Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 4

message: This material was moved to the archive without refactoring or editing by Grace Note 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Okay, that seems to be a firm "no". I know you're having fun editing, but please do try to reach agreement on a version of the article that can be copied by an administrator from the sandbox (where nobody else sees it) to the main article.  It wouldn't stay up forever, ideally I'd update once a day until the vandal gives up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus

message: I have repeatedly asked why various facts and sentences were being deleted. Instead all we hear is the Sound of Silence as anything that makes the introduction relevant is quietly deleted. Click.
No one has answered the challenge about the relevance of the material I've suggested. I have re-written it, thought it through, changed things. And yet no one really argues the case, they just click. Delete. Is this appropriate? It certainly isn't likely to build support for consensus. There are two consensus versions apparently which may prove that there isn't any. TonyMarvin 08:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you are trying to add is worded inappropriately and already covered later in the article.  And everything you are trying to add was already mentioned in the intro, just not with the biases word choices. I actually reverted to the "wrong" consensus version, may fix that or just do massive clean ups.  You've been reverted by multiple editors to this article over the last couple of days, in my opinion, you are on a POV mission. zen master    T  08:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll gladly put my history against yours if you want to pursue arbitration?  The colorado legislature info is POV, was passed at height of the controversy, not relevant in the intro now.  The intro should summarize the 9/11 essay controversy, not quote it out of context. "radical" is POV, "is rejected as false" is POV since that claim is still disputed, you can't say "is rejected as false" because that implies that is a fact, at best you can say is his disputed unproven claim of american indian heritage.  Only one other author has alleged "academic fraud" against Churchill and really that is "allegations of fabrication", not enough to be put in the intro.  And anyway the university of colorado is investigating him for charges of plagiarism exclusively so that sentence of yours was also wildly inaccurate. zen master    T  08:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: TonyMarvin, I believe your mischaracterization of this thread, myself, and other editors is designed to trick third parties into thinking you have valid claims when you don't.  I have shown your changes to be false above, yet you continue to persist. "radical views" does not equal "conservative views", apples vs oranges. The university is only investigating him on charges of plagiarism, you repeatedly errantly try to add in "academic fraud" and "ethnic impersonation". "Research misconduct" is the claim that he lied about his heritage to get a professors job, that is already covered under his "disputed" claims of ethnicity (since it's impossible for him to be fired if he can't "prove" his ancestry and there is no evidence that he lied directly [he always believed he was partial native american]).
In one paragraph you accuse me of
*Mischaracterization
*Trickery
Can you keep your insults to yourself please? I don't need them. Nor do I need to be accused of:
*Masturbation
*Sorcery
before you attempt to so accuse.
Radical views is indeed the exact opposite of conservative views. Why do you say otherwise? Please read the dozens of references to the broad nature of the inquiry in the Denver Post, some are listed in the article, and try a Google search. The issue of his job application has been vaguely dealt with by the Denver Post but it really depends on what he claimed and can now prove to back it up. Maybe he didn't claim anything, there hasn't been much public domain on that so I don't know but it is certainly being investigated, as one would expect. You have not pointed out a single factual error or biased word in what I have written. Not one. I'm still waiting. TonyMarvin 09:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Liberal is opposite of conservative.  The job application issue falls within claimed ethnicity, it was already covered.  How is what his schoolmates remember way back in the day relevant?  Here you quote Churchill out of context  Here is where you are disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point (you inject references to the edit war into the actual content of the article, Cberlet reverts you fortunately) "although Churchill is not without defenders, as evidenced by the multiple edits to this article which seek to remove all reference to his white background"   The "white" blue colar family growing up is disputed (you are trying to sneak in something that is disputed as a fact subtle, already covered under his disputed claim of partial native american heritage), also the intro doesn't generally state exactly who has "rejected that claim" nor state it using such POV word choices  here is where you try to claim you are making progress after Kelly Martin reverts you for POV (this same content you are claiming is "making progress" was rejected previously and you knew that, so at the very least inaccurate/intentionally mislead checkin comments)   zen master    T  09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresponsive

message: I was recently pointed at this edit and I say the tagline "the consensus version might be shorter, less to argue about". However, I was most disturbed not the find, the consensus version on the talk page. It is my experience that such versions are hashed out on the talk page, and then rolled onto the article. 
As a second note, I don't feel that the edit actually does reduced the "amount to fight" about. I have refrained from reverting it, as I feel should be, but wish to discuss this further. Burgundavia 08:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a specific issue to raise or does it displease you in a way you cannot specify? Either way happy to discuss, but I find that very few are willing to justify/debate their positions. I don't mind a long or short consensus version but I suspected a short one might make life easier. I am keen to resolve this as soon as we can. TonyMarvin 08:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to 1st Para 

message: I think the best version to date is the one above. I posted it to get some specific objections and haven't got any. I will put that up as the consensus version if there is no disagreement/further debate. Please let me know.
TonyMarvin 09:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The previous version above

message: I can't help feeling that if you're going to introduce Churchill alongside his controversy, you should point out how it came to light. After all, the controversy happened a long time after he wrote the article, because O'Reilly muckraked. Actually, didn't some rightwingnut blog it?
As it stands this article is a bit of a slagging. It recapitulates a lot of the spiteful shit that has been slung around about the guy but doesn't really give a balanced view. Just my 2c. Grace Note 09:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The essay 

