Talk:Ward Churchill/Archive 5

message: This is my last edit, so I hope it has some effect. The article as it stands is pure spin that fails to explain why Churchill became so notable. No mention in the introduction is made of possibly some of the most controversial remarks uttered in public life in many years.
I could not agree more with his right to express his views and his right to keep his job while expressing them. Academic freedom is at the heart of learning. 
But you've heard all that before. And the agenda pushers on both sides who read this page don't care. One side wants nothing but bad about him, the other wants nothing but good.
And in the midst of it is an Administrator so guilty of misconduct that he is unfit to serve. SlimVirgin's tactical interventions with blocking users, protecting the page and so on is a clumsy attempt at promoting the interests of those pushing his pro Churchill agenda. No doubt the anti Churchill forces will find a similarly dishonest administrator and then the damage already done to this article will rise exponentially.
User:Viajero's admission (above) of sockpuppet abuse is revealing. I have looked at his edits and found a pattern of flagrant POV promotion. And with corrupt administrators protecting him (SlimVirgin) this will no doubt continue. 
TonyMarvin 11:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! The sockpocket "admission" was a joke. Many of us have actually tried to find a compromise text. I assume we can continue. --Cberlet 13:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power

message: * David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left, Regnery (25 September, 2004), hardcover, 295 pages,  To be placed in the article when unprotected. Fred Bauder 13:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
**Could you provide an abstract of what this book discusses and how it's relevant to Churchill? Kelly Martin 17:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
***Could you provide an abstract of what you discuss and how you're relevant to anyone? Allianceofpatriots 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: I think the basic issue is
*WC has always claimed indian heritage (not disputed)
*WC has not been able to provide credible documentation of this indian heritage (not disputed).
*WC became an Associate member of the UKB Cherokee (not disputed)
*WC was never a real member of the UKB Cherokee since he could not satisfy the tribe's heritiage requirements for full membership.
*WC has been involved in fringe indian politics
*WC went around claiming to be UKB, and offering greetings from the UKB leadership. (not disputed, this was his standard opener for speeches)
*WC's  Associate membership in the UKB Cherokee has been revoked. (not disputed)
*WC may have benefitted from Affirmative action programs, on the basis of his claimed indian heritage.
*WC may have engaged in material misrepresentation of his indian herritage to to UofC, since he has no acceptable documentation of indian herritage.
*WC may be discharged because of this material misrepresentation.
Klonimus 01:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "material misrepresentation" implies WC may have lied which is very different from simply being unable to prove heritage.  Did the affirmative actions programs specifically require someone to be greater than 1/4th native american?  Is there any evidence that WC does not genuinely believes he is of partial native american heritage?  I would think WC being even an associate member of UKB Cherokee is enough evidence to prove he did not commit a "material misrepresentation". zen master    T  02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To benefit from an affirmative action program you need to show membership in a protected class. Ward Churchill has claimed membership in a protected class, but not given evidence of membership in a protected class. With regards to his job, the question isn't what WC beleives, it's what WC is. The UKB have explicticly stated that being an Associate member is not evidence of any native american heritage, and that WC could not show enough (any?) evidence to merit inclusion on UKB tribal roles as a full member. He was given UKB Associate membership in exchange for the promise of writing a history of the UKB Cherokee. Klonimus 20:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence was required and what did he present?  My point is being unable to prove heritage does not automatically mean fraud.  Isn't WC an associate member of other native american organizations?  Did UKB back then state associate membership is not proof of heritage?  The issue is separate from what UKB says today, the key is what the state of Colorado required and what evidence WC presented as evidence of heritage back then -- WC has never claimed more than 1/4th heritage, right?  If this is true how can there be fraud?  Worst case the state should not have approved his admittance into the affirmative action program but it did (hardly enough justification for removal of a subsequently tenured professor, is it?).  WC may have gotten hired initially because of the affirmative action program without proving heritage but the main issue today centers around him being a tenured professor, I read somewhere he got tenure because the school feared he might go work at another university that was starting their own Native American studies department so WC did not commit any fraud in getting tenure at least. zen master    T  22:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WC may have benefitted... WC may have engaged..., WC may be discharged... This is all speculation and speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless it is clearly attributed. -- Viajero | Talk 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Das Issues 

message: Are the neutrality and accuracy of the article still disputed?  I can see no outstanding issues.  Can we take down the template? --Theo  (Talk) 07:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and accuracy 

message: How about somebody add a picture on here? [Message posted 23:49, 10 Jun 2005 by User:24.159.43.93 ]
We would love to have a portrait of Churchill to illustrate this article.  Sadly, we cannot find one that is not copyright. --Theo  (Talk) 09:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent pen drawing, why was it removed?  J Shultz 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed by User:Zen-master with the edit summary "portrait not good". It is not the most constructive criticism that I have had of my drawings but it is also not the worst!  I am comfortable that it is  a pretty accurate candid likeness of the man. My reference material included these photos. I enjoyed the few hours that I spent on it so I am mellow if the consensus is against it.—Theo  (Talk) 08:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: It's not one of Wikipedia's best examples of open collaboration... [posted at 04:16, 12 Jun 2005 by User:65.96.123.208 ]
You are right.  Not the bast but not bad. Perhaps you can help us to improve it. --Theo  (Talk) 10:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lack of focused concision makes this article ramble 

message: Which facts in the article remain disputed? Can we take the template down now?—Theo  (Talk) 21:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it.—Theo  (Talk) 15:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Because when force is used, it is political repression not merely societal forms of oppression, and Churchill writes about "repression" in two major books.--Cberlet 14:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy