Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 9

message: I have protected this page after viewing the request at WP:RFPP.  The goal is to encourage discussion here and to let things settle down.  Please try to hammer things out here or at least come up with a consensus version.  Wikibofh(talk) 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The page was protected for a bit, which seems fine.  I think it's not necessarily all that necessary, since the main problem had been User:Fluterst, who got him/herself banned indefinitely on unrelated (or semi-related) issues.  But a breather is still good.
I'd like to suggest an effort to de-escalate discussion after the page is unprotected.  Pokey5945 and I clearly disagree widely about both the seriousness and plausibility of the allegations made against Churchill, but let's just "agree to disagree".  Going around in circles on this is just going to annoy both of us.  I commend Pokey5945 for his productive page edits, I do not (and have not) believed that his POV has prevented him from adding generally helpful and NPOV material.
As to passing by users, usually either anon IPs or brand new accounts, who want to insert vitriolic diatribes or random oscenities: just don't do it!  It's fine for you to get all excited about watching Bill O'Reilly, but the world already has plenty of right-wing blogs that you might write for.  This is an encyclopedia, and therefore not the appropriate forum for such material.
Happy new year! (unless you have a belief system that goes by a different calendar: in that case, just happy day!) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For after cool-down 

message: If someone is feeling energetic, the books should be changed to use the book ref template.  Wikibofh(talk) 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to read the section you would see that the phrase (in quotes in the section title) is a quote from University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman.  If you have a beef with the University President, you should take it up with her. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I do agree that the article should not prejudge either Churchill's guilt, or prejudge his innocence. Rather, it should present the views of qualified experts. Unfortunately for Churchill, the only people who have spoken out in his favor are not experts on the specific issues at hand. WRT the smallpox issue, the scholarly experts have all repudiated Churchill's view. And so Lulu has interpolated a long quote from George Tinker, who does not appear to have any expertise on the topic. I've repeatedly asked Lulu to provide verification of Tinker's expertise re the smallpox issue, but Lulu refuses to do so. I do not think Tinker's quote is relevant to this section, due to his lack of expert standing on the topic. It would be relevant to include Tinker's quote in another section on the overall merits of the Churchill affair, and I advocate moving the Tinker quote to a concluding, big picture section.Pokey5945
=== Churchill in Counterpunch ===
Churchill has stated in an interview with Counterpunch that he has revisited the issue of the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and it is actually worse than he thought it was.  
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html
"I'm now preparing in-depth essays, both on what happened at Fort Clark in 1837- it turns out to have been much worse than I originally contended, involving not just a couple of low-ranking army officers but the Secretary of War himself-..."
The issue I believe is that Churchill's contention of US Govn't involvement is critical to his overall assertions of genocide. It needs to be included, with examples of pro/con support. 
Hoosier 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This quote is included in the sibling Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) (or at least it was when I last looked, unless someone took it out). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reviewing archives and page history is certainly fine.  Be careful not to understand the point of an encyclopedia entry.  It's not like a political debate where all sides are presented, and given equal time.  Of course, we must also not simply present one POV either.  But there's an idea underlying this about what facts are notable, not simply which are verifiable.  I don't think it would be bad to include some more stuff on talk show claims, refutations, et alia (either here, or more likely in the sibling article), but we're aiming for useful and to-the-point articles, not simply archives of everything we can find that anyone said or wrote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reference template... 

message: What the hell is up with the "New McCarthyism" section? The title alone is ridiculous. People have every right to critique this guy, did some fan post this or what? (unsigned, anonymous IP post)
:If you were to read the section you would see that the phrase (in quotes in the section title) is a quote from University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman.  If you have a beef with the University President, you should take it up with her. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New McCarthyism 

message: Churchill has stated in an interview with Counterpunch that he has revisited the issue of the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and it is actually worse than he thought it was.  
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html
"I'm now preparing in-depth essays, both on what happened at Fort Clark in 1837- it turns out to have been much worse than I originally contended, involving not just a couple of low-ranking army officers but the Secretary of War himself-..."
The issue I believe is that Churchill's contention of US Govn't involvement is critical to his overall assertions of genocide. It needs to be included, with examples of pro/con support. 
Hoosier 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is included in the sibling Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) (or at least it was when I last looked, unless someone took it out). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reviewing archives and page history is certainly fine.  Be careful not to understand the point of an encyclopedia entry.  It's not like a political debate where all sides are presented, and given equal time.  Of course, we must also not simply present one POV either.  But there's an idea underlying this about what facts are notable, not simply which are verifiable.  I don't think it would be bad to include some more stuff on talk show claims, refutations, et alia (either here, or more likely in the sibling article), but we're aiming for useful and to-the-point articles, not simply archives of everything we can find that anyone said or wrote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill in Counterpunch 

message: Pokey5945 in regards to your comments here. You characteristically missed my entire point, Your comments actually proved my point that I made.  You are seeing the tip of iceburg, and appear uninterested in the larger story, the underlying reasons that Churchill is being attacked.  
I was attempting to widen the debate in asking why is Churchill singled out, why don't "mainstream" historians who repeat the offical party line of America as a beacon of freedom and democracy get attacked and scrutinized like Churchill? You ignored my entire argument.  I was expecting more, much more.  I was hoping for an intellectual rebutal, but I got none.
"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957
Pokey5945, Beveridge couldn't have said it better.Travb 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you read my response again. I agree with you that Churchill has been attacked because of his political rhetoric. Why would I attempt to rebut you on a topic in which we are in agreement? Pay attention!Pokey5945 23:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I have tried to follow the argument and Pokey5945 you seem like the better debator.  For me, if Churchill broke academic rules he should be punished, irrespectible of his political affiliation.  I enjoyed and learned a lot from his Pinkerton article, which I will post a link too here when I find it online.Travb 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only seeing the tip of the iceburg, blind to the rest

message: Ok kind peoples, I have been organizing.  It seems that Pokey and Lulu are, "on-track".  And I hate to be an occasional contributor. I am reluctant to edit.  But one concern that I have is although the controversy went national, "therefore the McCarthism", it is as much a local battle. We have previous accusations against Prof Churchill by Caplis & Silverman that he did not sign the loyalty oath, then when he did he violated it by his "Seattle" comments, that he violated Title VII by signing the AA form in 1978 that he was, "Native American/Indian", and a host of other violations. C & S took out a full page ad listing their, "case" against him.  
:The loyalty oath issue is indeed an interesting topic that is not addressed in the article.  I know a little about it, but just from talking with my mother who is in Colorado and more-or-less "connected" to a lot of politicos on various sides.  I don't know enough to actually write a section on it (I could learn/research, but in terms of off-the-cuff).
:In terms of the local (i.e. Colorado) perspective in general, I think something interesting could be included, but again, I can't write it.  While the whole "Churchill Affair" has been discussed in the national press, it's been discussed even more, and with a somewhat different slant, in the Colorado press.  We have to think of notability for a world-wide encyclopedia here, but just because something is a "Colorado event" so-to-speak, doesn't automatically mean it's non-notable.  But again, someone else would need to get this started (maybe in a third sibling article, since it's not quite either the generic academic bio, nor the "misconduct allegations"... perhaps the "New McCarthyism" stuff could move to this hypothetical third sibling, if the right title was found). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I agree that much of that is quite interesting, and quite odd seeming.  Some of it is in the article already, but if it could be expanded in a NPOV manner, that would be useful.  Of course, just saying "It seems very strange" isn't encyclopedic (even though I agree with you).  The Colorado AIM separation is an interesting topic; Churchill wasn't the only major name involved in that.  In fact, if you could find verifiable sources, it might make an interesting article in itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local and national issues 

