little editorializing.
Ward Churchill has a checkered academic history with many claims of plagiarism that would have brought down others. His ethics violations must also be detailed.
Carlshooters 18:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a grip on reality! The material being inserted by Johnnyio and Carlshooters is outlandishly POV and hyperbolic. Folks. This in an encyclopedia, not Fox News.--Cberlet 21:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty obvious that Johnnyvio and Carlshooters are the same user. -- Viajero 21:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the text and asked that one edit be made at a time and discussed here.--Cberlet 21:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Making one change every minute is cheating, Johnnyio.  Have you no ethics whatsoever?--Cberlet 21:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a Star Chamber investigation coming with Viajero as Grand Head Know It All of the Star Chamber.  He's out there right gathering together his friends to put together one Great Witch Burning.  Someone dared to call Churchill a FAKE INDIAN!  Someone dared to call Churchill a BULLY!  Viajero and his buddies are going to get the THOUGHT POLICE. Viajero and ZenMaster are not going to let anyone anyone get in the their bias.-----Keetoowah 22:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A New Look at Ward Churchill, Rich White Guy

message: Thank you to those contributing to a much improved article. There are agenda pushers here who must be opposed. Together we can improve the article and take it out of the hands of Marxists. Johnnyio 03:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What a distorted claim and an outrageous Orwellian attempt to whitewash intellectual bullying and aggressive insertion of Point of View. This page is controversial. The type of biased rhetoric inserted by Johnnyio and his allies violates the letter and spirit of what Wikipedia aspires to attain. Thank you indeed...for once again demonstration your bias. On a multitude of other pages, editors with left, right, and center ideological viewpoints cooperate to find a consensus. The type of drunken frat-boy insults posted on this page by a handful of zealots should be cause for alarm for all serious editors on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 15:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: The blocking of those attempting to bring balance to the article is a major concern. Indeed one user foreshadowed that Viajero would bring in the Thought Police to stop any changes he disagreed with. Prescient.
My own belief as disclosed fully in my user page is that Ward Churchill has indeed engaged in massive fraud against CU and his readers. If I write a book about how I was an oppressed Arab slave in Saddam Hussein's dungeon and it turns out that I am a Norwegian aristocrat then it would be justly said of me that I was:
* A liar
* A fraudster
* Guilty of writing nonsense
Ward Churchill by falsely claiming Indian heritage has lost all credibility from the start. His views on 9/11 while macabre and evil are not that relevant. Not now. The debate has moved on to whether the taxpayers should continue to pay him $92000 per annum and whether his readers should continue to support a man so clearly morally bankrupt and politically fraudulent. JailWardChurchillNow 17:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A serious debate on Ward Churchill's Academic Fraud 

message: Ward Churchill's late-night threatening telephone calls to a woman who complained about him plagiarizing her work is currently being investigated by UC.
There are apparently new colleagues coming out with their own stories about how Ward Churchill threatened them over various issues at the Ethnic Studies department which he ruled in a totalitarian and sexist manner.
Why are these issues not dealt with adequately in the article? Why protect an article that serves only to desperately rehabilitate the reputation of a disgraced academic who is months away from losing his position. JailWardChurchillNow 17:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ward Churchill's Bullying of Women Colleagues

message: The problem here is outrageous personal attacks and hyperbolice opinions being inserted into the article in huge blocks.  Lets' take it a paragraph at a time and do not mess with the lead until consensus is reached on the body of the text.--Cberlet 20:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinionated Vandals

message: As Curps has had to protect that page again, feel free to use Ward Churchill/Temp as a sandbox for changes.  Don't take any notice of vandalism attempts, don't bother to revert them, just choose an unvandalized version from the history and edit your proposed changes into it.  Consensual changes can then be inserted into the protected article by an administrator. Sorry to have to do it this way, but it seems like the only way to deal with the opinionated loonies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected again

message: Use of sockpuppet accounts to carry on an edit war (reverts) is against Wikipedia policy (see for instance Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson).
Articles in Wikipedia have to read like encyclopedia articles.  They should not read like blog entries or impassioned essays.
See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
-- Curps 21:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have tried to add more detail about the controversies into the intro.  The controversy over the essay was just the initial phase, a more complete yet concise summary of the controversies and how they unfolded needs to be in the intro.  -- Curps 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic guidelines 

message: I think we need to clearly differentiate between the controversy over Churchill's 9/11 essays (which is what started the controversy in the first place), and the subsequent follow on attempts at discrediting him (such as can't prove native american decent, and charges of plagiarism). zen master    T  21:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Curps' changes