message: Come off it. This is totally unacceptable and POV. Okay, you don't like the guy. You don't like what he said. Wikipedia is chockers with guys we don't like. Let's not go mad here! The intro introduces him. It doesn't go into detail. Let's stick to who he is and why he's known.Grace Note 09:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, thanks for changing to the less involved version. I think it's a lot better. And thanks Burgundavia for your work. I still think we should mention very briefly how the controversy arose, because it was very long after he wrote the piece and had had the same stuff very well received in a book. Grace Note 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tony Marvin version

message: Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American academic who became nationally known for his extremely unpopular views about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His essay on the topic became known when talk show host Bill O'Reilly, took him to ask. He is currently a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder facing investigation for research misconduct. He argued in an essay that the United States had provoked the attacks through its foreign policy and that the victims of the attacks were legitimate targets because of their own contribution to those policies which he equated with Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi mastermind of the Holocaust.
Changes:
*1. added "and author" as he also one of those
*2. removed radical. I am uncertain about a good word, but radical is not really it
*3. Added info about his tenure back in as it is currently where he works. Stating where someone works in NPOV, IMHO.
*4. added "in an essay", as that is where the views came from
*5. removed quotes from around provoked. I am uncertain about this one.
*6. added ", which he viewed as imperialistic," - which I assume he did in the essay. This can be removed if he did use that SPECIFIC word.
Burgundavia 10:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
: I think the addition I've put in italics (with proper details that I was too lazy to fetch from the article ;-)) would be useful. If you agree, then that would be good; if not, cool too. Grace Note 10:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Title Section

message: Please. Let's put our concerns here, and sort them out here, rather than spend days, weeks fighting in the article. It's fairly neutral at the moment, so let's not try to make it one thing or another. Let's accept on one side that you cannot fill the lead with accusations and on the other that you cannot ignore them by making out he is just another author.Grace Note 04:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid revert warring 

message: This is the kind of thing O'Reilly says about Ward Churchill (apologies for not being able to find the original transcript of the show he began this stuff on). If you think this is a rebuke, I would hate to be on the end of a lambasting! Grace Note 05:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuke? 

message: My objection is RELEVANCE. If you wanted to list the journalists who covered the WC story, you'd be filling one hundred paragraphs. It was a big story. The truth is that the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News seem to have covered it most comprehensively. I don't watch "the Factor" as I find O'Reilly obtuse but I doubt he gave it anywhere near the depth of coverage as those two newspapers. So why not mention them. And Rush Limbaugh. And Hannity. And Medved. And the whole lot of right-wing radio screamers. This is self-evidently mad.  "Various of us" doesn't cut it, it is clear the users are either 1) the one person or 2) in complete agreement that the WC article should be sanitized to delete anything inconvenient. I reject both the content, the writing style, the process which certainly did not include any discussion with me. TonyMarvin 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grace Note version is POV

message: *Uses inappropriate informal language "kicked off a media frenzy", "highly outspoken", "lambasted"
*Calls him an author/writer twice unnecessarily
*Mentions Bill O'Reilly for reasons completely unknown
*Unnecessarily asserts he wrote an essay "immediately" after 9/11, why is this relevant to anything?
*Fails to mention American Indian Movement and his tribe
It doesn't cut it, isn't good enough, is written badly and will not stand. TonyMarvin 15:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It "will not stand"? What kind of language is this? You have an authoritarian streak which is entirely inappropriate in a collaborative editing environment. -- Viajero 15:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. You and your offsiders who make massive deletions of material they don't like without even a word on Talk, sanitizing an article to the point of it being meaningless, you demonstrate authoritianism so emphatically that it does not require the label. I have made so many attempts at compromise, debate, adjustment, etc. that your accusation is rejected as another attempt to get your own way through intimidation. Behavior entirely consistent with authoritarianism if you wish to indulge in name calling. I generally don't. Justify terms like "kicked off" "media frenzy" etc in an encyclopedia article and you might have some credibility on this. You haven't. You can't. So don't. TonyMarvin 15:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kelly Martin POV intro:=

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grace_Note Interesting] TonyMarvin 15:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Like minded souls" seize control of Ward Churchill article

message: Despite accusations to the contrary, I don't have a horse in this race; I was invited to look at this article by someone who thought that an outside view would be helpful.  Can we please decide on a version from the history that is acceptable enough to leave it alone on the main page while the major disputes are settled out?
It would also be helpful if someone could identify the major points of contention so we can work toward a resolution.  A major point of dispute seems to be whether Bill O'Reilly should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs.  Another contended point is how Churchill's claim of Indian ancestry should be characterized in the lead.  And I believe there is dispute over whether Churchill's family and school classmates opinions as to Churchill's ancestry is relevant to the article.
If someone could develop a list of the more contentious points and lay them out here, I think that would be most helpful to resolving some of the worst disagreements and perhaps put an end to this pointless edit war.
I would ask that everyone refrain from editing the main article, other than to revert undiscussed changes back to whatever version we decide is to be the stable version, until this has been done.
Your cooperation will make this a far less painful process for everyone.  Kelly Martin 17:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Pleez dont edit my stable version or it could be painful. LucioMamio 19:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't threaten other users or act like you own this article. It may be painful. ugen64 19:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the compliment - it must be my sexy new haircut. ugen64 20:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable version pending dispute 

message: As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson, use of sockpuppet accounts to make reverts (in particular, in violation of the three revert rule) is strictly against Wikipedia policy.  In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently.  And so here we are, once again. -- Curps 20:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppets