Talk:Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy

Withheld teaching recognition award
This award was witheld because of the investigation into allegations of misconduct (see Ward Churchill: Misconduct Issues). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has included it here, inappropriately, to push a point of view (which he admits to) that the award was witheld as a means of political intimidation. I moved the discussion to the misconduct page section on the university investigation, but Lulu has reverted my changes and moved it back here. Despite the fact that Churchill makes the claim that this is part of a "witchhunt" against him because of the controvery surrounding the essay (which actually, I'm not sure he does say the "witchhunt" concerns the essay), the university has pointedly stated that the investigation concerns only the allegations of misconduct, and does not include the controversy surrounding the 9/11 essay.  Witholding the award based on questions of academic misconduct is consistent with both the focus of the investigation and with the alumni association's statements on the matter.  Including the discussion of the withheld teaching award here in order to infer that the reason has more to do with suppression of Churchill's first amendment rights than with legitimate concerns regarding his academic standing is not WP:NPOV, but rather an attempt to push a speculative point of view.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am posting this comment here to allow discussion on the issue before reimplementing the edits which Lulu has reverted. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided a quote from Churchill indicating that he believes the withholding is part of the politically motivated "witchhunt". The quote was from the same newspaper article that we had cited all along, FWIW.  I'll look around for an additional comment to the same effect.  Of course, that same source also does not claim that the award was withheld because of the allegations of misconduct... that's just Doug Bell's reaching to construe the actual story in a manner he wishes to push.  Obviously, the AA is not party to the investigation, so that connection is pretty thin.


 * This is anecdotal, so it's not something I can cite in the article itself. But as a CU alumn, I received a fund raising call from the Alumni Association.  Of course, it was just a kid—presumably a CU student—I spoke with.  I told him I would not donate any money because of the political motivation of the AA's actions in relation to Churchill's teaching award (that was an exaggeration by me, I admit... I wouldn't have donated anyway).  The kid said that he had heard the same comment from a lot of alumni he had called.  Now obviously I know that I can't cite "phone conversation reported by David Mertz" as a source... but it made it pretty clear to me that I was not the only person who at least perceived the award issue as being part of a political intimidation effort. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what the referenced article says:


 * "Officials say they are holding back the Teaching Recognition Award pending the outcome of a CU investigation into the ethnic studies professor. ... A research-misconduct committee is looking into allegations that Churchill misrepresented prior research, plagiarized work and fabricated an American Indian identity to gain a scholarly audience. Churchill has disputed all charges in a lengthy report to the committee. 'We're giving that committee time to complete its study,' said Clark Oldroyd, vice president of the Alumni Association. 'It just seems like the prudent thing to do.'"


 * So I object to and resent the attempt by Lulu to characterize my statement "this award was witheld because of the investigation into allegations of misconduct" as "reaching to construe the actual story in a manner he wishes to push." Lulu is the one who is attempting to construe the actual story in the manner he wishes to push. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right there in black and white, you still cannot find the word "because". I know you really, really, really wish it said that... but it doesn't.  Of course, the more germane quote from the same article is:


 * "Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's 'name has been cleared' by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam 'if there were questions about the student's effort.',"


 * But that's even less helpful to your reinterpretation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? You're asserting that I am reinterpreting because I used the word "because"?  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  I suspect that most people that would read the article and then read my statement would not see any attempt to "reinterpret" or "recharacterize" the article.


 * I don't have any desire for the referenced article to say anything, my only point in engaging in these discussions is to try to balance these articles that you have spent so long slowly cultivating to your point of view. I don't desire to include anything other than the facts, whatever they may be.  But I won't sit still for either you continuing to employ the tactic of trying to disparage my motives instead of debating in good faith as I've done, and neither will I just go away so that you can continue your attempts to exercise complete control over these articles.  I don't think either of these is good for Wikipedia, and I'm willing to "waste" the time in debating with you, despite your repeated bad faith arguments. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Digression on edit comments and WP:PA
Btw. What's the story, Doug, with every single many edit summaries you make insulting me? (some at the NA project, and elsewhere). Ah well... I guess it might help you get it out of your system. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * With your comment "with every single edit summary you make insulting me," again you are making unsupported claims in an attempt to disparage my motivations and comments. Here is a list of every edit summary comment I've made in relation to the recent Churchill article discussions.  I'll let the comments speak for themselves in refuting your allegation. Please highlight all the insulting comments I've made for all to see. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but changing from "every single" to "many" just won't do. Please highlight all of the insulting comments I've made.  I've added the two summary comments I made at the NA project, please highlight the insulting comments.  I will gladly include any summary comments on the page from the last month that you would like to highlight as examples of my insulting you in my summary comments.  Next I will collect all of the disparaging comments you have made regarding my good faith efforts at discussion and editing.  I simply am not going to let you get by anymore with attacking my motives and character through innuendo. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * {| border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="background: #f9f9f9; border: 3px #f00 solid; font-size: 95%;"

OK, here are the six edit summaries of mine (out of 45 total) in which Lulu claims I insulted him (you decide whether my comments are deserving of Lulu's accussation):
 * Talk:Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy) history
 * 1. page 12:25, 2 March 2006 Doug Bell (reply to Lulu's latest attempt to characterize my comments as something they aren't)
 * Comment replying to Lulu's post above that stated that's just Doug Bell's reaching to construe the actual story in a manner he wishes to push.
 * 2. diff 11:57, 2 March 2006 Doug Bell (Withheld teaching recognition award (discuss my recent edits that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reverted))
 * Comment for first edit in this thread at the top of the file.


 * Talk:Ward Churchill history
 * 3. diff 19:56, 1 March 2006 Doug Bell (→Bell on organization - wow, Lulu needs a wikibreak)
 * Comment for a post at the end of a thread similar to the one in this file regarding the teaching award. Was referring to this statement in my post: Invent facts? Proposing to substitute? What are you talking about? I think maybe you need a wikibreak...you are starting to extrapolate an awful lot from very little and are bordering on inventing stuff from whole cloth.
 * 4. diff 16:14, 1 March 2006 Doug Bell (→Bell on organization - Teaching Recognition Award "recharacterization")
 * Comment replying to post from Lulu that started with I certainly don't read the characterization on the sibling the way you recharacterize it.


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America history
 * 5. diff 13:07, 1 March 2006 Doug Bell (→Ward Churchill - respond to Lulu's mischaracterization of my comment)
 * Comment replying to Lulu's post where he stated Basically, I think Doug Bell isn't particularly interested in NA issues, but just wants to snipe at Churchill.


 * User talk:MONGO history
 * 6. diff 14:34, 27 February 2006 Doug Bell (→Borrowing an eyeball - come on Lulu...)
 * Comment replying to Lulu's post where he stated I know Doug Bell isn't quite so happy with a neutral bio, because he wants a "condemnatory bio"

If you look at the actual edits, you see what my edits were and what, if any, comments of Lulu's I was replying to and decide who is assuming bad faith. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another more recent one that seems like (yet) another personal attack:. Not the edit comment, but the edit itself: I've been trying to deal with ad hominem attacks from Lulu that represent bad faith despite my bending over backward to assume good faith on his part. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't bother including here the long list of ad hominem attacks against me from Lulu&mdash;I think Lulu is doing a fine job demonstrating his faith all by himself. I will point out that the above comment by me makes no statement about Lulu, but only discusses his actions, and as such is not a personal attack.  My comment to which Lulu is referring is exactly equivalent to Lulu's comment above regarding my comment, and of course, I don't consider Lulu's comment above to be a personal attack against me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * }

Where to put award

 * That said, I'm perfectly happy to have the award issue mentioned in the sibling as well. I think it is minimally germane to that other article as well, even though less so than to this sibling.  A few words of overlap are no big thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jumping in and not picking sides. The way I see it is that Churchill has only not been presented the award because of the ongoing "investigation". I assume that if the allegations of him plagerizing and misrepresenting his Native American heritage to gain a teaching position are found to be false, then the award will be presented. He hasn't been found "guilty" yet I take it...so the award is his per se, but not if they find him guilty of these incidents I suppose. What have I missed. I don't see that he won't be presented the award, only that he will not get it if is found not innocent? Trying not to draw at straws, so if I am incorrect in this assumption, let me know.--MONGO 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Churchill has recently been found guilty of serious misconduct and the board could not come to a unanimous conclusion as to whether he should be fired or merely suspended without pay for 5 years. This is not a surprise for anybody following the story who has heard of the several occasions where he was caught out violating academic norms. Apparently the report has found other occasions not previously discussed in public. It's pretty common for awards to be withheld/withdrawn for fraud reasons. It's likely going to happen here again.  TMLutas 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no legal or formal basis on which to withhold the award even if he were already found guilty of all the allegations. The award is from an organization unrelated to the University ethics committee, and nothing in the rules previously published ever said anything about "given to teachers of scholarly standing" or whatever.    The published basis is just "who do the students vote for?"  In other words, it's purely in violation of their own previously published rules that the alumni association withheld the award from Churchill... which sure make it seem like a bit of political maneuvering rather than any kind of obvious rule.  It might be that he is cleared of everything, and the AA finds a different pretense to withhold it.  It might be he is found guilty of something, and they go ahead and award it (as their own rules require).  Or likewise for guilty/withheld and cleared/granted.  It's pure politics, and what they'll do is anyone's guess.  I don't know whether any prior recipient had been involved in any kind of plagiarism investigation, but there's certainly no question that if they had (as some internal academic matter, not subject to national publicity), the AA would not give it a second thought when giving the award. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First, it is clearly, as you have acknowledged, your POV that it is political maneuvering. Further, even if there is political maneuvering, you are further speculating that it is in regard to the essay controversy and not in regard to the misconduct allegations.  Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to push your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's solution
Here is the passage before it was deleted: In the spring of 2005, Ward Churchill won a teaching award (in the 25-75 class size category), receiving 54 votes among the 2,085 students at the University of Colorado at Boulder who voted for its annual Teaching Recognition Award. The University of Colorado Alumni Association, which sponsors the award, announced that they would withhold the award from Churchill "until Churchill's name has been cleared by the committee". According to Churchill, "What [Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman] is really saying—obviously—is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.,

Can we change it to:

The annual Teaching Recognition Award for class sizes of 25 to 75 is voted on by students at the university and in 2005, 54 out of 2,085 students selected Churchill to be the recipient. With the ongoing investigations by the Ethics Committee, the Alumni Association responsible for presenting the award has yet to present the award to Churchill. Clark Oldroyd, The vice president of the Alumni Association stated that "We're giving that committee time to complete its study" and also stated that, "It just seems like the prudent thing to do." Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's "name has been cleared" by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam "if there were questions about the student's effort." According to Churchill, "What Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman is really saying—obviously—is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.,

I don't know if it makes it any clearer...I think it shows that there is an investigation that the award has been apparently withheld and finally what Churchill has to say about the matter. Is this better...or worse?--MONGO 03:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the second link appears to now be dead--MONGO 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. The second link requires registration, I believe, but has the same article as the first (however, I think it's a bad interface that doesn't really tell you you need to be logged in first).  I think browsing around Google for more background today I saw some more copies of the same article.  I didn't want to use those because I think they might be copyright violation on the Daily Camera original article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording can be tweaked some, but so long as the argument is referenced, it isn't us saying it, we are just reporting what they think and say based on the citations. Try googling zimmermann + churchill or something like that and maybe that will work...be back later.--MONGO 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the wording. The new wording is a definite improvement, although I wasn't even objecting to the wording before.  My objection is the POV established by including this in the McCarthyism section, when instead it should be discussed in the misconduct page section on the university investigation.  Lulu freely admits to the POV he is attempting to push by including the discussion where it is now, and all I'm trying to do is remove that POV. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that I am not sure what the passage has to do with McCarthyism....I don't think from my perspective that the award is being withheld because Churchill is under fire from the far right. I think they have held off on presenting the award because of the ongoing other events...I think they would (or at least I hope they would), if the political tables were 180 degrees different...still be withholding the award. From my vantage point, Churchill's comments are extremely inflammatory, almost to the point that I wonder if he does it just to get attention rather than an actual belief in some of these things. Maybe the paragraph can go into a new section?--MONGO 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's as balanced as discussing it where the investigation is discussed, but it's certainly better than where it is now. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 08:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that the award withholding has much at all to do with the investigation per se is contentious, unsupported by citation, and unlikely to be true as a matter of fact (I know the last doesn't really count, since we report what's verifiable, not what's true... but still). It's POV-mongering, of a minor sort, to try to put the award thing over under the misconduct allegations sibling; but the minimal version there now is fairly innocuous.  However, I'm fine with promoting the section so as not to tie it as closely with the "McCarthyism" phrases.  While the idea of politically motivated attacks is sort of what I would call "McCarthyite" or "a witchhunt", no one quoted uses those terms specifically in relation to the award withholding.  So readers can judge whether it's an example of the same thing.


 * While I cannot prove it, of course, I am about 99% sure that if the political tables were "180 degrees different" the idea of withholding the award would not have even passed through the mind of Zimmerman or any AA members. But that's counterfactual, obviously it's pretty unlikely to find an real-life example that is closely matched in everything except the politics of the "controversial" figure.  The closest example that comes readily to my mind is Lawrence Summers comments about the innate mental inferiority of women, as Harvard president.  Those comments were controversial too, but the reprocussions and unfolding of events was quite different... in a way pretty closely tied to the difference in political direction. Of course, Summers did eventually resign as president, while retaining an academic job (which is sort of an analogy with Churchill's chairmanship). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that Summers character sure put his foot in his mouth...slap! I take it that you would contend that the leadership at CU is more conservative than some colleges?--MONGO 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah... being at CU is a big part of the context. If Churchill taught at my local University of Massachusetts Amherst or Hampshire College, I'm sure events would have unfolded very differently.  Fox News might have reported his essay, but either school would have been 100% behind Churchill during the whole process (certainly no plagiarism investigation, no award shennanigans, no call for ouster, etc).  But then, there's also no local equivalent of the Rocky Mountain News to "keep the fires stoked".  For that matter, if Summers had engaged in his provocative misogyny (and attacks on African American studies/professors) as president of Hampshire College, I think he'd be ousted in a minute (Harvard isn't particularly liberal, but it's not conservative either; Hampshire is a distinctly liberal school).  But CU in particular has been subject to some conservative pressure and tendencies.  The Colorado governor has been active in the "de-liberalization of colleges" movement, and the CU Regents have mostly been created in that mold.  CU isn't the only school where the "Churchill Affair" could have occurred, but it's one of relatively few (it also could not have occurred at right-wing Pepperdine University, or ultra-right Bob Jones University, both because Churchill never would have gotten near the faculty in the first place, and because neither is "good" enough school to matter for the anti-liberalization effort). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with any culpability on Churchill's part. The guy seems like a pretty up-front, ethical guy.  Those liberal schools aren't all that worried about stuff like plagiarism and fraud.  Gimme a break. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More background on award
Some other possible links to use (just making notes for now): CU students vote favors Churchill, but award withheld By Amy Herdy Denver Post Staff Writer DenverPost.com 5/27/2005
 * http://newmedia.colorado.edu/silverandgold/messages/4533.html
 * According to Idianz.com, "Students at the University of Colorado have overwhelmingly chosen Ward Churchill as their favorite professor but he won't be given the award because he is too controversial."
 * http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=rpa-list&D=0&T=0&P=215:

Asked to nominate their favorite professor, students at the University of Colorado at Boulder overwhelmingly picked Ward Churchill. Yet the controversial figure's award is being withheld, in part, due to his tendency to "antagonize and create enemies," the head of the CU alumni association said. "There are many things we say and do based on free speech," Kent Zimmerman, president of the alumni association, the organization that oversees the award, said Wednesday. "But how we say them can make people more accepting of the message."

Zimmerman said the Teaching Recognition Award presented by The Herd, the student arm of the alumni association, and its accompanying $500 prize will not go to Churchill until a panel is through investigating allegations that he misrepresented his American Indian heritage and committed plagiarism.

"We're not saying he did not win, we're simply not awarding it until his name has been cleared," said Zimmerman, who noted that while he was responsible for the decision, he consulted members of the alumni board and Herd student leaders.

During a break while teaching Wednesday afternoon at CU, Churchill said the decision "speaks for itself."

"They're doing everything possible to discredit me," he said of school officials, "and it certainly wouldn't look good in the middle of all this nonsense (for me) to get an award from students."

Churchill's attorney, David Lane, reacted strongly to news of the situation.

"They are punishing Ward Churchill for his free speech by withholding this award. ... There is a significant possibility I will see Kent Zimmerman in federal district court in the near future," Lane said.

One staff member said that she thought withholding the award was unfair.

"If it's a student award, and it has nothing to do with the review, then it shouldn't be withheld," graduate program assistant Mary Gregory said, adding that she did not have a personal opinion on Churchill.

One student described the situation as "hysterical."

"I think they're creating more scandal for themselves by withholding this award, but I also don't know how much credence student awards have," said Lansing Madry, 31, an atmospheric science doctoral student. Another student said the volume of news about Churchill may have sparked his win. "But it doesn't seem fair, if his students voted for him, to withhold the award based on bureaucratic reasons," said Katelyn Hoban, 21, who will be a senior history major at CU this fall.

"I think it's legitimate" to withhold the award, said Ann Ellis, 50, an instructor in architecture and planning. "I think the students voting on the award were trying to influence the investigation," Ellis said. Churchill is being evaluated, she said, "because the university has a responsibility to make sure that its faculty members are who they say they are."

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculously short
Does anyone else feel that the various article splits here are unnecessary? It makes the main article ridiculously short (in comparison to other articles) and Ward Churchill has been primarily recognized because of the 9/11 essay controversy and his misconduct allegations (whose articles are also ridiculously short). CJK 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SIZE: Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (tables, list-like sections and markup excluded):
 * A rule of thumb.
 * >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
 * >30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)
 * >20KB - Might need to be divided
 * <20KB - Probably should not be divided
 * <1K - If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page

On 3 March 2006:

Ward Churchill:                            approx 17k Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):   approx 39k Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):   approx 18k TOTAL:                                     approx 75k

Including words and lines:

285   2283   18212 WC_essay_controversy 258   2203   17372 WC    638    5062   39009 WC_misconduct 1181   9548   74593 total —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)


