Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

message: Verklempt says above, "There is no consensus to retain only pro-Churchill quotes in the Reactions section. They must either be balanced with the opposing viewpoint, or they must come out." I couldn't agree more. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard for me to understand why anyone could be pro-Churchill, particularly after the 9/11 incident and his basically being declared a fake Indian and academic fraud.  I agree that a "reaction" section that includes only quotes supportive to Churchill may lead to a misimpression of the the public reaction as a weight matter, when serious public reaction is almost entirely against Churchill.  That there are some apologists for him and his research, and others who think that whatever his academic merits he was persecuted for political reasons, is noteworthy, and is indeed mentioned as the first two reactions in the lead.  But these seem to be in the minority.  On the other hand, I don't think the damage is that great by having two supporters and no detractors in this one section.  Anyone reading this article from start to finish would not consider the article flattering overall to Churchill, or think there is a pro-Churchill bias.  I also think that adding the claims against Churchill to the "reaction" section is somewhat redundant, because they are fully covered in the smallpox section.  At some point what matters is the main case and any consequences, not the back-and-forth that ensues after the fact between his supporters and detractors.  You can hit the ping pong ball over the net a few times but covering the whole volley isn't really encyclopedic.  I don't particularly have an opinion whether this quote, though significant, belongs in this particular section.  Also, edit warring is bad!  I've avoided this article even though I have some awareness and opinions about the whole thing, because I see that there are some hot passions in and off Wikipedia, and it touches on some very difficult matters of race and American history.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the paragraph for the simple reason that it isn't a reaction to the UofC investigation, as the section header denotes.  I note that all of the other paragraphs in this section talk about the investigation case, not the specific charges.  There are no other mentions of smallpox claims, or blood quantum claims, or other specific details. I have no objection to adding content to this section that describes (less favorable to Churchill) reactions to the investigation, but the text I removed cannot be described as such. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  Information in a heading should be about the subject of the heading, and if it's objected to on style / organization grounds like placement and redundancy it's best not to get into arguments about POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed discussion

message: User:64.208.230.145 placed this on my user talk page.  This is a matter for article discussion, and belongs here: (LotLE×talk)
You have repeatedly reverted inclusion of a quote at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. I don't want an edit war and suggest we take this to the article Talk page. A long series of quotes, all supporting Churchill, gives the reader a false impression that the entire academic community supports Churchill. This is a violation of WP:NPOV, wouldn't you agree? Including one quote from someone critical of Churchill doesn't adequately balance it out, but providing a longer quote comes closer to balance.
You claim that including this quote is "duplicating statements already paraphrased." I disagree. A flat-out statement that other acts of genocide "in no way justify ... fabrication of an outrage that never happened" is not paraphrased anywhere. You also claim that it "is randomly stuck into section it has no relation to." But it is obviously a reaction to the UC investigation, and the section title is "Reactions to" the university's investigation. Read the source, page 2: 
:In early 2006, the University investigated Churchill
:on seven allegations of research misconduct,
:one of which was Churchill’s smallpox blankets
:hoax.3 The committee unanimously found Churchill
:guilty on all seven counts, and the Chancellor
:has recommended his dismissal from the university.
:Given the politicization of this topic, it seems
:necessary to acknowledge at the outset that far
:too many instances of the U.S. Army committing
:outrages against various Indian tribes can be
:documented. A number of these were explicitly
:genocidal in intent. It is not the intention of this
:author to deny that simple fact. However, as the
:eminent Cherokee sociologist Russell Thornton
:has observed of Ward Churchill’s fabricated version
:of the 1837 smallpox epidemic: “The history
:is bad enough—there’s no need to embellish
:it” (Jaschik, 2005). That the U.S. Army is undoubtedly
:guilty of genocidal outrages against
:Indians in the past in no way justifies Ward
:Churchill’s fabrication of an outrage that never
:happened.
I'll restore the quote once again. Kindly provide a justification based on WP policy or guidelines if you choose to revert, and cite the policy or guideline. I'm citing WP:NPOV. Thanks. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop reverting

message: I don’t know much about this subject, except the obvious (i.e. Churchill’s politics more than his “scholarship” is what draws people to him), but I do believe the above editor has made a point about balance in this article. I think the “Reactions to the University of Colorado Investigation” section needs to be balanced out with commentary from those parties that believe the investigation and its results were justified. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education issued a statement that agreed with the university’s decision and inclusion of this (perhaps another) should satisfy everyone. WVBluefield (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good edit, WVBluefield.  I entirely agree that presenting a balance of opinions on "Reactions" is a good thing here.  As per my above comment, my objection to the anon (although "anon" is loosely put, since I'm pretty sure it's a sock of a banned editor) is that s/he inserted statements made long before the investigation into "Reactions to investigation", which makes no sense. The FIRE statement you found was from the right time, and on topic. LotLE×talk 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then its agreed on. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lukewarm approval on my end - by quoting the group's own statement rather than third party coverage, it's kind of primary source-like and doesn't really establish how significant the statement is.  It would be useful to note the gist of the reaction to Churchill's firing in the Native American studies community, academia more generally, and Native American rights groups.  As I said far above it's rather surprising (and therefore potentially noteworthy and encyclopedic) that anyone at all came to Churchill's defense given the situation.  I think that's a lot more relevant than heated support or opposition from either side, and to get there it would be helpful to see news articles and in-depth analysis from neutral third parties of what it all means.  Anyway, I do think this helps to show that there wasn't unanimous objection.  But I'm not sure it goes far enough.  I still get the sense that this particular section seems like we are being apologists for Churchill, but without really getting to the issue.  Having this statement in the article as it exists is better than not, so I'm fine with it.   - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WD, but note for the record that the statement by Brown is definitely in response to the CU investigation, and belongs in the "Reactions" section. On the timeline, his essay was published long after the CU investigation began, and he repeatedly cited the CU investigation in his essay. Brown also cited the fact that Churchill was found guilty on all seven counts of academic misconduct, and the fact that the chancellor then recommended that this tenured professor should be fired. How could Brown have cited these facts if his essay was published "long before" the investigation started? It's ridiculous. I'll be more than generous, and assume that LotLE and Xeno made an innocent mistake (rather than deliberately lying) in claiming that the Brown statement is not a reaction to the CU investigation. Let's try to make this a genuinely NPOV article. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IP64 mentioned me, I'll respond.  I removed a paragraph of text that did not consist of a reaction to the investigation.  I didn't mention timelines, nor did I comment on the rest of the essay from which the paragraph was taken. My edit was no mistake; your misrepresentation of the reason for my edit was. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Full disclosure: I've just created this account. All edits by 64.208.230.145 are mine. Let's try to AGF and move forward in a constructive way. There are a lot of articles here that need our attention. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud your intent to start using a registered account, and equally commend your intent to move forward in a constructive way while assuming good faith.  Here's to productive editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: Xenophrenic has suggested in a couple comments that s/he doesn't think the lawsuit is part of the "investigation" named in the title of this article.  Obviously, we agree that such is true in some narrow sense.  But to my mind, it is at least as relevant as other related matters like criticism of Churchill's scholarship in the media outside CU that prompted the investigation.  I also agree with Xenophrenic that the Lawsuit section has potential to grow longer; s/he mentioned that a CU claim for attorney fees was apparently just filed, for example.  Moreover, the matter is almost certain to wind its way through appellate levels... and there could well be related suits that emerge out of this (obviously we're not going to gaze into some WP:CRYSTAL ball to actually discuss that in article space unless or until it happens though).  So it feels like more information is almost certainly coming down the pipeline in the future.
While I have stated above that I do not find it absurd to think that some future refactoring might produce yet another child/sister article on the lawsuit, I think we are a long way from having to worry about that right now.  The discussion of the lawsuit is thankfully concise right now, and the article as a whole is of very reasonable length.  Sure, maybe we will want to add something about rulings on attorney's costs, or an appeal, or whatever.  Until the lawsuit section reaches something like 5 paragraphs worth of well-summarized material, I think keeping it all in this article is the right thing.  After that (if it happens), sure we should refactor.  That's not going to happen this year though. LotLE×talk 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the lawsuit is a tightly interwoven result of the investigation and firing, just as the investigation is a tightly woven result of his essay.  I didn't mean to suggest content about the lawsuit has no place in this article, I was just concerned about how much detail should go into it, and whether we should also add in all other legal matters present and forthcoming. It's fine now, so we'll see what the future holds.  There is one small clarification, however, I'm going to make to the "vacating" sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The recent court motion, by the way, was mentioned here.  It also mentions that an appeal has already been filed, whereas our article states an appeal will be filed.  Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the appeals proceed, there will be more material on the lawsuit. But I doubt that it will amount to more than a sentence or two. No worries, mates. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the matter of how much detail should be included in the lawsuit section, what should be added, and at what point?  Take for instance the news story (July 22-John Aguilar) that at least one of the jurors in the Churchill case is pissed at the judge for ignoring the jurors findings when he vacated the monetary awards and reinstatement rulings?  A juror even filed a sworn affidavit in support of Churchill's appeal, and criticizing the judge, according to one article: ...she said it was clear to the majority of the jury that Churchill had suffered emotional distress as a result of his dismissal -- a harm she said they could not quantify with a dollar figure -- and they hoped that the judge would remedy Churchill's suffering by either reinstating him or awarding him money. "I am frustrated that I sat through the entire trial and our pronouncements were ignored by the judge," Newill wrote. Newill stated that most of the jurors thought the allegations of research misconduct the school brought against Churchill were bogus.  She said she and the other five jurors considered the majority of witnesses who testified on behalf of the university "dishonest" and "biased."  Such details are certainly more interesting than a sterile, "Jury found in favor of Churchill, but the judge denied him money or reinstatement - an appeal has been filed" - but do we want to be a court blotter for every move and countermove in the process? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when we add some (brief) discussion of the appeal, it will be relevant to concisely present something like the juror quotation you mention, Xenophrenic.  It seems like since the appeal has been filed, it wouldn't be too soon to add mention of it now, but it also doesn't seem urgent that it be there today given that appellate courts will modify all this in any case (in one of various possible ways). LotLE×talk 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The principal subject of this article is the investigation of academic misconduct by the university. The lawsuit is peripheral. Statements by Churchill's lawyer are even more peripheral. Remarks by a juror are so peripheral that they aren't notable, at least not in the context of this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit section 

