Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

for the next round of edits

For those of you who are involved in editing this article:

It would be helpful if this section included some account of the University's procedural structure and explained which committee did what. For example, the "Background" section refers to "the committee" declining to investigate Churchill's ethnic heritage without any indication which committee that was.

The quote from Hank Brown in the "Background" section dates from Churchill's firing and is out of place in that section. The "Results" section might be a logical place. Nextfriend (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the Hank Brown quote comes from before the investigation started, and is therefore part of the background. If that chronology is not right, definitely fix it. LotLE×talk 10:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I already fixed it, and you reverted it.Verklempt (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Verklempt... somewhere in the middle of an edit devoted to mass deletion of consensus content, you had in fact moved the Brown quote to a better location. It's hard to catch that detail in the midst of your repeated vandalism. I was indeed mistaken—Brown had made similar pre-investigation statements, but the one quoted is post-investigation. I've moved the Brown quote to the "Reactions" section... which actually fits pretty nicely since it balances pro- and anti-Investigation comments. LotLE×talk 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) 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. (2) Brown's comment represents the official university statement, and thus cannot be construed as a "reaction" to the university. He was, after all, the university president at the time.Verklempt (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2008

(UTC)

The ongoing vandalism by Verklempt continues to be pretty annoying. Please read the consensus of editor rather than mass delete material! In any case, the Brown quote was Brown speaking to the press of his own opinion of the investigation, not a press release of the University President office. As such, this comment was a "reaction" not a "result". Moreover, along with all the other dishonesty, trying to shoehorn Brown's reaction out of the Reactions section as a pretext for deleting the section is... well, more bad faith. LotLE×talk 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

After weeding through all the gratuitous ad hominem, it appears that you're trying to argue that Brown was reacting to his own decision to fire Churchill, and that his reaction had nothing to do with official university policy, even though he's speaking to a policy action he himself had taken? That just doesn't make sense. Please explain.Verklempt (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Brown did not fire Churchill, the Board of Regents did. Brown stated to a reporter that (his reaction was that) he endorsed that decision (with a quote explaining his reasons). In any case, there is a difference between statements Brown (or whomever) makes in an official capacity and those he makes personally, even though they are likely to be generally consistent. LotLE×talk 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken on two counts. First, Brown did fire Churchill. The Board approved his decision, but it would not have even gone to the board if he had not taken it first. Second, when a university president speaks to the press about the reasons for his own policy decision, he is speaking in an official capacity by definition. You have given no evidence that he was speaking as a private citizen, and the notion is rather absurd in this context.Verklempt (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually CU President Hank Brown refused to recuse himself from the Ward Churchill case despite his longstanding ties to ACTA. He then overrides the P&T Panel and recommends to the Regents that they fire Ward Churchill. ACTA is th American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative advocacy group founded 12 years ago by the nation’s second lady, Lynn Cheney. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

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)

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)

As my edit summaries indicate, the Brown quote, which was made long before the CU investigation is simply not a "Reaction to the investigation", and our anon keeps pretending. Brown is already given a whole section on "Smallpox genocide" earlier in the article. It does not include the specific quote the anon keeps inserting (hello 3RR?), but does already include rather more than is needed to characterize Brown's position. The anon is simply editing to include, in a completely duplicative way, as many negative comments about Churchill as s/he can dig up... damn be to whether they relate to the section they are randomly stuck into. LotLE×talk 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Stop reverting

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)

Compromise

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)

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)

OK, then its agreed on. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent edits

I've removed the following sentence from the article:

This opinion was shared by Ann Coulter,[47] David Horowitz,[48] Thomas Sowell[49] and others.

from the "Reactions to the Investigation" section for the following reasons:
1) These are opinion pieces from early 2005, before the investigation was underway and long before the investigation was concluded.
2) Each of these opinions were presented a year and a half before Volokh's, so the wording "opinion was shared" is misleading.
3) Volokh's opinion was in response to the investigation's conclusions, so I left it, but formatted the same as the rest of the opinions. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am WP:BOLDly re-engineering the entire section, from reactions to the investigation alone, to include reactions to Churchill's "I dare you to examine my scholarship" challenge in February 2005. Since investigations and detailed, published analysis by the conservative media (in instant response to Churchill's challenge) arguably provided fresh and powerful evidence for the CU investigation that started just weeks later, they belong here. Please refrain from hitting your "undo" or "Twinkle" buttons until I've had a chance to finish, and you've had a chance to carefully review my work (and WP:NPOV policy). Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above, "Reactions to the Investigation", should contain material written after the investigation began. WVBluefield (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

TMCK hit that "undo" button with amazing speed. The research by conservative pundits published in February 2005 is abundant, accurate and detailed. It is well-documented and well-sourced. It is clearly identified at least twice as coming from conservative pundits in the conservative media. It is against this backdrop that later criticisms of the CU investigation by Howard Zinn and other left-wingers were offered. Adding this paragraph, and changing the section header to accommodate it, satisfies WP:WEIGHT and explains why people like Zinn felt that the charges were politically motivated. It is "the other half of the story," as the late, great Paul Harvey was so fond of saying. I realize that some editors here have a profound distaste for right-wing pundits, and a far greater distaste for admitting that the right-wing pundits are correct. But they exist, and in this case they were correct. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Amazing speed"? Nope, I waited till you where done!

Just a view points of many in regards to your edits: "...quickly offered well-researched criticisms of Churchill's works." = unsourced. "... evidence presented in the conservative media included proof of..." = unsourced. "This evidence was eventually included in the final report by the university's investigative committee." = unsourced.

There is more as I pointed out in my edit summary but let's keep it simple as the above should do it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. So what you want here is not an instantaneous revert, but a tag until I can produce a source (which will come far more quickly than most such tags have prompted, I assure you). Isn't that correct? Before you cite WP:BLP regarding "unsourced and negative material," please note that it isn't about Churchill, but about such conservative pundits as Rush Limbaugh and it's quite positive. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't "see". You can't just make stuff up and then add a tag. Gosh.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "make stuff up." You'll have a WP:RS cited here by Monday. For now, leave it up please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read wp:Verifiability and self-revert.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If I can't relocate the WP:RS by Monday, I will self-revert (or edit to make it consistent with reliable sources). Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in articles before there are sources (especially true for BLPs). If you find sources on monday, and they're reliable and relevant and the edit is appropriate as regards to weight and topic, then perhaps this edit will stand. But not a moment sooner than (at minimum) there are reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another template you may find useful in the future when disputing content like this, rather than reaching for the "undo" button as your first resort.

WP:BLP in this case refers to the right-wing pundits I was writing about, not Churchill; and the material I wrote was complimentary to them, not hostile to Churchill (since it doesn't cite any evidence against him that wasn't already explored at great length in this WP article). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Click here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Here's a source: "David Horowitz seems to me to be doing the best research possible these days, conducting studies on individual campus catalogues to document the often absurd leftist nonsense being passed off as scholarship, visiting campuses to document levels of political correctness, and calling to public attention the antics of such faculty members as Ward Churchill." [1] The source is a blog, but some blogs are a lot better than others. This one belongs to the National Association of Scholars. The author is Thomas C. Reeves. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What content are you citing to this source? (Note: I expanded the quote you provided a little, per the source.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to keep it short and relevant per encyclopedic style. I presented the quote the manner in which it might appear in the WP article, should we choose to go that route. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece on an a blog by an openly biased thinktank. Even if "some blogs are a lot better than others" (I'll leave that up to someone more familiar with the reliable sources policy than myself), this can't be one of the "better" blogs. ~YellowFives 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A blog for the national association of scholars (a lobbying group with a pronounced political agenda) would not be a reliable source for matters of fact. Perhaps, in some cases, a source for its own activities or for the opinions of one or more of their members (if the opinions were notable and relevant and so on and so on). The sentence above seems of no utility at all -- it just praises david horowitz, in the opinion of Reeves, who helped run a group that was dedicated to opposing what he (like horowitz) perceives to be "the absurd leftist nonesense being passed off as scholarship." Leaving aside that it's no RS, it doesn't seem to address the earlier edit at all, one way or the other, just lumps in Churchill with a bunch of other people that Reeves and Horowitz are ideologically opposed to. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments below. Other editors have no problem with quoting the radically left-wing Noam Chomsky and the radically left-wing Howard Zinn in support of the radically left-wing Ward Churchill. If that was okay in this article, then quoting Reeves in support of Horowitz is also okay. If you have any doubts about whether Reeves accurately characterized Horowitz's work, just read Horowitz's work. It is in fact well-researched and well-sourced. It completely demolished Churchill's defense. And elements of the same evidence presented by Horowitz appeared later in the investigative committee's final report; again, if you find this hard to believe, just read Horowitz and then read the report. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the question of anyone should care what Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, two people whose job description is to say controversial things, have to say about events they are not at all involved in and that are outside of any area of expertise they may have. For us to include a potentially disputed statement of opinion, that statement ideally needs to be covered by a third party reliable source, and placed in context as having some connection to the incident via a chain of events. Otherwise you get what I think of as the Noam Chomsky problem (but you might as well call it the Ann Coulter problem). Chomsky has an opinion on almost anything, but few people who are the targets of his opinions actually listen to him, much less are affected by his opinions. If we added all of Chomsky's opinions to the encyclopedia we would have his statements in tens of thousands of articles. Why this particular opinion? The answer, I think, would have to be that in a select few cases Chomsky's opinions actually affect the course of events, or are part of the chain by which events affect the wider world. And that would have to be supported by reliable sources of suitable weight to justify our highlighting their opinion as something the reader needs to know about. Cherry-picking opinions and then citing them to the source document where the person offers the opinion, is tricky and should probably not be done if there is any dispute over it. In uncontroversial cases, e.g. "food critic A says that tomato sauces are more tasty during summer months when fresh produce is available", it's probably okay to leave in the opinion of an acknowledged expert even if the choice of that particular quote is arbitrary. But if reasonably challenged, quotes really ought to have secondary sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WD, in case you hadn't noticed, we already have a lengthy quote from Noam Chomsky in the article, and for a long time we had a quote from the equally radical Howard Zinn. (He is still named and cited with a footnote.) If quotes from Chomsky and Zinn belong in the article, then quotes from Limbaugh and Coulter belong in the article. Coulter, for example, is a licensed attorney and is fully aware of the standards relevant to academic misconduct. Volokh is a law professor. Horowitz has a graduate degree. This isn't a bunch of high school drop-outs who just got off the bus from Muskogee, Oklahoma. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether positive or negative, there needs to be some standard for why we would include any potentially controversial comment by someone about the affair. Ideally a comment should be: (1) written about by a neutral third party (e.g. the New York Times, in an article about the affair, covers the fact that the comment was made), (2) stray zombie text stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

...yes, Wikidemon? Please continue. OMG, NO! They've killed Wikidemon! In mid-keystroke! Xenophrenic (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So can anyone explain to me why Chomsky and Zinn quotes in support of Churchill are "good," but a Reeves quote in support of Horowitz is "bad"? Any further objections to adding the paragraph with that quote (that haven't already been refuted)? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from the dead. In fact I'm undead now. Okies from Muskogee are just fine in my book. But personally, I'm no fan of Chomsky quotes, here or anywhere in the encycloepdia, unless there's some third party sourcing to indicate on a case-by-case basis that his quote matters in some way. That's why I brought it up, I think that one should go. So to answer the logical proposition, "If X is wrong then so is Y" I would say yes, X and Y are both wrong. Coulter is at least as bizarre and fringe as Chomsky, although Chomsky appears to have a quaint tendency to actually believe what he is saying, however extreme. To hold up Coulter as an expert in academic misconduct... well, yes, in the same sense that Michael Vick is an expert in dog fights. Perhaps it's okay for us as Wikipedia editors to decide that an expert's opinion is worth reporting if we can all agree that they're a qualified expert, the quote is uncontroversial, and nobody challenges it. I don't think that Coulter, Limbaugh, or Chomsky would fit that. Instead of dueling quotes from uninvolved professional pundits I would rather we try to get to the heart of the matter. Churchill wrote a bunch of wild stuff, he was called on it, investigated, fired, filed a lawsuit, won / lost the lawsuit, and it had some ripples. The ripples that matter are those in the academic community, the Native American community, and perhaps the legal community, not what television entertainers and muckrackers care to say. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My response to P&W's two questions, as paraphrased here - 1) Why are quotes about Churchill (see article title) good, and quotes about people not involved in this subject (see article title) not so good? That answers itself, I think. 2) Are there objections to a paragraph I want to add? Well, let's have a look at it. Lay out the exact wording you'd like to see; include a citation(s) and a brief description of where in the article it should go. You obviously have our attention, and I'm willing to give honest feedback. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about Churchill. That article is here: Ward Churchill. This one is about the investigation, his termination, his lawsuit, and the controversy surrounding all of these events. Quotes about not only Churchill, but all these events and the controversy and people like Horowitz who stirred up the controversy are appropriate. I'll post my recommended version of the lead paragraph of the "Reactions" section here, and we can discuss it per WP:BRD. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say this article was about Churchill. You can prop up that strawman, and knock it down again, all you want - but that bypasses the real discussion here and does us all a disservice. What I did say was that quotes about Churchill are better than quotes about people like Horowitz, who are not directly involved. As a reader, I come to this article for information on the investigation of Churchill. I couldn't care less about what Reeves thinks about Horowitz, or what Reeves' barber thinks about Reeves, or what the barber's dog thinks about the barber. Opinions about Churchill and the investigation might be useful in this article; opinions about the opiners really isn't useful.

This article is about the "Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation". It even says so in the title. If you are suggesting that this article be expanded to include detailed information on his lawsuit and other legal actions, appeals, etc., or about his controversial essay, or his ethnic background or other tangents, you may run into some resistance. Mentioning such relationships to the subject of this article can be good, but dwelling on them in extensive detail (in this article) may not be. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with Xenophrenic slightly here. I think facts about the lawsuit pursuant to the CU administrative investigation are pretty centrally relevant. I suppose it's conceivable that some refactoring would put that lawsuit in a separate article, but for now (and very reasonably so), the lawsuit is covered in this article. Since the lawsuit was precisely about the conduct or validity of the investigation, it seems well focused to discuss the lawsuit in this article. The other tangents I agree entirely with Xenophrenic about: Churchill's ethnicity, his quarrels with AIM, whether Horowitz is a nice guy, etc. indeed are far too peripheral for this article (beyond perhaps the very briefest mention possible). LotLE×talk 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lexis/Nexis is helpful here. For three years following publication of "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," it barely caused a ripple. Then he was invited to speak at Hamilton College, somebody found the essay and all hell broke loose. O'Reilly was bashing Churchill on his show about twice a week for two months (January-February 2005). Churchill issued his challenge, and Horowitz quickly responded with a very thorough and very damaging examination of several accusations. Limbaugh, Coulter, Sowell and a few others piled on. For about six weeks at least, it was Churchill against the right-wing media, and the right-wing media were winning. Churchill was responding in friendly left-wing venues with ad hominem attacks against all of his critics, but not much in the way of a scholarly defense that didn't sound like "the dog ate my homework." Then CU was wise enough to start a formal investigation, and the mainstream and progressive media started to notice. This is an accurate chronology of exactly how it all happened. Failing to highlight the role of O'Reilly and other right-wing media figures, in exposing Churchill's gross and consistent academic misconduct over a course of many years and many publications, and helping to bring him to academic justice, does Wikipedia readers a disservice. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@LotLE: I guess the jist of my point was that the legal issues stemming from the investigation and firing could very well balloon into a whole article subject by themselves, depending on how long and wide they carry on. I see there is a section in this article right now, and it is already swelling; I guess that's how many spin-off articles are formed anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• As an example: just 2 weeks ago, attorneys for CU filed a motion in court to recover up to $52,000 in court fees spent to defend itself from Churchill's lawsuit. I figure there will be many more legal actions in the back and forth between Churchill and CU. Should they become content in this article, or elsewhere, if at all? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@IP#71: As accurate as that chronology may be, is there a reliable source that details that chronology? Or are you just piecing it together yourself from the assorted incidents? That's the sticking point, I guess. We need to find a good source that does a good overview, basically as you have laid it out - but with editorial oversight. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fritch essay

As accurate as that chronology may be, is there a reliable source that details that chronology? Or are you just piecing it together yourself from the assorted incidents? That's the sticking point, I guess. We need to find a good source that does a good overview, basically as you have laid it out - but with editorial oversight. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Here's a good one. [2] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting read, but I am unclear as to what specific content you wish to cite to that essay. While it does go into detailed postulation about how a false controversy was created around Churchill's "Little Eichmann" reference, instead of Churchill's actual argument, it doesn't indicate your assertion that, basically "right-wing media = source of all of Churchill's problems". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a strawman to me. I didn't suggest that the right-wing media are the "source of all of Churchill's problems," and neither did 71. The source of all of Churchill's problems is his own misconduct: first representing himself as a Native American to get a $115,000 tenured faculty position plus speaking fees, then plagiarizing and fabricating his way through a half-dozen publications, then having the nerve to call attention to himself with an inflammatory 9/11 essay, and finally, in a supreme display of audacity and foolishness, challenging the media to find fault with his scholarship -- an event that I describe as his "Gary Hart moment." People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw a wheelbarrow full of bricks like that. What the right-wing media did was provide the attention he was foolishly seeking, but not in the way he had hoped. Fritsch et al. set this out plainly enough, and Volokh explains what happened after that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but I am still unclear as to what specific content you wish to cite to that essay. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"The conservative media took up the challenge, and a number of allegations of research misconduct were made." (That sentence, minus the word "conservative," has been in the article unsourced for months and you didn't have a problem with it.) Followed by citations of specific conservative pundits (such as Horowitz and Sowell) who criticized Churchill's articles after he issued his challenge. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying you are citing that essay as support for your addition of the word "conservative" to that sentence? Can you quote the specific text in that essay to which you refer, please? I have the document here; I see mention of all types of media, from Jon Stewart, O'Reilly, Bill Maher, et al.; so if you could be more specific, it would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. Maher, for example, was only mentioned for inviting Churchill on his show on March 4, 2005. This was more than five weeks after O'Reilly started criticizing Churchill on a regular basis, and three weeks after Horowitz's essay was published. Stewart started on this subject on February 24: like Maher, this was weeks after the right-wing pundits had started making hay on the subject of Churchill. Timing, Xenophrenic, is so important. The initial response to Churchill's challenge was clearly from the right. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You only needed to run a word search for "conservative" in the article:

Second, the emergence of blogging provided a ripening agency (see Rodzvilla, 2001). As was illustrated during the 2004 presidential election, when bloggers first probed the problematic CBS-Dan Rather memo, blogs increasingly serve as the lower courts to the national news media's high courts: "Blogs appear to play an increasingly important role as a forum of public debate, with knock-on consequences for the media and for politics" (Drezner & Farrell, 2004, p. 4). Bloggers' increasing role as agenda setters clearly influenced the Churchill controversy. Shortly after the Hamilton College story broke in Syracuse's Post Standard, blogs erupted; within just a few hours, more than 500 comments critical of Churchill had been posted on littlegreenfootballs.com alone (Smallwood, 2005). Not until two days later, and only following extensive postings on two conservative weblogs (littlegreenfootballs.com and Freerepublic.com) did the national media pay any attention.

Third, conservatives attacked Churchill as a way of encouraging support for Bush and the war in Iraq. Immediately after his re-election, his approval ratings jumped to 53% (Roper, 2001-2004) and Bush declared that he would use his political capital. As 2004 drew to a close, however, a series of events raised questions about the President's policy in Iraq; by Inauguration Day, 58% of the public disapproved of Bush's handling of the war ("Inauguration," 2005). As Bush's approval ratings slipped, conservative agents sought to shift attention from Iraq by framing criticism as unpatriotic. Churchill's essay provided a foil.

Commentators relied on two primary strategies to bolster sagging support for the President. First, conservatives renewed efforts to frame the war in Iraq as a part of the larger war on terrorism. Linking Iraq to the war on terrorism and, hence, to the events of 9/11, constructed Churchill's opinion of 9/11 as typical of opposition to the war in Iraq. Second, conservative commentators charged that critics of the Bush administration were un-American. Because he dared compare 9/11 victims to Nazis, Churchill became the epitome of anti-American opposition to Bush. Churchill had attempted to place the 9/11 attacks within a broader discussion of U.S. foreign policy. In order to stifle such discussion, conservative commentators equated 9/11 and terrorism with the war in Iraq while simultaneously painting dissent as unpatriotic.

How much more obvious can this be for you, Xenophrenic? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't how obvious it is to me; that is irrelevant. The question also isn't how many times the word "conservative" appeared in that essay. Here is the sentence we are discussing:

"The conservative media took up the challenge, and a number of allegations of research misconduct were made."

You apparently want to stress the conservative media role, to the exclusion of the rest of the media, in this sentence - and you cite this essay as your source. No reasonable person would argue that the conservative media didn't play their part, but why change "media" to "conservative media"? Your exerpts above support the fact that conservative media played a role, but they do not support the exclusion of the rest of the media as also involved. You could cite this wording (within just a few hours, more than 500 comments critical of Churchill had been posted on littlegreenfootballs.com alone (Smallwood, 2005). Not until two days later, and only following extensive postings on two conservative weblogs (littlegreenfootballs.com and Freerepublic.com) did the national media pay any attention) as indicative, in the opinion of these authors, that conservative involvement preceeded the involvement of almost everyone else by two days - but that still doesn't support the exclusion of the rest of the media. I also see the cronology listed by these authors as indicating O'Reilly's first mention of Churchill (Friday, Jan 28) was immediately followed on the next couple of days by the cancellation of Churchill's speaking engagement at Hamilton; the CU starting an investigation; a CNN interview of Churchill and dozens of editorials (Jan 31-Feb 4). It appears to me that saying the "media" took up the challenge is more accurate than saying "conservative media" took up the challenge. Do you disagree? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you know if this essay was published anywhere? Besides the AFA Journal, I mean. There are some other interesting observations about the Churchill investigation in this essay that might prove useful. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reactions in academia and the media

In response to the challenge issued by Churchill in February 2005, several pundits in the conservative media quickly offered criticisms of Churchill's works. The evidence presented in the conservative media included proof of plagiarism, evidence fabricated by Churchill regarding the alleged spreading of smallpox among Native Americans by the US Army in 1837, and other instances of academic misconduct. David Horowitz was among the first to examine the allegations against Churchill.[3] According to Thomas C. Reeves of the conservative think thank National Association of Scholars, "David Horowitz seems to me to be doing the best research possible ... calling to public attention the antics of such faculty members as Ward Churchill." [4] This evidence was eventually included in the final report by the university's investigative committee. Among the many other respondents to Churchill's challenge were such notable right-wing pundits as Rush Limbaugh,[5] Bill O'Reilly,[6] Ann Coulter,[7] and Thomas Sowell.[8]

---

Let's continue to keep this civil and constructive. Please don't just dismiss this out of hand. If you feel this paragraph needs changes and improvements, I welcome your improvements. But this is the situation that led the ACLU and other left-wing Churchill supporters to claim that the investigation started in a "poisoned," highly-charged politicized atmosphere and was therefore illegitimate. This provides the proper context for everything that follows in the "Reactions" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of concerns I have about your proposed paragraph above:

• Are you suggesting it replace the header "Reactions to the University of Colorado Investigation"? If so, to what are the reactions as implied by your new header?

Resolved. Editor dropped the new header idea. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you considered adding the paragraph under the "Background" header, after the already existing text, "In February 2005, during the height of the media firestorm surrounding his 'little Eichmans' comments, Churchill publicly challenged anyone to find fault with his scholarship. The media took up the challenge, and a number of allegations of research misconduct were made."? It appears much of your content concerns the run-up (i.e.; Background) to the actual CU Investigation.

Resolved. Editor took suggestion to place the content in the Background section. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The wording you use suggests the pundits provided "proof of plagiarism", an assertion of fact that would require a reliable source (i.e.; not an opinion piece or rumor-rag like Front Page, etc.).

Resolved. "Provided proof" wording was changed to more accurate "publicized claims" wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The wording you use suggests the pundits provided "evidence fabricated by Churchill", an assertion of fact that would also require a reliable source.

Resolved. Wording removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The wording you use suggests Horowitz was among the first to examine allegations against Churchill as if it were fact. Cite a reliable source making that same statement, please.

Resolved. Wording removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have again inserted "atta-boy" wording from Reeves about Horowitz; useless and uninformative in this article.

Resolved. Wording removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• You use wording that implies evidence supplied by Horowitz was included in the CU's final report, and you cite the report (but no page number), but I see Horowitz' name nowhere in that source. Exact cite, please?

Resolved. Misleading wording was removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• You didn't provide a cite that states Limbaugh, Coulter, et al; specifically responded to Churchill's challenge, instead of just routinely joining in the pile-on as usual - yet your wording implies that.

Resolved. Wording implying they specifically responded to a challenge was removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• You cite the Lyons article in support of your assertion that, "Among other contemporary examiners of Churchill's writings were such notable right-wing pundits as Rush Limbaugh," when the only mention of Limbaugh is this: "The last thing we should do right now is try to terminate Ward Churchill by haggling over his identity. It's a red herring. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are already making hay out of the ethnic fraud allegations, and anyone who thinks they are doing so to promote tribal self-determination ought to have their head examined." I don't see the connection.

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, please read the following passage where you want to place the paragraph suggested by 64/Phoenix (additional off-topic suggestions and questions moved to here by Xenophrenic for lengthy discussion):

"This increased attention led to a greater examination of other works by Churchill as well as the man himself. As a result, allegations, both old and new, were raised against Churchill accusing him of academic fraud and plagiarism, and questioning his claims of American Indian heritage. In response, University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into the allegations concerning academic misconduct. The committee declined to address the issue of Churchill's ethnic heritage. In February 2005, during the height of the media firestorm surrounding his "little Eichmans" comments, Churchill publicly challenged anyone to find fault with his scholarship. The media took up the challenge, and a number of allegations of research misconduct were made. Federal regulations that define "research misconduct" specify three types of misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."

Nowhere in that entire passage is a single source of any kind cited. According to the harsh standards you seek to enforce against 64/Phoenix, that entire passage must be deleted immediately, and cannot be restored until there is a reliable, neutral source of New York Times caliber cited after every period and comma. It's a clear violation of WP:RS and WP:OR. Isn't that correct? A review of the rest of the article reveals several other passages that should also be deleted instantly per these demanding standards. (Additional off-topic suggestions and questions moved to here by Xenophrenic for lengthy discussion) 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The lack of citations you have pointed out is indeed a problem. While Wikipedia's standards may seem harsh to you, I'm sure they were designed to facilitate the production of a great encyclopedia. To remedy the problem you have noted, you are encouraged to add appropriate citations, if such can be found for that content. Pending such additions, you can tag the content with citation templates, or remove the content until source citations are available. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

After a second read of some of that content, is it possible the source cited after the next sentence contains that information?