 * I have a similar sense that at least this article would be better included in the original bio. The Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) includes a lot of detail relevant to the allegations that I think overwhelms the bio.  I have suggested that a longer summary of the allegation charges should be included in the bio, but I do not think the entire article should be.  I could be convinced of the same thing on this article, but currently lean towards merging it back to the Ward Churchill article.
 * Also, as a point worth mentioning regarding WP:SIZE, a great deal of the total character count in the articles is URLs that do not display in the text. So I think that the size of the article is somewhat misleading as WP:SIZE is using the size to estimate word count and reading time, not as a measure of the download time for the article.  There is probably a pretty significant reduction in the reported size that is necessary to determine how W:SIZE applies to the article. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. Merging this with the main article would still leave it less than 50k. Also, I have not seen one (no not one) other article kept this ridiculously short. CJK 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please just drop this. The un-factoring is not going to happen, and I'm really sick of these pointless arguments for their own sake, or as ways to attack the subject of the article(s) (or to attack me for editing it).  It is true that before the conceptually distinct areas were broken out (by me, yes), the page was at about 36k: a length where refactoring into summary style is desirable but not urgent.  None of the parts are going to shrink though, but more likely grow slightly with time... they've grown a little bit already.  The individual pieces (main bio, essay controversy) are just barely shy of the size where it is permissible to refactor, though I doubt that they will ever require any such further division.  Actually, misconduct by itself is large enough that refactoring is not absurd; but there is no obvious or sensible division, so I think that's to be avoided. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The un-factoring is not going to happen Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we're supposed to take your statement on that as law? – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's a little more analysis on the size:

Note that these articles have a large number of http links relative to their size. Since the guidelines in WP:SIZE are intended to estimate readable content, not downloadable size, subtracting those sizes yields:

Ward Churchill:                            approx 17k -  2k = 15k Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):   approx 39k -  6k = 33k Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):   approx 18k -  3k = 15k - TOTAL:                                     approx 75k - 11k = 64k

However, also subtracting the references and lists of books/articles (which are for reference, and not typically "read" as part of the article), gives sizes of:

Ward Churchill:                            approx 17k -  8k =  9k Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):   approx 39k -  8k = 31k Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):   approx 18k -  5k = 13k - TOTAL:                                     approx 75k - 21k = 54k

So while I think that combining all of the articles into a single article is not suggested, certainly, the bio and the essay controversy have no issue with WP:SIZE. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the George W Bush article I previously mentioned? I worked hard to get the innuendo and allegations put in a subarticle rather than on the main page...examine the substance abuse section. In other words, are the 9/11 essay and misconduct sections based on facts, or allegations? In the Bush article, a huge number of editors wanted all the innuendo, all the bad opinion based jargon on the main page and I think I drove a lot of folks there mad with my non stop insistance that it was just a lot of opinion. We kept the facts only and left the opinion and speculation out of the main article.--MONGO 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article name
(Deleted repeated post from Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about name change.)

I recently changed the name of this article from Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy) to Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy. For a discussion of the name change and an equivalent name change to the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations page, please see the discussion at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

List of tenants not relevant?
Lulu thought my edit adding a link to a list of actual tenants (which shows their large diversity beyond the financial realm) was POV. Fine, I'd dispute it but it's a reasonable dispute. But why not rephrase it NPOV and leave the link in? I'll try putting it in a different manner to see whether relevant factual evidence belongs in an article about Ward Churchill in his opinion. TMLutas 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Its hard to see how a personal essay/editorial about the content of Churchill's paper could ever be NPOV. But even if it could be improved appropriately, it's not close to lead material for this article.  In fact, I doubt it has any real relevance to this particular article at all; it might be possible to fit it in the article on On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.  If so, it's also not central enough for the lead over there, but it might be worth putting in a footnote or later section.  LotLE × talk  19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First you edit because I'm showing a point of view. Now you say that NPOV is not reachable. This is confusing at the very least.


 * The relevance is that factually, Churchill's labeling of the people in the WTC complex as little Eichmans is simply wrong. That it's morally odious as well is a separate issue. The factual accuracy of the charge is essential to any article on the controversy over it. If it is true, there is no controversy, just manufactured outrage. If it is false, it is a horrible thing and he should be condemned.