message: I took out the phrase "has reaffirmed Churchill's right to academic free speech" as POV.  It implies that the university's making a different decision would have constituted a denial of Churchill's right to academic free speech.  Not everyone sees it that way.  In addition, the rest of the sentence provides the relevant facts.  --Allen 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  academic free speech 

message: An editor had added the characterization of Campus Watch as "left-leaning".  That seemed fair to balance the prior mention of "conservative pundits" in the paragraph.  But then I took a look at the Campus Watch website itself: .  Basically, the characterization doesn't seem supported.  Director Daniel Pipes is extremely right-wing, and editor Michael Rubin is affiliated with the ultra-right American Enterprise Institute of all things.  Some of the other staff or board seem more liberal-ish, but I don't see any I could actually call "leftist".  If anything "right-leaning" would be closer to the truth... but I think it's better to avoid trying to characterize it at all.  Readers can follow the link, and make their own judgement about the organization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus Watch 

message: Looking for citations, I noticed that the first paragraph of the article under "Early life" is copied word-for-word from here. I think thats a copyright problem, though I'm not 100% - ualaska.com is the website of the university of alaska, which is affiliated with the state government. I'll remove it unless someone more familiar with copyright than I am wants to insert it. --Pierremenard 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's copied exactly, it's questionable.  But the fact his mom and dad had those names, and so on, are not copyrightable.  So if we just rearrange the sentences to state the same things in our own words, that's safe. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking at it again, I don't think anything Pierremenard took out because of the copyright concern is important to have, however rephrased.  Churchill's parents have names, worked places, he has some siblings, etc., but none of that feels very notable or important; it would be unusual to include any of that in other biographies unless that parents or siblings were themselves notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems? 

message: I reverted the recent change to the intro, regarding the Eichmann quote, as POV.  Churchill said, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."  (I'm quoting from the link given in the article.)  He is comparing people to Eichmann; he is not comparing the results of actions of people to the results of actions of Eichmann.  Some people's interpretation may be that he didn't mean quite what he said, and if sourced that would be a fine addition to the article.  But he said what he said.  --Allen 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Amcbride here.  Churchill was comparing the people to Eichmann in terms of comparable effects of their actions (that's in the essay itself, no outside source is needed); but we need not get into so much detail right in the lead.  The later section discusses the Some People Push Back essay in more detail, you can't have every later section already in the lead.  The single pithy phrase does pretty well capsualize (but not fully flesh out) the point Churchill is making. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest changes to intro 

message: This is a slightly thorny issue.  I added the :Category:Marxists a while back; based in large part on Churchill's engagement with Marxism in, i.e. Marxism and Native Americans.  Churchill certainly utilizes a lot of Marxist concepts and is familiar with its tradition and thinking.  But his comments on whether he is himself a Marxist go in different directions, depending on context.  Then again, it was Karl Marx who famously proclaimed: "I am not a Marxist"... so the question is not necessarily entirely simple.  I would say that Churchill is certainly "a thinker in the Marxist tradition", and that's why it seemed useful to let the category reflect him (but not notably, :Category:Marxist theorists, which is more about people who shaped the tradition than simply followed from it). My sentiment is that it's more useful to include Churchill in the category than to exclude him; but like many of those listed, he is not unequivocal in his self-inclusion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who removed the category.  I'll accept your explanation of why it belongs.  I was not aware of his Marxism and Native Americans; I was basing my classification off of his statement (can't remember where, or precise wording) that the precondition for change in the U.S. is ending Native American oppression, because the U.S. is founded on it, and on some Marxist criticisms I've seen of his work. Kalkin 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to you, DKalkin, on putting that category back if you're convinced.  I don't want to step on toes about this; I recognize it's borderline as a category membership. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A bit more on Churchill's relation to Marxism can be found in Churchill's essay: False Promises: An Indigenist Examination of Marxist Theory and Practice.  As well as the abovementioned book, he also wrote Culture versus Economism: Essays on Marxism in the Multicultural Arena (both of these are listed in this WP article, FWIW). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ward Churchill and Marxism