The citation link isn't good anymore - I'll see what I can track down. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Monday, perhaps? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found a reference to some of the content here, including the "challenge" by Churchill, but it's an opinion piece. The footnotes point to "Dodge, J. (2005, February 10). Churchill call's CU's review 'a hunting expedition.' Silver and Gold." Not sure if it's usable yet. What's Silver and Gold? The challenge reference is in this article, uncited, since the first edit in Jan., 2007. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the CU staff newspaper. The ref you mention is here. Kanguole 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is not to start a feud over WP:OR in the first place, Xeno. Nor is the solution to start gutting the article, which your course of action against 64/Phoenix would do if carried to its logical conclusion. This is a reasonably well-written article. The only things missing are the exact nature of the media that responded to Churchill's challenge, and the other circumstances surrounding the start of the investigation (specifically, the ranting by right-wing pundits). These events are notable. The fact that they occurred is eminently provable using WP:RS. The rest of the article was written using a slightly less draconian WP:OR standard than you seem to prefer. Why not just continue editing this article under that standard, rather than suddenly starting to demand a New York Times caliber source cited after every period and comma? WP:OR (and WP:BLP) only require that level of sourcing if facts are disputed. Why are you disputing the facts 64/Phoenix is presenting? Are they libelous to Churchill in some way? If so, please explain. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, IP#71, that feuding is not the solution, but do you really think can we make him understand that? I have asked him to provide reliable sources as a first step. I also agree with you that your idea to start gutting the article, or to use your suggestion, "...that entire passage must be deleted immediately, and cannot be restored until there is a reliable, neutral source...", is also not the answer. I have provided alternative steps (tag the content, or better yet, add the sources yourself) as a first step. As for the article being good, but lacking specific content in certain areas, we are also in agreement. If you have such content in mind, I encourage you to add it. As for your questions about me disputing facts, I am afraid you lost me. Which fact was that, again? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in addition to the many passages that have no sourcing at all, how many use Ward Churchill's website as their only source? Read WP:RS. Particularly in light of Churchill's proven track record of academic misconduct, fabrication and falsification, as described by an investigative committee and confirmed by a judge in a Colorado courtroom, that website can only be used to confirm what Churchill said, and what his attorney David Lane has said. Anything else in this article that relies solely on Churchill's website for sourcing must be deleted, per the draconian standard now advocated by Xeno. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You should specifically point out such problematic content, so that Wikipedia's draconian standards, as you call them, can be appropriately applied. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I ask only that a consistent standard should be employed throughout the article. The Churchill website is self-published and is not a reliable source. Many portions of this article would not survive Xenophrenic's strict scrutiny. Either we agree that statements such as "In response to the challenge issued by Churchill in February 2005, several pundits in the conservative media quickly offered criticisms of Churchill's works" are self-evident, not reasonably disputable and therefore not WP:OR violations, or this is going to become a much shorter article. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"I ask only that a consistent standard should be applied throughout the article." Well spoken, and I agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way, if any, did outrage over his 9/11 essay trigger the investigation and his ultimate firing? That is the subject of his lawsuit and it's all pretty murky and contentious. Although plausible, it seems unlikely that the attentions of the conservative pundits had anything to do with it in a direct way. More likely, the public outcry was a wave that went off in a different direction. Pre-2001 Churchill was already a controversial figure who had alienated many people within his small community. I believe there were already questions regarding the legitimacy of his claim of being Native American, and the accuracy of his claims about the smallpox blankets. You don't just make stuff like that up without other academics questioning your work. But it caught the imagination of many Native American radicals and their supporters, who approached his claims without so much skepticism, and the small pox blanket thing became part of the lore of American conquest. Churchill offended liberals and not just conservatives, academics and not just pundits. Who do you think is more angry about misleading histories and in a position to do something about it, Ann Coulter or a university faculty committee? Many of his colleagues at CU, the university administration, and the local citizenry, politicians, and benefactors who supported the university were already fed up with him, so when he caused a national embarrassment that was presumably the last straw. I'm not saying it happened this way, just that it's a lot more plausible. Nor would I object at all to the content if it can be sourced - if Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter took down Ward Churchill it would be a curious and notable twist to the whole affair. But if we're going to make any claim that the conservative pundits have anything to do with the incident we need reliable sourcing about that, not just their own words, and not a bunch of navel gazing from professional pundits. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I think the situation is a bit more clear and less ambiguous than you suggest, Wikidemon. I don't know that Limbaugh and Coulter per se caused the investigation. But it seems awfully well documented (already in the article) that Colorado Governor Bill Owens, and (CU President) Hank Brown, came at this with a political agenda having nothing to do with the accuracy of Churchill's scholarship, and aggressively pushed through the investigation. After all, Owen's call for firing preceded any actual investigation or any effort to find any particular specific misconduct allegations. I'm actually not opposed to a (very brief) mention of the Phoenix and Winslow's edits giving a bit more discussion of the effect of right-wing blogs in launching the investigation... but of course, with citation of the fact (which seems to be given well enough above on this talk page). LotLE×talk 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WD’s has a good point. Churchill’s behavior and antics made him a thorn in the side of CU for years but they never had the balls to do anything about him. I think the public attention paid to CU and Churchill after the general public was made aware of his antics made it impossible for CU to ignore them any longer. Once he laid down the gauntlet and all of those he plagiarized and mischaracterized (setting aside his heritage claims and his activities in Vietnam) came out of the woodwork it made their decisions a lot easier. WVBluefield (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Or...

Churchill's behavior was never an issue with CU, until keeping him on the faculty was made a contentious issue, as all the evidence suggests. His essay wasn't a violation of anything but some people's sensibilities; and the jury agreed. It was mostly a non-issue for years. His ethnic background and military background weren't an issue either, as his employment wasn't contingent upon them. The situation mushroomed over the span of just a few days, during which many factors played a part, including very vocal protests on the Hamilton campus, localized media coverage (See the Daily in Denver and Post Standard in Syracuse) and bloggers compiling and disseminating - all before O'Reilly uttered a word on his Friday night program. By Monday, he was claiming responsibility for the whole firestorm - so I can certainly see where Phoenix is getting that impression. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

None of them had the audience that O'Reilly had. O'Reilly was the one who put it on the national map. Or, if your prefer, it was Little Green Footballs and Free Republic. Whatever. No matter how you spin it, the conservatives were way ahead of the curve on this issue. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to spin it at all? O'Reilly commented on the controversy on his Friday night show, and by the next business days (Monday and Tuesday) NPR and the New York Times were also running stories. That hardly equates to "way ahead of the curve", and NPR and NYT don't exactly have small audiences - that they act with more deliberation than the more sensationalist outlets. And don't forget, other newspapers were on it before O'Reilly was, since two Colorado congressmen had already made public statements of outrage about Churchill earlier in the week. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to spin it, and your spin has been successfully neutralized. Both NYT and NPR have Saturday and Sunday editions, and their significantly delayed approach was very different from O'Reilly's: understanding and sensitive, sympathetic to Churchill, rather than exposing his academic misconduct. (more personal attacks deleted by Xenophrenic) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a delay at all here. And I think you are misunderstanding O'Reilly's first few commentaries about Churchill; they weren't about academic misconduct at all. They were all about his 9-11 essay, and the opposition to his discussion panel engagement at Hamilton College, and what an un-American and evil person he was. Interest in Churchill's academic misconduct came much later, and not because of O'Reilly. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a 24-hour news cycle, so 48-72 hours is a delay. Furthermore, the tone and nature of the coverage is clearly distinguished. The right-wing media relentlessly attacked Churchill: some were simply bitching about the "little Eichmanns" comment, but others were very thorough and scholarly in dissecting his fabrications and plagiarisms. The mainstream and progressive media, on the other hand, avoided any details about Churchill's academic misconduct, referring to them vaguely as "accusations" or the obvious weasel word, "claims": Churchill was interviewed in a friendly, non-confrontational and even sympathetic manner, providing a venue for only his side of the story, and he counterattacked his critics in an unprofessional manner. It's obvious that not only were the conservative media leading the charge; for several weeks, they were the only ones who were actually charging. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

48 hours is a delay, when those 48 hours are over a weekend? Good luck with that assertion. Everyone knows that news simply stops happening Friday afternoon and doesn't resume until Monday morning (with the exception of a small update blip after the Sunday discussion shows). I do agree with you about the difference in tone of coverage between right-wing media and news media, however, with the former relentlessly attacking and the latter providing a venue for the other side of the story. Got an interesting quote for you from early February, right during the peak of the comotion:

"The New York Times" is covering Churchill, saying it's the dreaded conservatives that are driving the sentiment against him. Of course, "The Times" does that all the time. And of course, it's not true. Americans of all political persuasions are condemning Churchill." -- Bill O'Reilly

Xenophrenic (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)...perhaps the conservative press was the first nationwide mass-media to hit him on that particular news cycle. That's not unusual - Fox News keeps seeing skeletons in every closet, so it's no wonder that when there really is a skeleton in the closet they're the first to report it. Locally and within the Native American political community a lot of people were upset for a long time. The question is whether the blogs / non-mainstream coverage lead to the mainstream conservative media coverage (i.e. Fox), and that in turn lead to the coverage of all the media, and then to pressure on the academic committee to fire him. Or was it just, as I said, ripples spreading out in different directions from a splash. Back to the issue on what really got him fired, we would need some reliable sources but there must have been many different contributing factors. The modern public university notions of freedom of speech and academic freedom seem odd to people: academics are hired to comment on matters of race, politics, and history, and in some fields like ethnic studies or critical race theory, they are hired to personally participate and represent their personal experiences and viewpoints as commentary on their own race. In Churchill's case he was given tenure as a "special opportunity" candidate, i.e. for being Indian. The things he said and did as a self-declared Indian seem particularly troublesome when one adds the fact that he was not really Indian. There is a long history of wannabe Indians (see Impostor#People who "went native" - I wonder if he should be added to that list). The university backpeddled on this issue and I don't think we can take their official findings at face value. It's quite possible that his lawsuit claims were correct, that the plagiarism and falsification / fabrication findings were just a smokescreen / gotcha issue so that the university did not have to deal with the more thorny issues of race and politics - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made some good points here, WD, and I'd like to see a broader spectrum of opinion from both the academic and Native American communities regarding Churchill's misconduct. I'll try to find some sources for that. Also, the citation of sources in this article is far from uniform, and needs a good cleanup. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of misconduct

Is it fair to call these "allegations" at this point? The official investigation made several factual findings and should be addressed as such. Any objections? WVBluefield (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time they were first raised, they were allegations. Later on, after the CU investigative committe had released its findings, they were no longer merely allegations. So it depends on the point in time that's being described. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording used in the article should reflect the wording used in the cited sources; that appears to be the situation at this time. "Allegations" is sometimes used as a blanket description covering charges unproven, proven, still disputed by Churchill despite findings, etc. Did you have a specific instance of the word usage from the article in mind? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the use should be chronological. If we are talking about events before the inquire, it should be labeled as allegation and if they had been found to be true by the committee, then they should be considered statements of fact. WVBluefield (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad our anon has found a name, but the politicking is still weak. The allegations are still contentious. The CU committees released reports, but the jury overturned them, before the judge threw out the jury verdict. All of that before appeals have been heard, which almost surely will happen. "Allegations" remains a rather good general word here. Moreover, many things were alleged that even the CU committee dismissed as untrue or irrelevant, but which are still discussed in the article.

