Talk:Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy

message: :That said, I'm perfectly happy to have the award issue mentioned in the sibling as well.  I think it is minimally germane to that other article as well, even though less so than to this sibling.  A few words of overlap are no big thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumping in and not picking sides. The way I see it is that Churchill has only not been presented the award because of the ongoing "investigation". I assume that if the allegations of him plagerizing and misrepresenting his Native American heritage to gain a teaching position are found to be false, then the award will be presented. He hasn't been found "guilty" yet I take it...so the award is his per se, but not if they find him guilty of these incidents I suppose. What have I missed. I don't see that he won't be presented the award, only that he will not get it if is found not innocent? Trying not to draw at straws, so if I am incorrect in this assumption, let me know.--MONGO 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Churchill has recently been found guilty of serious misconduct and the board could not come to a unanimous conclusion as to whether he should be fired or merely suspended without pay for 5 years.  This is not a surprise for anybody following the story who has heard of the several occasions where he was caught out violating academic norms. Apparently the report has found other occasions not previously discussed in public. It's pretty common for awards to be withheld/withdrawn for fraud reasons. It's likely going to happen here again.  TMLutas 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no legal or formal basis on which to withhold the award even if he were already found guilty of all the allegations.  The award is from an organization unrelated to the University ethics committee, and nothing in the rules previously published ever said anything about "given to teachers of scholarly standing" or whatever.    The published basis is just "who do the students vote for?"  In other words, it's purely in violation of their own previously published rules that the alumni association withheld the award from Churchill... which sure make it seem like a bit of political maneuvering rather than any kind of obvious rule.  It might be that he is cleared of everything, and the AA finds a different pretense to withhold it.  It might be he is found guilty of something, and they go ahead and award it (as their own rules require).  Or likewise for guilty/withheld and cleared/granted.  It's pure politics, and what they'll do is anyone's guess.  I don't know whether any prior recipient had been involved in any kind of plagiarism investigation, but there's certainly no question that if they had (as some internal academic matter, not subject to national publicity), the AA would not give it a second thought when giving the award. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it is clearly, as you have acknowledged, your POV that it is political maneuvering.  Further, even if there is political maneuvering, you are further speculating that it is in regard to the essay controversy and not in regard to the misconduct allegations.  Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to push your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put award 

message: Some other possible links to use (just making notes for now):
* http://newmedia.colorado.edu/silverandgold/messages/4533.html
* According to Idianz.com, "Students at the University of Colorado have overwhelmingly chosen Ward Churchill as their favorite professor but he won't be given the award because he is too controversial."
* http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=rpa-list&D=0&T=0&P=215:
 CU students vote favors Churchill, but award withheld
 By Amy Herdy
 Denver Post Staff Writer
 DenverPost.com 5/27/2005
 Asked to nominate their favorite professor, students at the
 University of Colorado at Boulder overwhelmingly picked Ward
 Churchill. Yet the controversial figure's award is being withheld,
 in part, due to his tendency to "antagonize and create enemies," the
 head of the CU alumni association said.
 "There are many things we say and do based on free speech," Kent
 Zimmerman, president of the alumni association, the organization
 that oversees the award, said Wednesday. "But how we say them can
 make people more accepting of the message."
 Zimmerman said the Teaching Recognition Award presented by The Herd,
 the student arm of the alumni association, and its accompanying $500
 prize will not go to Churchill until a panel is through
 investigating allegations that he misrepresented his American Indian
 heritage and committed plagiarism. 
 "We're not saying he did not win, we're simply not awarding it until
 his name has been cleared," said Zimmerman, who noted that while he
 was responsible for the decision, he consulted members of the alumni
 board and Herd student leaders. 
 During a break while teaching Wednesday afternoon at CU, Churchill
 said the decision "speaks for itself."  
 "They're doing everything possible to discredit me," he said of
 school officials, "and it certainly wouldn't look good in the middle
 of all this nonsense (for me) to get an award from students." 
 Churchill's attorney, David Lane, reacted strongly to news of the
 situation.
 "They are punishing Ward Churchill for his free speech by
 withholding this award. ... There is a significant possibility I
 will see Kent Zimmerman in federal district court in the near
 future," Lane said.
 One staff member said that she thought withholding the award was
 unfair.
 "If it's a student award, and it has nothing to do with the review,
 then it shouldn't be withheld," graduate program assistant Mary
 Gregory said, adding that she did not have a personal opinion on
 Churchill.
 One student described the situation as "hysterical."
 "I think they're creating more scandal for themselves by withholding
 this award, but I also don't know how much credence student awards
 have," said Lansing Madry, 31, an atmospheric science doctoral
 student. Another student said the volume of news about Churchill may
 have sparked his win. "But it doesn't seem fair, if his students
 voted for him, to withhold the award based on bureaucratic reasons,"
 said Katelyn Hoban, 21, who will be a senior history major at CU
 this fall.
 "I think it's legitimate" to withhold the award, said Ann Ellis, 50,
 an instructor in architecture and planning. "I think the students
 voting on the award were trying to influence the investigation,"
 Ellis said. Churchill is being evaluated, she said, "because the
 university has a responsibility to make sure that its faculty
 members are who they say they are."
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More background on award 

message: (Deleted repeated post from Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about name change.)
I recently changed the name of this article from Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy) to Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy.  For a discussion of the name change and an equivalent name change to the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations page, please see the discussion at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: :Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg

message: Blowback (intelligence) seems to have unclear relevance to the article. Comments requested.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Blowback

message: Up for deletion, you are welcome to comment. Okip   05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns]]

message: He's right, they didn't do it for a laugh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.88.148 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand why there's even controversy