Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Lawsuit section
Xenophrenic has suggested in a couple comments that s/he doesn't think the lawsuit is part of the "investigation" named in the title of this article. Obviously, we agree that such is true in some narrow sense. But to my mind, it is at least as relevant as other related matters like criticism of Churchill's scholarship in the media outside CU that prompted the investigation. I also agree with Xenophrenic that the Lawsuit section has potential to grow longer; s/he mentioned that a CU claim for attorney fees was apparently just filed, for example. Moreover, the matter is almost certain to wind its way through appellate levels... and there could well be related suits that emerge out of this (obviously we're not going to gaze into some WP:CRYSTAL ball to actually discuss that in article space unless or until it happens though). So it feels like more information is almost certainly coming down the pipeline in the future.
While I have stated above that I do not find it absurd to think that some future refactoring might produce yet another child/sister article on the lawsuit, I think we are a long way from having to worry about that right now. The discussion of the lawsuit is thankfully concise right now, and the article as a whole is of very reasonable length. Sure, maybe we will want to add something about rulings on attorney's costs, or an appeal, or whatever. Until the lawsuit section reaches something like 5 paragraphs worth of well-summarized material, I think keeping it all in this article is the right thing. After that (if it happens), sure we should refactor. That's not going to happen this year though. LotLE×talk 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do agree that the lawsuit is a tightly interwoven result of the investigation and firing, just as the investigation is a tightly woven result of his essay. I didn't mean to suggest content about the lawsuit has no place in this article, I was just concerned about how much detail should go into it, and whether we should also add in all other legal matters present and forthcoming. It's fine now, so we'll see what the future holds. There is one small clarification, however, I'm going to make to the "vacating" sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- The recent court motion, by the way, was mentioned here. It also mentions that an appeal has already been filed, whereas our article states an appeal will be filed. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- As the appeals proceed, there will be more material on the lawsuit. But I doubt that it will amount to more than a sentence or two. No worries, mates. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- On the matter of how much detail should be included in the lawsuit section, what should be added, and at what point? Take for instance the news story (July 22-John Aguilar) that at least one of the jurors in the Churchill case is pissed at the judge for ignoring the jurors findings when he vacated the monetary awards and reinstatement rulings? A juror even filed a sworn affidavit in support of Churchill's appeal, and criticizing the judge, according to one article: ...she said it was clear to the majority of the jury that Churchill had suffered emotional distress as a result of his dismissal -- a harm she said they could not quantify with a dollar figure -- and they hoped that the judge would remedy Churchill's suffering by either reinstating him or awarding him money. "I am frustrated that I sat through the entire trial and our pronouncements were ignored by the judge," Newill wrote. Newill stated that most of the jurors thought the allegations of research misconduct the school brought against Churchill were bogus. She said she and the other five jurors considered the majority of witnesses who testified on behalf of the university "dishonest" and "biased." Such details are certainly more interesting than a sterile, "Jury found in favor of Churchill, but the judge denied him money or reinstatement - an appeal has been filed" - but do we want to be a court blotter for every move and countermove in the process? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think when we add some (brief) discussion of the appeal, it will be relevant to concisely present something like the juror quotation you mention, Xenophrenic. It seems like since the appeal has been filed, it wouldn't be too soon to add mention of it now, but it also doesn't seem urgent that it be there today given that appellate courts will modify all this in any case (in one of various possible ways). LotLE×talk 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The principal subject of this article is the investigation of academic misconduct by the university. The lawsuit is peripheral. Statements by Churchill's lawyer are even more peripheral. Remarks by a juror are so peripheral that they aren't notable, at least not in the context of this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think when we add some (brief) discussion of the appeal, it will be relevant to concisely present something like the juror quotation you mention, Xenophrenic. It seems like since the appeal has been filed, it wouldn't be too soon to add mention of it now, but it also doesn't seem urgent that it be there today given that appellate courts will modify all this in any case (in one of various possible ways). LotLE×talk 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- On the matter of how much detail should be included in the lawsuit section, what should be added, and at what point? Take for instance the news story (July 22-John Aguilar) that at least one of the jurors in the Churchill case is pissed at the judge for ignoring the jurors findings when he vacated the monetary awards and reinstatement rulings? A juror even filed a sworn affidavit in support of Churchill's appeal, and criticizing the judge, according to one article: ...she said it was clear to the majority of the jury that Churchill had suffered emotional distress as a result of his dismissal -- a harm she said they could not quantify with a dollar figure -- and they hoped that the judge would remedy Churchill's suffering by either reinstating him or awarding him money. "I am frustrated that I sat through the entire trial and our pronouncements were ignored by the judge," Newill wrote. Newill stated that most of the jurors thought the allegations of research misconduct the school brought against Churchill were bogus. She said she and the other five jurors considered the majority of witnesses who testified on behalf of the university "dishonest" and "biased." Such details are certainly more interesting than a sterile, "Jury found in favor of Churchill, but the judge denied him money or reinstatement - an appeal has been filed" - but do we want to be a court blotter for every move and countermove in the process? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- As the appeals proceed, there will be more material on the lawsuit. But I doubt that it will amount to more than a sentence or two. No worries, mates. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)