That said, we should and do present the findings of the CU committee as such. There might be a sentence or two that could be clarified in that regard still. LotLE×talk 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

After an investigative committee has produced its final report, and after a judge (or jury) in a civil or criminal trial has produced a verdict, they're not allegations any more. They're proven facts. LotLE is under the mistaken impression that they remain mere "allegations" until every appeal, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, has been exhausted. But the judicial system doesn't see it that way. Without further judicial action (a stay of execution of sentence), criminal defendants begin serving their sentences in prison and civil defendants must pay damages while their appeals run their course. It's the judges, the juries and the investigative committees who hear all the evidence and make findings of fact. Appellate courts give those findings great deference. We should as well. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not. Please read WP:V. We aren't in the business of determining what is factual or not. We build articles from information taken from reliable sources, and that is all we editors defer to. If you feel a committee or a court has established a fact, I'm sure it can be found in a reliable source somewhere. Then we will give it all due deference. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course we're not "in the business of determining what is factual or not." Judges, juries and investigative committees are in that business, however; and they're good at it. When they make a finding, they've heard all the evidence. They've had all the witnesses testifying in their presence. They've looked at all the relevant documents. Their decisions can and should be described, not as allegations, but as fact. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And once they are so described by a reliable source, we can repeat those descriptions here, with citations. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Courts make findings of fact that have some legal bearing. A private administrative body, such as an academic committee, does not have the same standing to make determinations of fact. Also, both make determinations that are not factual in nature - e.g. criminal culpability, or academic misconduct. These are not facts, they are judgments. If an academic committee determines that Churchill committed misconduct, we cannot say as a matter of fact that he did, only that his actions were judged to be misconduct by the committee. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The committee's findings were ratified by the judge, so that resolves the question. They are proven fact. When a law, or standard of academic conduct is violated, the violation is a fact. We may reasonably rely upon such judgments of fact. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, a court would not rule on standards of academic conduct. It would rule that the university was within its rights, a completely different thing. There are underlying facts to both the committee's findings and the courts but their function is entirely different. One rules on academic matters, the other legal ones. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think the wording should convey what the sources say. I still haven't seen anyone cite a specific example in the article of wording that we are discussing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009

Although I was the one who brought this up originally, I would have to agree. After rereading the article several times I find the wording to follow a very nice chronological pattern with respect to when the charges were brought forth and what the factual findings of the committee were. WVBluefield (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Smallpox blanket genocide

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)

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)

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)

Just top stop this from ever coming up again, here's a quote from the CDC: "Smallpox also can be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects such as bedding or clothing." [9] Again, it probably didn't happen when Churchill claimed it did, but it's totally possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed "other scholars support Churchill's claim"

There is nothing to support "other scholars support Churchill's claim [of an estimated 100,000 deaths]" in either http://web.archive.org/web/20050213021934/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540066,00.html or http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302 Deicas (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the specific 100K number that was supported, according to the cited sources, but rather the nature and scope of the pandemic. It was poorly worded, so your concern is completely understandable. I've reworded it to make that clearer. I've expanded it a little as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is going to include information from Guenter Lewy's writing (eg. [10]) that Lewy describes as non-creditable (eg. deriving from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets") then please:

1) Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue.

2) Include in the article the source's assessment of the information.

If anyone is going to include in the article any of "that other scholars agree that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40"

then please hereinbelow provide the specific URL and quote the specific text that justifies its inclusion. I find nothing the foot noted sources to justify the inclusion.

Deicas (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really the proper venue to be arguing the history of Native Americans in the early 1800s, so perhaps your initial premise of "If anyone is going to include information from Guenter Lewy..." should be revisited. But in the meantime, please do not remove information conveyed by the cited source. The source says both things: that several scholars agree with Churchill's assessment, and that Lewy disagrees with the lot of them. As for your trouble finding the quoted content in the cited article, I just double-checked and it is still there: Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that "the distribution of smallpox- infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark . . . was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40." Lewy goes on and tries to argue that one of the sources used by Stiffarm and Lane (the Clark journal) "manifestly" doesn't support their assertion, but Lewy fails to mention the rest of Stiffarm & Lane's source material, misleading readers into concluding he has refuted their assertion. That little debate has been ongoing for quite some time. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic:I call to your attention my question above "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue." You have not answered the question. How do you justify you edit? Note your obligation under WP:TE to answer the question.

Deicas (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: Regarding your "This isn't really the proper venue to be arguing the history of Native Americans in the early 1800s, so perhaps your initial premise of "If anyone is going to include information from Guenter Lewy..." should be revisited." This statement makes little sense. The is an issue of the proper way to edit a Wikipedia article based on a source. How do you justify your assertion? If you can *not* justify your assertion then please strike it out above.

Deicas (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: Per your "Lewy fails to mention the rest of Stiffarm & Lane's source material". If you are basing a portion of edit on Stiffarm & Lane mustn't you properly cite the portion of Stiffarm & Lane on which you base this action? What is your justification for not property citing Stiffarm & Lane?

Deicas (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: you write above "That little debate has been ongoing for quite some time." What little debate? I find no references above to Stiffarm & Lane via Lewy.

Deicas (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions, as far as I know, end in a question mark. "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue", is not a question, and appears to be a demand. Regardless, as I explained above, "The source says both things: that several scholars agree with Churchill's assessment, and that Lewy disagrees with the lot of them." Your edit removed the affirmative wording (from the Lewy opinion piece) that other scholars agree with the charge of genocide, the causative factor for the genocide, and the scale of the genocide — so I reverted that edit. That is the justification for my edit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the statement "but notes that other scholars agree that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40", and support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide" as contradicting the sources cited for the claim. First of all, for us to say in Wikipedia's voice what Lewy is or is not claiming is WP:OR. We don't have a reliable secondary source to say what Lewy notes, we only have Lewy's own words that we the editors are interpreting. That's fine in noncontroversial cases but here it is not only controversial, it is misleading. Lewy brings this up in the context of saying that these two historians are wrong and that the historical evidence is "at odds with any such idea". He also doesn't talk about "other historians" (which would imply a majority, or at least a significant number) — he's mentioning two specific historians who support their idea from a single journal entry that he argues does not support their claim. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to try to present this source as a counterpoint to the section's other sources (including this very one) that describe the falsity of Churchill's smallpox blanket claims. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since only a portion of what Lewy said (in his cited Commentary article) was removed because "for us to say in Wikipedia's voice what Lewy is or is not claiming is WP:OR", I've removed the remainder of what Lewy said from the same source, out of an abundance of caution — instead of reverting you. Hopefully, we can come to agreement on what the sources convey, and the content deemed relevant can be replaced. Here is the removed content we're discussing:

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published an essay about American Indians and Genocide. Lewy says of Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets, "we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive." Lewy calls Churchill's estimate of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic "obviously absurd", but notes that other scholars agree that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40", and support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide.[19][20]

Just to clarify so that we are talking about the same thing, when you say:

We don't have a reliable secondary source to say what Lewy notes, we only have Lewy's own words that we the editors are interpreting.

Actually, I've tried to leave all "interpretation" by the wayside, and instead elected to simply quote Lewy. For instance, Lewy does indeed "note" that other scholars (at least 2, as you've observed) support Churchill. Specifically, Lewy states: Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark . . . was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40." I see that you have removed that from our article, and you are unclear as to why.

he's mentioning two specific historians who support their idea from a single journal entry that he argues does not support their claim.

Not exactly. I believe you have misread. Lewy is careful not to state that those two specific historians support their assertion with only "a single journal" source, although he clearly leaves plenty of room for a reader to draw that incorrect conclusion, as you appear to have done. In fact, Stiffarm and Lane were drawing from several sources (Stearn, Schoolcraft, Hornaday, McHugh, Hobson, Utley, Wilcomb, Svaldi, ...) to support their contention of "genocide" as opposed to the unintentional "natural disaster" that befell the poor unfortunate natives.

He also doesn't talk about "other historians" (which would imply a majority, or at least a significant number)

I think you meant to say "other scholars", and yes, Lewy does mention others. Granted, he only mentions Stiffarm and Lane when discussing the Fort Clark 1836-1840 window, but as for the rest of our sentence, "and support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide", Lewy mentioned many more supporting those same assertions Churchill made (Stannard, Sale, Charny, David, Kiernan,...). I see you have removed that part of the sentence from the article, too, and you are unclear as to why.

It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to try to present this source as a counterpoint to the section's other sources (including this very one) that describe the falsity of Churchill's smallpox blanket claims.

Far from a counterpoint, the text that was in our article conveyed what the Lewy Commentary/HNN piece conveyed, including the misworded "Lewy calls Churchill's estimate of 100,000 deaths ... absurd" text. That should be reworded as "Lewy calls estimates of 100,000 deaths ... absurd", because the 100K number is not Churchill's; it's from other scholars which Churchill cites. One other thing which is missing is that Lewy strongly disagrees with the assertion by Churchill and others that Native Americans suffered the equivalent of a holocaust or genocide. If this Lewy source doesn't support your personal conclusion of the "falsity of Churchill's smallpox blanket claims", it's not because the Lewy source is being presented incorrectly. During the 6 times Churchill is mentioned in the lengthy Lewy piece about Genocide, Lewy makes only 2 arguments concerning Churchill's smallpox blanket assertion:

1) One of the several sources (a journal) cited by one of the several sources cited by Churchill doesn't say the infection was intentional, and

2) Government efforts to vaccinate natives "is at odds with" the intentional decimation of Native Americans.

There is a reason the investigating committee looking into Churchill's "intentional smallpox" claims concluded, Our investigation has found that there is some evidence in written accounts of Indian reactions in 1837 and in native oral traditions that would allow a reasonable scholar who relies heavily on such sources to reach Professor Churchill’s interpretation that smallpox was introduced deliberately among Mandan Indians near Fort Clark by the U.S. Army, using infected blankets. We therefore do not conclude that he fabricated his account." But they did go on to find that his work was so poorly cited and his assertions so poorly supported that it was embarrassingly beyond accepted research practices and that his academic conduct was actionable.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How would you feel about the following proposed wording?

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published an essay about American Indians and Genocide. Lewy says of Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets, "we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive." Lewy calls estimates of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic "obviously absurd". Lewy disagrees with scholars cited by Churchill who assert that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40", and who support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide.[19][20]

The above wording incorporates, from the Lewy source, "...writes David E. Stannard, ...native Americans had undergone the"worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people." In the judgment of Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr.,"there can be no more monumental example of sustained genocide" ... To the Cambodia expert Ben Kiernan, similarly, genocide is the "only appropriate way" to describe how white settlers treated the Indians." Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can steer discussion back here, not AN/I, which is supposed to be about behavior not content. To reiterate my earlier comment in simpler form, if source X says "Person A said K, which is wrong. People B and C said L, which overlaps with K, and is also wrong" — it would be unreasonable for Wikipedia to summarize source X as "X said A is wrong about K, but notes that other people supported a similar statement, L". Though technically true, it misleads the reader by omitting the most important fact about X's opinion B and C, that they are wrong too. In fact, it suggests that X's opinion of the matter is the opposite of what it really is, that there is some support for proposition K. Whether or not Levy's opinion is worth including or not is a matter for discussion. It appears to be thoughtful and authoritative, so probably yes. The fact that we need to avoid misstating part of his opinion doesn't mean we should avoid his opinion altogether, those are separate issues. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Lewy is probably necessary, in my opinion, as I see the "misconduct investigation" (the subject of this Wikipedia article) committee mentioned this very essay by Lewy in their report. It's a brief mention, but it's there, so I think we can move past that issue and focus on what the Lewy source says about Churchill's assertions — and how best to convey that here. Regarding your simpler form "A says K ... B and C say L" example, I think that glosses over a significant point of contention here. I completely agree with you that the Lewy piece claims that not only is Churchill's "blankets from the Army" theory wrong (actually, he says "even less substantiated"), but that the similar assertion by Stiffarm and Lane is also unsubstantiated. We agree on that, but that doesn't mean that we as editors can simply remove those assertions and sources from the discussion — they should be presented, along with Lewy's refutation. If you disagree on this point, please let me know. If we can agree on that much, then all we have to do is settle on proper wording.