message: Somewhere in the section about smallpox blanket genocide there should be a statement that smallpox is spread by human to human contact, not by contact with blankets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought smallpox is easy to spread - do you have a citation that the virus cannot be spread that way?  It would have to be cited in the context of the misconduct investigation, though - otherwise it is considered WP:SYNTH.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact claimed by the anon is simply false, and rather straightforwardly and obviously so.  It looks like some sort of crude political agenda, and I wouldn't give it much thought.  Obviously, as discussed in the article, there are issues whether smallpox was spread during a specific historic incident, or with what intentions, but the basic epidemiology includes spread through contact with clothes and blankets. LotLE×talk 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox blanket genocide 

message: #  Sorry about the DEADLINK on Fritch.  It didn't work when I tested it.
#  the cite to Fritch makes no mention of "Conservative bloggers such as Little Green Footballs and Free Republic began posting hundreds of comments critical of Churchill, and two days later the national media took note, followed by local media in Colorado and in the Hamilton College area." and I removed this material.
#  placed "bloggers learned" in correct chronological sequence.
#  restored WELL CITED text "The nationwide criticism" with citations that had been deleted contrary to Wikipedia policy
#  added text with citations about the start of the investigation.
#  fixed WP ref. to little Eichmanns
#  More need to be done to make the article read smoothly 
#  More needs to be done to clearly describe: essay discovery -> reaction -> initial investigation -> tenure/1st. amendment reaction -> plagiarism and falsification investigation -> investigation findings -> lawsuit -> lawsuit result. Some of the changes might be best performed while merging the article with []
Deicas (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: re (2); yes, it does. Check again, please? re: (4) "nationwide criticism" is only half the story, as the other reliable sources following that text make clear. The essay also had some support and agreement. The wording "national attention", which is also WELL CITED, serves well to convey this more complete story. re: (6) thanks for that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Aug. editing and restored WELL CITED text & citation deletion. 

message: What happened to this page?  It has been deleted without any consensus or vote I see, and now redirects to the main Ward Churchill article, to a small section. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See part of the discussion and consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that after I commented here.  Even if the very weak consensus was to merge, the portion on this controversy on the main article is anemic and uninformative.  I think it needs a major expansion (maybe not as much as on this article). TuckerResearch (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this page?