 * Dehumanization is what he's after and knowing the tenant company names, what they do, that they covered a broad range of business types, this truth is uncomfortable for him and his cheering section. Why hide the truth entirely or shove it off to a footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs)

Most of these criticisms should be moved to another article
This article is supposed to provide a treatment of the controversy surrounding the Churchill's essay, it's not a database for collecting quotes from people who dislike him. If you wanted to create an article that was something like "Media Opinions of Ward Churchill" I guess that would be fine, but it doesn't belong here. If the quality of the edits aren't changed, I'll continue to revert them. -- Craigtalbert 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, now, in May of 2014, the article appears to be a database for collecting quotes from apologists for Churchill. CannotFindAName (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Craigtalbert, this is exactly right. A number of editors have been trying to turn this article, as well as the main bio, into exactly what you describe: A collection of quotes by people who dislike Churchill.  Of course lots of people dislike him, but that's not the matter for a bio article, nor even for this article on the specific controversy that grew out of this essay.  Most of this random quote collection is more-or-less cited (sometimes miscited, sometimes simply quoting the editor's own opinions, but on balance someone said it).  Which amounts to a big, "So what?!" Maybe a short sentence saying "lots of folks dislike Churchill" would be OK, but not this belaboring.


 * That said, I'm not sure why you put a POV-section on the teaching award thing. It seems reasonable enough in the current version.  Obviously, the nonsense that keeps getting inserted about how the plurality of student voters is "really, really, really small" shouldn't go there.   But the basic fact that it was 54 votes (or whatever it was) seems fine.  It might be interesting to know how many votes the prior year's or next year's winner got (I'm pretty sure it would be a very similar number; but I'm speculating).  LotLE × talk  22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was 54 votes is not merely "fine", it is absolutely essential to presenting an accurate picture of the number of votes Churchill received. The article was written in such a way as to suggest that Churchill received wide support from the student body. It stated that 2000 students voted and Churchill received "a plurality" of the votes in one category. This was clearly a deliberate attempt on the part of some editor to create the impression that a significant percent of the 2000 students voted for Churchill when in fact he only received 54 votes, a critical piece of information formerly buried in the reference notes (i added it to the article to provide much needed balance. The article overall has serious NPOV issues; it reads like an apologia for Churchill (so much so in fact one has to wonder whether Churchill himself has perhaps been editing it). CannotFindAName (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support deleting this article. The summary of the episode in the Churchill article is enough.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion of this after six months, I removed the tag.--Gloriamarie 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg
Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive quotations
This article makes way too much use of the quotation template (those boxed quotations that appear every other line). Can these be in-lined into the article? Perhaps cite sources of the quotes and use them in a summary. The article flow is just completely disrupted with these gigantic boxes and it's just ugly.

-- Qarnos 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it the way it is. Brian Pearson 02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Qarnos. At least we could use BLOCK QUOTES, which are smaller and neater.  It's really quite an eyeful to try to read this page.  --Dylanfly 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather like the Quotation template, personally. It's use is somewhat unusual, and most articles use far fewer quotations overall. But this topic is inherently about a "he said/she said" matter. The title indicates it is about the "controversy" following an academic essay, after all. For that, all the evidence—but more than just evidence as such, really the topic—is who said what. The quotations, to me, feel similar to how you might use diagrams for articles on other topics. It might be possible to paraphrase comments more, but leaving them verbatim feels more academic to me (which I like, being an academic, at least erstwhile and by dabbling).

The template itself has been given varying appearances over time. It has become less and more "noisy" in various iterations. This change has nothing to do with this particular article; I doubt the editors who have futzed with it have ever even read this article. But the use of templates in general promotes standardization of appearance across articles.

Of course, I yield to consensus if that says that is better. I just don't think using pseudo-HTML is the way to go on a Wiki. Templates standardize better. LotLE × talk 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with LotLE (thought he said it a lot better than I would have), but I do wonder if these quotes might be a bit small for some readers. Is there some way for them be a bit bolder or something, without overdoing it? Brian Pearson 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several quote templates floating around. A bit of NIH syndrome, I think. E.g.:

2735858

"(quote) To be, or not to be—that is the question—whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?""

"To be, or not to be—that is the question—whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?'"

Probably others I'm missing (I'll add more if I find them). LotLE × talk 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried making the quotations bold. I personally would prefer it that way.