To my understanding, Lewy's essay addresses three positions held by Churchill: 1) the equating of the large number of Native American deaths with genocide and U.S. responsibility; 2) the allegation that the 1836-40 smallpox pandemic was caused by infected blankets distributed at Fort Clark; 3) that there were 100,000 casualties in the 1836-40 pandemic. On point (1), Lewy puts Churchill in the company of many others, calls the assertion highly debatable, and concludes that the high number of deaths can't be described as genocide because "it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument" showing malice. On point (2), Lewy puts Churchill in the company of Stiffarm and Lane, cites a previous case of smallpox via blankets, but says Churchill's charge about Fort Clark is "even less substantiated". Lewy further says that Stiffarm and Lane cite the Chardon journal which he says doesn't mention infected blankets, which is a strawman assertion, as that is just one of many sources cited in the Stiffarm and Lane source regarding the smallpox via blankets position. On point (3), Lewy simply states that Thornton doesn't allege an "obviously absurd" number such as 100,000, which is a true statement as far as straw men go, but Lewy doesn't mention that the 100,000 is actually cited to the afore-mentioned Stiffarm and Lane source.

In summary, Lewy's essay conveys that Churchill is not alone in positing genocide; is not alone in positing the spread of smallpox via infected blankets. While it is true that Lewy strongly argues that there is little evidence behind those positions, that doesn't justify stripping from our article any information indicating (as Lewy's essay does) that these positions are not held by just Churchill. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Moved here from editor's Talk page. -Xenophrenic)

Per your edit reason: "unexplained del of sourced content; checked Talk page" -- what part of my undo reason "Xenophenic, yet again I ask if you would please justify adding information from a source that the source describes as not creditable?" are you having difficulty understanding? Deicas (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess the part I don't understand, since you applied that reason to several edits, including the removal of wikilinks, reference formatting, etc., is what information? The source (Lewy's article) conveyed assertions by several people, then presented issues Lewy had with those sources. My edits conveyed what the source conveyed. Where, specifically, do you disagree? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: You've performed multiple edits over multiple intervals to an article section that is currently in dispute. This is disruptive. Please stop. I've asked you previously to stop this disruptive editing.

Deicas (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: With regard to your question to me (Deicas), above, "Where, specifically, do you disagree?": there are a number of items in dispute. I suggest that: 1) you revert the disputed article section to [| this version], which is where the current dispute started and; 2) you explain your reasoning behind *that* edit and; 3) we discuss your reasoning. Once this discussion is concluded we can return to editing the article *one* non-minor edit at a time; this will facilitate orderly discussion. Would you please respond with your intentions?

Deicas (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You've performed multiple edits over multiple intervals to an article section that is currently in dispute. This is disruptive.

That is an interesting perspective on recent events, but it is not accurate. If you'll recall, the whole paragraph under discussion was moved to this Talk page for discussion. Editor Wikidemon and I engaged in discussion (we have yet to come to full agreement) and I requested your input on the matter. I've even proposed alternative content wording above. You elected to "wait" before making further comment or edits, which is certainly your prerogative. No one has edited the article during the past 48 hours of discussions, until your re-introduction of a portion of the content with this edit today. Following your lead, I resumed making article improvements. I think your accusation of "disruption" is misplaced.

I suggest that: 1) you revert the disputed article section to [this version] ... 2) explain your reasoning behind *that* edit...

That version is from more than a week ago, and there has been considerable discussion and modification since then. Besides, I've already explained that edit (which returns the following wording to the article: "but notes that other scholars support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide") above. Perhaps you missed it? See where I said:

as for the rest of our sentence, "and support Churchill's claim of large scale, sustained genocide", Lewy mentioned many more supporting those same assertions Churchill made (Stannard, Sale, Charny, David, Kiernan,...)

That text has since been reworded as follows: "Lewy argued against the claim of scholars that there was large scale, sustained genocide...", which I think we can both agree Lewy does extensively throughout his whole essay. In fact, his whole essay is one extensive argument against all of the individuals who posit genocide (Churchill being just one of those many).

"Where, specifically, do you disagree?": there are a number of items in dispute...

List them, please, and let's resolve them. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: Your failure to either directly respond to or comply with my request[[11]] to BRD *one* edit at a time is yet an other example of you failure to respond to good-faith questions and requests. How can we engage in an orderly BRD process without doing things *one* edit at a time?

Deicas (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: Per your "the whole paragraph under discussion was moved to this Talk page"[[12]], discription is disengenous. Notice your use of the passive voice. *You* removed it over my objections[[13]] and in violation of [policy]"as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies"

Deicas (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: I'd point to additional objections but I'm getting a headache. I have undo-ed the article to just before your first edit to-which I objected. Please make you first and *only* your first edit and supply a justification taking into account the objections raised above and we proceed with the "D" of the BRD for that change. And, when you add the justification to this Talk page would you please do it in a new section? This section is getting unwieldy.

Deicas (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did respond (see above). As for your request to do things one small edit at a time, I have no problem with that either, if you would be more comfortable proceeding that way. In fact, I look forward to your first proposed change. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: Per your "the whole paragraph under discussion was moved to this Talk page"[[14]], discription is disengenous. Notice your use of the passive voice. *You* removed it over my objections[[15]] and in violation of [policy]"as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies"

Deicas (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. I temporarily moved (not removed or deleted) the paragraph under discussion (a whole 3 sentences) here to this Talk page so that we could discuss it and come to agreement on what it should say and then "the content deemed relevant can be replaced." Per the part of the very policy you cited (part of which you omitted), content should only be retained "if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research", which that paragraph clearly does not. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: I'd point to additional objections but I'm getting a headache. I have undo-ed the article to just before your first edit to-which I objected. Please make you first and *only* your first edit and supply a justification taking into account the objections raised above and we proceed with the "D" of the BRD for that change. And, when you add the justification to this Talk page would you please do it in a new section? This section is getting unwieldy.

Deicas (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are getting a headache, I do hope it has passed by the time you read this. As for your suggestion that I "make my first and *only* my first edit and supply a justification", I think it would be prudent if I instead propose my edit here first — get your agreement — and only then implement it in our article. Would that be okay with you? I agree with your suggestion to "Undo-ed the article to its state at the start of the dispute"; I also agree with you that this section is getting unwieldy, so I've started a separate subsection below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I find Xenophrenic's argument here somewhat specious (though in a good faith way). Clearly there was genocide against the Native Americans or something that amounts to the same. However, Churchill pretty clearly made false claims about what actually happened as part of his overall fraud over claiming to be a credible voice for Native Americans and being an Indian himself. It does no service to the reader, and it misrepresents the sources and history of the matter, to use the fact that there was an actual genocide as a counterpoint to Churchill's making up a false history. Claiming that there was a plot involving small pox blankets when that probably never happened is a particular disservice to the truth of history: people who should rightly care are caring over a fake incident; detractors are using its falsity to question the broader issue. Another analogy — we have other articles about fake historical events, for example the accusation that Richard Jewell was a terrorist responsible for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. Would it help that article to say that even though the FBI concluded that Jewell was no terrorist and did not commit the bombing, they admitted that other crime experts think he did and that terrorism is indeed real? The fundamental issue is that most serious historians believe that there was no small pox blanket plot by the American military. Quoting their write-up as an admission that other people believe otherwise is false. We could perhaps string together a ragtag group who say otherwise, but they are not credible sources in that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there was genocide against the Native Americans or something that amounts to the same.

Clearly. The sources I've read, with the exception of this Lewy essay, agree with you.

However, Churchill pretty clearly made false claims about what actually happened...

On this assertion, I see you tempered it with "pretty clearly", but you still sound rather convinced. If we are still talking about Churchill's Fort Clark smallpox claims, then it's not so clear at all, depending on which specific details. Rather than prove Churchill's claims false, the Lewy source shows that a couple sources cited by Churchill do not support some of his assertions. The conclusion of the CU investigating committee said, "We do not find academic misconduct with respect to his general claim that the U.S. Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837, using infected blankets. Early accounts of what was said by Indians involved in that situation and certain native oral traditions provide some basis for that interpretation. Professor Churchill has not, however, respected those Indian traditions. He did not mention native oral sources in any of his published essays about Fort Clark. Instead he raised the possibility that he had drawn on oral material only in an attempt to produce after-the-fact justification for his claims during the course of this investigation. At that point, he purported to defend the legitimacy of his account by referencing oral tradition, but he provided no evidence that he had done any research whatsoever into the traditions of the Mandan or other relevant tribes regarding the smallpox epidemic of 1837 before publishing his essays. The Committee concludes that this behavior shows considerable disrespect for the native oral tradition by employing it as a defense against research misconduct while failing to use or acknowledge it in his published scholarship. In doing so, he engaged in a kind of falsification of evidence for his claims." The "kind of falsification" was not the claim, but his (lack of) sourcing of it, although they did accuse him of creating "myths" about a doctor, infirmary and the withholding of vaccine, because he wouldn't provide evidence of those details.

