Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

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." [1] 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. [2]) 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[[3]] 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"[[4]], discription is disengenous. Notice your use of the passive voice. *You* removed it over my objections[[5]] 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"[[6]], discription is disengenous. Notice your use of the passive voice. *You* removed it over my objections[[7]] 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 --[[8]]-- 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: [9]. 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 [10]: 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[11] 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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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 [[14]]

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)