 * What say you? Brian Pearson 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think boxes and bold are pretty intrusive to the flow of the article. The block quote feature is a little edit button we can all click, without using any HTML.  It's easy, clean, and standardized, and it seems the norm on WP.  Cheers, --Dylanfly 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW Dylanfly: I don't dislike the because it's terribly hard to type. I actually rarely remember the little insertion pallet provided by MediaWiki.  It is more the technologist in me that is bothered by the mixed markup model the pseudo-HTML utilizes.  There's definitely a push away from "fallback" to pseudo-HTML to using proper templates, but existing articles are a mixture since templates are mostly newer, and less well-known (and since there are thousands of them, they can't fit in the markup pallet).  That said, I'm definitely in favor of non-intrusive; the bold is way too much, and I can at least see the argument that the {Quotation} template is too.  LotLE × talk  18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sayeth me: Yuck! That yells out like it's a billboard or marquee, not like a quotation included for evidential purposes in the article. The existing light-gray box more than adequately highlights the quotations, if that is the goal (I think some other editors are concerned that the "Quotation" template stands out too much; I think it's about correct).  LotLE × talk  18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotation templates
I found the page Category:Quotation templates by looking on Dylanfly's talk page, as it turns out. Another editor had pointed out their virtue over the pseudo-HTML markup, in relation to a different article Dylanfly had worked on. I did indeed miss several options; and I continue to feel strongly that Wiki-style (i.e. template) markup is far preferable to pseudo-HTML. Which quotation-like template I don't really care about (though I think most of them don't have the attribution fields like "Quotation", but only a single text field... which makes me like "Quotation"). LotLE × talk 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
 * What do you think about a modified QuoteHadith? Brian Pearson 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the efforts, Brian. QuoteHadith looks a little tough to work with.  Maybe something more user friendly? --Dylanfly 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking in terms of something reader-friendly. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Pearson (talk • contribs) 14:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Blowback
Blowback (intelligence) seems to have unclear relevance to the article. Comments requested.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Zerzan
I guess Churchill has attributed this to Zerzan somewhere? As pointed out at Talk:Little_Eichmanns, Zerzan didn't coin this phrase.Prezbo (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a strange talk page, isn't it, since the actual article is a redirect to this article. It seems like we should merge the talk pages as well.
 * In any case, it is quite possible (likely even) that the phrase predates Zerzan as well. It may be that Churchill means that Zerzan was the first to use it in the context/manner he intends; or maybe Churchill was just unaware of the earlier uses.  The citation to the prior use is in the book version of the "Some People Push Back" essay. I can dig up the book to find the footnote number for sure... but basically Churchill just writes "I borrow this usage from Zerzan".  Actually, it's possible too that Churchill knew of prior uses to Zerzan, but simply wanted to indicate where he actually took it from, without claiming exegesis on the term.  It you want to change the phrasing a bit to account for this, that seems fine; however, it does seem relevant to note that the phrase is a recirculation rather than a novelty of Churchill's coinage.  LotLE × talk  07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done.Prezbo (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

It looks like the child article is likely to get deleted, or rather redirected back here. There is some additional content that we should try to incorporate. Clipped below is the bulk of that child, and we should work a few bits of the information/wording there back into a footnote or brief descriptoin in this article ( LotLE × talk 09:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)):

Little Eichmanns is a phrase coined by anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan to describe the complicity of those who participate in destructive and immoral systems in a way that, although on an individual scale may seem indirect, when taken collectively have an effect comparable to Nazi official Adolf Eichmann's role in The Holocaust. Zerzan used the phrase in his essay Whose Unabomber? in 1995. The phrase rose to prominence in American political culture after the September 11th attacks, when a Ward Churchill essay reiterated the phrase in reference to the victims of the attacks. The Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy ensued.

The use of "Eichmann" as an archetype stems from Hannah Arendt's notion of the banality of evil. Arendt wrote in her 1963 book  Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on The Banality of Evil that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann showed no trace of anti-Semitism or psychological damage. She called him the embodiment of the "banality of evil" as he appeared at his trial to have an ordinary and common personality and displayed neither guilt nor hatred. She suggested that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and fundamentally different from ordinary people.

Lewis Mumford collectively refers to people willing to placidly carry out the extreme goals of megamachines as "Eichmanns".