...as part of his overall fraud over claiming to be a credible voice for Native Americans and being an Indian himself.

That sounds to me like a personal assessment. I don't see that motivation alleged anywhere in the Lewy source we're discussing, and I note that the CU investigating committee refused to entertain matters of that sort as well.

It does no service to the reader, and it misrepresents the sources and history of the matter, to use the fact that there was an actual genocide as a counterpoint to Churchill's making up a false history.

Whoa. It misrepresents the sources? Say what? We're talking about the Lewy essay, which is one big corrective narrative about how the rapid demise of 90% of native North Americans was just an unfortunate natural disaster with no intent or responsibility on the parts of the British or United States. That there was intent and responsibility, to a degree arguably qualifying as "genocide", was Churchill's larger thesis, with the "smallpox blanket" incidents merely small bullet-points. Do you see where Lewy's first few mentions of Churchill are in relation to his larger Genocide/Intent/Responsibility position, before even mentioning Fort Clark? Are you suggesting we skip past or ignore those parts of our cited Lewy source, and only convey the part of the cited source that conveys a specific narrative? The reason our paragraph says Churchill and other scholars describe the fate of North America's natives as 'genocide', a description Lewy disagrees with and argues against, is because the cited source says that -- and not as a "counterpoint" to Lewy's other assertions.

Claiming that there was a plot involving small pox blankets when that probably never happened is a particular disservice to the truth of history...

No. Plots involving smallpox blankets are acknowledged history, and even Lewy mentions one of the more infamous events in his essay. As for the specific Fort Clark incident of 1836-1840, a catastrophic pandemic did indeed occur; most sources do indeed attribute the St. Peter's boat at Fort Clark as the source; contemporary accounts do indeed say there were goods to be given as presents to the natives from the government, in addition to trade goods, on the St. Peter's. The only point of contention (re:Churchill, anyway) is whether the Army gave exposed goods to the natives with malicious intent versus the natives contracting smallpox through other means (contact with infected boat passengers, contact with exposed goods 'stolen' from the boat, etc.). As already conceded by the misconduct investigators, there are indeed oral tradition sources supporting Churchill's variation, and there are volumes of argument and counter argument over the specific details. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Churchill had properly cited his position; and there certainly has been no evidence to support your use of terms like "fake incident" and "its falsity".

Would it help that [Centennial Olympic Park bombing] article to say that even though the FBI concluded that Jewell was no terrorist and did not commit the bombing, they admitted that other crime experts think he did and that terrorism is indeed real?

Obviously not, because the theory that Jewell committed the bombing was affirmatively disproved. Churchill's account of events, on the other hand, while challenged and lacking conclusive evidence or accurate citation, has not been affirmatively disproved. The analogy doesn't apply.

The fundamental issue is that most serious historians believe that there was no small pox blanket plot by the American military.

No. Most serious historians know that since multiple proven "smallpox blankets" plots against natives are in evidence, it would be unwise to rely on "beliefs" when it comes to similar plots by any specific group of people from the same era. (You may find the contortions these historians go through in explaining or justifying these events interesting, see The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend by Adrienne Mayor.) As for the specific paragraph we are constructing from the specific Lewy source we are discussing, the "fundamental issue" is that we convey what the cited source says.

Quoting their write-up as an admission that other people believe otherwise is false. We could perhaps string together a ragtag group who say otherwise, but they are not credible sources in that way.

Your admonition that we not quote the other historians mentioned by Lewy is unclear. Do you mean the ones positing genocide more generally, with whom Lewy disagrees, or the ones positing U.S. Army culpability in the 1836-1840 pandemic, with whom Lewy also disagrees? The former is a far more credible group than the outlier Lewy. The latter (Stiffarm, Lane and Churchill) do indeed "believe otherwise", and the Lewy write-up says so, and there is nothing "false" about that fact that they hold that position.

To summarize all the above: The Lewy source argues against the characterization of "genocide" as held by Churchill and other scholars and the Lewy source further argues that the account of the U.S. Army giving smallpox-exposed blankets to natives advanced by Churchill and other scholars is unsupported by cited sources. The argument for conveying only the non-underlined parts of what this source says goes against Wikipedia editing policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

Present wording, as it has existed untouched for more than 6 months (but Deicas, Wikidemon and Xenophrenic all agree there are problems with it):

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published an essay about American Indians and Genocide. Lewy says of Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets, "we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive." Lewy calls Churchill's estimate of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic "obviously absurd", but notes that other scholars support Churchill's claim. (Cited to two sources: Lewy's Commentary article, reprinted at History News Network and Rocky Mountain News)

Xenophrenic proposes that the existing paragraph be replaced with the following wording, as it more closely adheres to the cited sources:

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published an essay about American Indians and Genocide. Lewy disagreed with the thesis that the great bulk of North America's native population disappeared because of intentional acts of malice by European settlers, and argued against the claim of scholars that there was large scale, sustained genocide. About accounts of "biological warfare" specifically, Lewy says "we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive", referring to the 1763 siege at Fort Pitt. Churchill and two other scholars have asserted that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40" and resulted in "more than 100,000 deaths". Lewy described this account as lacking evidence and unsupported by sources, and called estimates of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic "obviously absurd".

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I note that you have not addressed my question: "Would you, in your edit explanation, please address this question (copying any text from above that bears on the issue), which is at the crux of the disagreement: In the case that "source A says -- B claims X but X is not true", how can such a source ever legitimately end up as article text "B claims X?" And the question below isn't the first time this question's been asked. I remind your of your obligations under WP:DR which *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". Would you please address it directly? The viablity of of your proposed text depends on the questions resolution.

Deicas (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not get bogged down in hypotheticals. Could you please rephrase that question after replacing the ABCs with actual sources and quotations, so that I may answer that question directly? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I observe, just above, that that you yet again have failed to answer a question posed to you.

Deicas (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of expediency I will rephrase the question: "Lewy calls Churchill's estimate of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic 'obviously absurd'". How does one justify including "Churchill and other scholars have asserted ... resulted in "more than 100,000 deaths" in the article? Is this sufficiently specific for you?

Deicas (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The source says: A second, even less substantiated instance of alleged biological warfare concerns an incident that occurred on June 20, 1837. ... the Mandans were "virtually exterminated," and other tribes suffered similarly devastating losses. Citing a figure of "100,000 or more fatalities" caused by the U.S. Army in the 1836-40 smallpox pandemic (elsewhere he speaks of a toll "several times that number"), Churchill refers the reader to Thornton’s American Indian Holocaust and Survival. Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that "the distribution of smallpox- infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40." ... as for the "100,000 fatalities," not only does Thornton fail to allege such obviously absurd numbers, ... As for the charge that the U.S. government should itself be held responsible for the demographic disaster that overtook the American-Indian population, it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument.

The proposed text based on that source says: Churchill and other scholars have asserted that "the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark ... was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40" and resulted in "more than 100,000 deaths". Lewy described this account as lacking evidence and unsupported by sources, and called estimates of 100,000 deaths during the 1836-1840 smallpox pandemic "obviously absurd".

Do you have alternate wording to propose to convey the same information? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you when you said Please make you first and *only* your first edit and supply a justification taking into account the objections raised above and we proceed with the "D" of the BRD for that change. And, when you add the justification to this Talk page...? I see where you changed the paragraph to say that Churchill alleged there was an epidemic, instead of Churchill alleged there was a pandemic. The sources say pandemic. And shouldn't there have been "a justification" on this page somewhere, and discussion? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules you set up? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I also see where you changed the paragraph to say "and notes two scholars fallaciously support Churchill's claim", which doesn't appear to be an accurate paraphrasing of what Lewy really said. Lewy said that Churchill's description of events was supported by Stiffarm and Lane (which is true), and then Lewy says that Stiffarm and Lane cite the Chardon journal "in evidence" (which is also true), then Lewy says the Chardon journal doesn't say it was the Army, but a passenger (also true ... it says that). What Lewy doesn't say is that S&L "fallaciously" support Churchill's claim, only that that the Chardon journal didn't support it -- and Lewy doesn't mention the further explanation S&L gave in their footnote in addition to citing Chardon. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have created a discussion at WP:ANI because of Xenophrenic unresponsiveness to many of my good-faith questions above. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xenophrenic.27s_WP:TE_at_Talk:Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation. Deicas (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. My apologies for my unresponsiveness; I'm rather a shy, reserved type when it comes to Talk page communications. Could we start with just one good-faith question, instead of many, and work from there? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok User:Xenophrenic, here's a single question for you: on what basis do you justify the removal of the text and citations in this edit --[[16]]-- simply because of one use of one citation is in dispute?

Deicas (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deicas. I moved the paragraph cited to the Lewy essay to this Talk page (see above) for discussion, after observing several deletions of reliably sourced material from our article, and reading concerns about possible WP:OR issues. Your input on how to best present the sourced information while addressing expressed concerns would be greatly appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I, (User:Deicas), believe that User:Xenophrenic's removal of quality citations and well-cited article text is improper disruptive editing. I will wait until the ANI proceeding is complete prior to making further comment here, on this talk page or edits to the article. I suggest that others do likewise. I'm very sympathetic to user:Wikidemon's desire to "... steer discussion back here [to this talk page], not [to] AN/I". But, absent a resolution to the current behavior issues, I don't see see how the article can be productively edited until the issue at AN/I is resolved.

Deicas (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic: As the AN/I seems to be going nowhere I suggest that you redo your first disputed edit and we can proceed with the BRD process. This is, I think, that revision: [17]. With a view toward keeping this talk page readable I suggest you create a new talk page section. Would you, in your edit explanation, please address this question (copying any text from above that bears on the issue), which is at the crux of the disagreement: In the case that "source A says -- B claims X but X is not true", how can such a source ever legitimately end up as article text "B claims X"? Deicas (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

6 August's editing dispute.

With regard to "and per Deicas' suggestion on Talk" in your edit reason [18]: what suggestion was that? Would you please quote it? Deicas (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you when you said Please make you first and *only* your first edit and supply a justification taking into account the objections raised above and we proceed with the "D" of the BRD for that change. And, when you add the justification to this Talk page...? I see where you changed the paragraph to say that Churchill alleged there was an epidemic, instead of Churchill alleged there was a pandemic. The sources say pandemic. And shouldn't there have been "a justification" on this page somewhere, and discussion? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules you set up? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per your 'And shouldn't there have been "a justification" [of pandemic -> epidemic] on this page somewhere, and discussion?' There is. See "Look at Pandemic ..." in the current talk page section. Please strike out this implication --in both places that it appears in this talk page section-- that I've been less than conscientious in following WP:DR. In the future, per, WP:GAME, "Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior ... Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction."

I did not "set-up" any "rules" -- I don't have the authority to set Wikipedia "rules". Note WP:GAME. Please strike-out this unfortunate accusation. Note that, as I've mentioned before, you *do* have an obligation to 'supply a justification taking into account the objections raised ....'. As I've mentioned before:

WP:DR ... *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page".

Why is it necessary to continue to repeat this? What don't you understand about your clear obligation? Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made an effort to make my comments expeditiously discussable by formatting them with one issue paragraph per issue. Why aren't you making your comments to the applicable paragraph? NB. discussion of epidemic/pandemic. Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete[19] my "nationwide criticism" and associated citation? These words are taken *directly* from the AP headline! Deicas (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The two words you added were indeed cited, but the meaning of the sentence (... led to a greater examination of other works by Churchill as well as the man himself) into which you dropped them was not supported by that citation. Also, introducing content derived solely from "headlines" can be problematic. What do you feel most accurately describes the sequence of events -- that all of the attention prompted further examination of Churchill's works, or only the "criticism" prompted further examination? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article says "nationwide criticism". And that's what happened. Do you want an other citation of same? Let me know. And you "criticism"->"attention" can easily construed as a WP:NPOV violation. Your deletion of the AP citation was yet another example of your Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Please restore my edit. Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per your epidemic -> pandemic [20]. Look at Pandemic, "across a large region; for instance multiple continents, or even worldwide". What continent size region do you believe was effected? Note that the wording "pandemic" is from Churchill not a WP:RW, who's exaggeration of the smallpox outbreak is one of the reason's he was canned. If you are going to cite Brown's "Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric" then please include the page number. Deicas (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see where you changed the paragraph to say that Churchill alleged there was an epidemic, instead of Churchill alleged there was a pandemic. The sources say pandemic. And shouldn't there have been "a justification" on this page somewhere, and discussion? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules you set up? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The first "pandemic" should be in quotes as it references Churchill's specific false claim. The second "pandemic" should be "epidemic" as it refers to actual events and perhaps it should be called an "outbreak". Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I also see where you changed the paragraph to say "and notes two scholars fallaciously support Churchill's claim", which doesn't appear to be an accurate paraphrasing of what Lewy really said. Lewy said that Churchill's description of events was supported by Stiffarm and Lane (which is true), and then Lewy says that Stiffarm and Lane cite the Chardon journal "in evidence" (which is also true), then Lewy says the Chardon journal doesn't say it was the Army, but a passenger (also true ... it says that). What Lewy doesn't say is that S&L "fallaciously" support Churchill's claim, only that that the Chardon journal didn't support it -- and Lewy doesn't mention the further explanation S&L gave in their footnote in addition to citing Chardon. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewy says that S&L make their claim referencing text that doesn't exist (NB. "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets"). How is the S&L claim not false/fallacious? Your continual attempts to avoid mentioning in the article that Lewy's assessment the claim as false can easily be construed as a WP:NPOV violation. Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that first part is what Lewy claims. The reality is that S&L make their claim referencing their own explanation in the footnote, as well as the cited journal. Lewy only mentions the journal. I continually avoid calling something false if the cited source doesn't call it false. Do you see the difference yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find mention of "other scholars" in Lewy per your edit [21]. Would you please directly quote the relevant passage? Lewy *does* mention Stiffarm and Lane their says their claim derived from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets" Deicas (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote the passage again? Of course.

Supporting Churchill here are Stiffarm and Lane, who write that"the distribution of smallpox- infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark . . . was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-40." In evidence, they cite the journal of a contemporary at Fort Clark, Francis A. Chardon. But Chardon's journal manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets, instead blaming the epidemic on the inadvertent spread of disease by a ship's passenger. Stiffarm and Lane are "other scholars". Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to inflate the mention of two scholars via "two" -> "other scholars" can easily be construed as a WP:NPOV violation. Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the other scholars as "other scholars" wasn't an attempt to "inflate" and can only "easily" be misconstrued as such by those of a mindset to do so; it was merely a generalization. Referring to them as "two scholars" is not a point of contention with me. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the three paragraphs directly above. If you restore any of the edits would you 1) perform them one at a time so we can avoid confusion in BRD-ing them and; 2) address my concerns at the time of the edit.

Deicas (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We should stick to standard Wikipedia editing conventions, don't you think? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stiffarm and Lane are not "other scholars", they are Stiffarm and Lane — or if you want to be less specific, two scholars. They do not seem like good sources, in that another source that we are quoting has discredited them, explaining in some detail how they got their sourcing wrong. Nonetheless, this all seems rather pointless inasmuch as the current deletion discussion seems to be heading in the direction of deleting this entire article, in which case a much condensed version would be merged into the biographical article. Whether the pandemic was or was not caused by the deliberate acts of this particular military regiment (or, as these two scholars suggest, a trader) is not a subject best addressed in an article about a proponent of a different theory. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that User:Xenophrenic should stop his disruptive editing and then making changes to the article would be less headache-inducing. Deicas (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything you have said there, Wikidemon, and I have no problem at all with referring to the "other scholars" as "two scholars" or by their names -- as long as we're just talking about the "Army-blankets-smallpox" assertion. That was never a point of contention with me. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed my proposed wording above to reflect that it was "two" other scholars, as Lewy noted in his essay. (There were, of course, more than just those two sources & Churchill, but they are not mentioned in the Lewy essay.) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Deicas, could you please tone it down about 5 notches? Xenophrenic, I think we have a few different issues: (1) a genocide occurred at the hands of the US military (or state militias, colonists, or settlers, etc.); (2) there were some accusations, probably either false or inconsequential, that deliberately spreading smallpox was part of that genocide (though there was indeed a pandemic caused by conquest and colonization, just probably not a deliberate one); and (3) Churchill lied, or something close to it, in promoting his own claims about history. I don't think any of these negate each other, they are just different things that happened. Number 3 is the only one that seems directly to the article here. Numbers 1 and 2 we can take as accepted history and can probably state them as cited fact, we don't have to repeat here that one person or another argued the point. But I just don't see how it is a defense to academic fraud that although the historian made up the history, his conclusion is correct. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just it - your last sentence... the goal here isn't to produce a "defense" of Churchill's academic misconduct. There are plenty of actual screw-ups for which Churchill should be called to the mat. My goal began as a simple attempt to have a little 3 sentence paragraph properly convey the two cited sources. Other editors had other ideas, so here we are. Hey, we agree with your point (1). The natives got a raw deal at various stages from everyone who came to this 'new world', English, French, then what would become the United States. We (and reliable sources) disagree with you on your point (2); deliberately spread smallpox via blankets and other items is a documented fact, not an "accusation". Multiple incidents are recorded in contemporary journals and reports, corroborated by other documents for good measure. Mostly British culprits, granted, but not all. As for Churchill's pet incident (Fort Clark and the St. Peter's ferry), he screwed the pooch when he failed to follow proper protocol on citing his work. Not because substantiating sources didn't exist for most of his claims, but because he didn't mention them until after he was being investigated. We can take 1 and 2 as accepted history. As for point (3), not even the University accuses him of "lying to promote his own claims". He misrepresented sources, failed to provide enough evidence, embellished or added on specific details or conclusions without supporting sources — but the claimed events weren't creations of his, and he believed them. Or so says the investigation. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon --

1) On this narrow topic of discussion: Xenophrenic: has *persistently* tried to gin Lewy's mention of a fallacious claim by Stiffarm & Lane into a claim that "other scholars" non-fallaciously agree with Churchill. This attempt is, on its face, nonsensical and Xenophrenic great persistence in attempting to make the change turns it into disruptive editing. If Xenophrenic believes that "[t]here were, of course, more than just those two sources & Churchill, but they are not mentioned in the Lewy essay" then he should cite those -- isn't this the way Wikipedia works?

1b) Were this the only issue I had with Xenophrenic conduct it could have been resolved at DRN.

1a) If Xenophrenic wants to mention S&L claim as non-fallacious he needs to follow my prior suggestion:

"If you are basing a portion of edit on Stiffarm & Lane mustn't you properly cite the portion of Stiffarm & Lane on which you base this action? ... 28 July 2015 (UTC)"

Insofar as I can tell he ignored this suggestion.

2) On the broader topic of Xenophrenic disruptive editing etc.: the attempt to hand-wave away "fallacious" is just one more piece of evidence that speaks to how he's making the editing process unnecessarily time-consuming.

3) What, exactly, should I tone down "tone ... down about 5 notches". And why? Here you can see my desire for the AN/I to be resolved. It's quite possible that my plain-reading of Wikipedia guideline & policy is wrong and I welcome references to specific errors that I've made. If someone authoritative tells me I'm all wet then I will of necessity find a difference approach. Until that time I'm stuck relying on my own best judgement.

Deicas (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

10 Aug. editing and restored WELL CITED text & citation deletion.

1. Sorry about the DEADLINK on Fritch. It didn't work when I tested it.
2. 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.
3. placed "bloggers learned" in correct chronological sequence.
4. restored WELL CITED text "The nationwide criticism" with citations that had been deleted contrary to Wikipedia policy
5. added text with citations about the start of the investigation.
6. fixed WP ref. to little Eichmanns
7. More need to be done to make the article read smoothly
8. 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 [[22]]

Deicas (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

What happened to this page?

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)

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)

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)