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

Ward Churchill
(Moved here from an editor's Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)) The quote you mentioned is not in the cited source (a Democracy Now! interview). Please add the source you are quoting from. Claiming that the Iraq sanctions killed half a million children is not a neutral statement of fact (indeed, it's an egregious falsehood).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole section is about Churchill's essay, and appears to be a summary of another Wikipedia article. The wording I read already indicates that the content under discussion is that essay: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Am I missing something? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the 500K deaths, I can't speak to that -- I wasn't there, and I doubt Churchill was either, so the numbers must be coming from somewhere. He cites critics at the UN and Albright. Iraq sanctions? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, every statement we make on Wikipedia needs to be sourced. The Democracy Now! interview should not be used as a source regarding LBJ's Israel policy, because it does not discuss it.  As for the Iraq sanctions, the text should make clear that it is Churchill's claim that they killed a half million children, not an undisputed fact.  After all:
 * Amatzia Baram, Director of the Center for Iraq Studies at the University of Haifa, reported almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8%) and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1%). The latter period also corresponds with the escalation of the war with Iran, genocide of the Kurds, invasion of Kuwait, Gulf War, and 1991 massacres.
 * Bill Clinton noted: "Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War—how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer: $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer: $19 billion, that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He’s got more money now, $3 billion a year more, than he had nine years ago. If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it’s because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children. We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapons system and his military state."
 * The US State Department has stated that Iraq was offered the Oil-for-Food Program in 1991 but that Iraq refused to accept it for years. In addition: "In Northern Iraq, where the UN administers humanitarian assistance, child mortality rates have fallen below pre-Gulf War levels. Now those Iraqi children are better off than before the war. Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government—rather than the UN—controls the program. If a turn-around on child mortality can be made in the north, which is under the same sanctions as the rest of the country, there is no reason it cannot be done in the south and center. The fact of the matter is, however, that the government of Iraq does not share the international community's concern about the welfare of its people. Baghdad's refusal to cooperate with the oil-for-food program and its deliberate misuse of resources are cynical efforts to sacrifice the Iraqi people's welfare in order to bring an end to UN sanctions without complying with its obligations."
 * Michael Rubin, adjunct fellow of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote: "While claiming to face dire food shortages, Iraq actually exported food to other countries....Less than six months after the end of hostilities, the Security Council adopted resolutions to allow Iraq to sell its oil in order to provide revenue for the purchase of essential humanitarian supplies. The Iraqi government refused....Before the imposition of sanctions, the Iraqi government spent less than 25% of its income on humanitarian programs. Under the sanctions regime, Iraq was ordered to allocate 72% of its oil income for humanitarian projects. While there is plenty of money for meeting the needs of the Iraqi people, there is supposed to be none left over for obtaining weapons....While trying to pressure the Iraqi government to dispense with its WMD programs, the sanctions regime has also tried to force that same government to pay more attention to the needs of its own people. The health and welfare of those in Iraq has increased tremendously, at least when the Iraqi government does not interfere with the implementation of the oil-for-food program. It is difficult to be hungry when receiving oil-for-food rations....Barham Salih recently called the sanctions regime "truly revolutionary" in that "never before in our history have we had a government obliged by international law to devote Iraq's oil revenues to the well being of the Iraqi people."....The per capita income available in Saddam's Iraq is now far higher than it was in Iraqi Kurdistan, and yet the Iraqi government continues to either not spend the revenue available, or not spend it wisely. Most damning to arguments about disproportionate funding in the north is that, according to Oil-for-food coordinators in Irbil, northern Iraq has so far only spent half the money actually allocated to it....The oil-for-food program has already spent more than $1 billion in water and sanitation projects in Iraq. There is no reason to blame sanctions for any degradation in water and sanitation systems."
 * The UNICEF report on infant mortality was co-authored by the Iraqi government, and claimed that Kuwait was part of Iraq. Iraq denied UN requests to admit independent experts to assess living conditions.   Milton Leitenberg, from the Center for International and Security Studies, pointed out: "All alleged post-1990 figures on infant and child mortality in Iraq are supplied by the Iraqi government agencies."  (Independent observers were allowed in the north, where conditions improved as a result of the sanctions regime.)
 * According to economist Michael Spagat, "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing an increase in child mortality is that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."
 * As childhood obesity was an epidemic, Iraqis ate far better than people in neighboring countries, and the statistic is demographically impossible; we really shouldn't endorse it. It's Churchill's claim, and should be described as such.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From your comments, you seem to be under the impression that Albright admitted to 500,000 unnecessary deaths—a number she later dismissed as "Iraqi propaganda". If the statement that sanctions killed Iraqi children is not merely "Churchill's claim" because others have made similar assertions, then we should add a qualifier like "allegedly". However, the statistic is really only relevant to this article because Churchill endorsed it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted my comments then. I'm not engaging in argument over how many deaths were caused, so all of the above examples (while interesting, and I appreciate the effort you put into displaying them) are besides the point. The deaths resulting from the sanctions isn't a claim originating with Churchill (I see nowhere in the Wikipedia article about those sanctions that Churchill made the claims); he's citing others.  Churchill also does not claim that the cause of those deaths was "allegedly" due to the sanctions, so it would be inappropriate to convey that he does. WP:V says that we need to source our content, and the content under discussion is already sourced to Churchill's essay (but your addition of a link to an online version of it is a welcome addition). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Churchill's criticism limited to LBJ's "Middle East policy", or does it also apply to the policies of subsequent presidents? Does he criticize any other Johnson administration "Middle East policies" in his essay?  If not, wouldn't it be more informative to describe "US support for Israel" as one of Churchill's main criticisms?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He specifically cites Johnson's 1960s support, "A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between." He's not criticizing "support for Isreal", but specifically "support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians". I've made the wikilink you added more specific. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added proper citations from the main article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additions. I dug up an archived version of one of them to replace a deadlink. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)