Jump to content

Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms

I note that there has been a minor fuss in the article over the use of the word "fringe." I would propose that in the interest of compliance with Wikipedia policy on weasel terms, the word "fringe" should simply be eliminated from this article (which has been dominated by Chip's POV posse if not Cberlet himself.) It could certainly be argued that a number of chip's perennial targets enjoy more respect and support around the world than Chip himself does, so for the article to routinely brand all of Chip's opponents as "fringe" this and that, without making a similar observation about Chip, is unacceptably POV. Better to just drop the term altogether. --HK 14:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

AGREED. Well stated, HK. Not many people in America know who Chip Berlet is, or have heard of him. Lyndon LaRouche has far more name recognition. I think there is some Berlet-LaRouche battle going on on Wikipedia. I have read through various talk pages covering it. They are interesting discussions, but it seems that some of the battles date back to the 1970's and early 1980's, which is quite a long time ago. Nonetheless, Chip Berlet is more "fringe" than Lyndon LaRouche to the majority of Americans and the English speaking world, as LaRouche has more name recognition by a long shot. Let's drop the term altogether, or be consistent in applying it. Working for "High Times" magazine is pretty fringe if you ask me. DannyZz 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about "convicted crook and neofascist" instead of fringe for LaRouche? --Cberlet 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, so your flippant comments are not helpful. In any case, writing one article for a magazine hardly qualifies a writer as an employee. Was he a staff writer? -Willmcw 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
He was Washington, D.C. bureau chief. --HK 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If you've got a source for that we should include it in the article. -Willmcw 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Is HK meant to be posting here? I thought he was banned from talk pages as well as articles, though perhaps this one isn't included. Chip's name is well known among journalists, who make up a large percentage of the people who use Political Research Associates as a source. He's not seen as a fringe journalist at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly fair to say that Chip Berlet hails from the far left wing of the political spectrum, so if coming from an extreme such as that makes one "fringe" the term is just as fairly applied to this article's subject as it is to anyone he criticizes. HK and DannyZz are correct on this one regardless of what one thinks of the LaRouchies - abide by NPOV and that means dropping the weasel terms unless you're willing to apply them to everybody. As to Berlet being "well known" among journalists, a Lexis-Nexis search of full texts for major U.S. newspapers in their holdings over the past two years shows his name appearing in a grand whopping total of just 11 articles. One of them is an opinion piece he himself co-authored and submitted to the op-ed page of a paper. In the remaining 10 his name is regularly qualified by the terms including "progressive" and "radical left wing" and descriptions of his group as a liberal organization that monitors the right/conservatives/christian fundamentalists etc. A search for "Political Research Associates" over the last two years similarly produces only 8 articles, most of them the same ones pulled up by the Berlet search. As a point of comparison, the SPLC's hit count for the past two years in the same database is 307. For SPLC's main spokesmen Mark Potok gets 58 and Morris Dees gets 60. Elsewhere in the political left's "civil rights" crowd Julian Bond gets 400, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton each get over 1,000, Kweisi Mfume gets 443, and Louis Farrakhan gets 324. For that matter even Quanell X of the neo-Black Panther party outnumbers Berlet's cites some five times over with 56 hits in the last two years! If anything Berlet's a minor figure in a big pond of liberal "civil rights" activists. To pretend that he's some sort of widely respected and quoted mainstream journalism figure is simply a delusion. That's not to say that he shouldn't have an article - only that the article should not exhibit a pro-Berlet POV and should not be a case example of a "legend in his own mind" syndrome. Rangerdude 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox

It seems Mr. Berlet said publicly, "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter"; can the allegation of not being ethical be substantiated. nobs 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoted in published article by Robert Stacy McCain, "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat," THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 9, 2000, http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/wilcox.html. That took 30 seconds on Google, Nobs, this is just petty harassment.--Cberlet 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Berlet said it; the question is what evidence is there (a) to support the statement (b) to republize it. nobs 20:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
We're quoting Chip Berlet. It's a quote. I hope you're always this meticulous, Nobs. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Who is Laird Wilcox?

Wilcox is the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements at the University of Kansas, one of the largest of its kind in the world, which contains hundreds of thousands of documents on all political movements. He is also editor and publisher of annual guides on extremism. See Laird Wilcox, Guide To The American Right & Left (1997). 129.24.93.233 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo

The color photo and the B/W photos were taken about the same date, and the publicity shot is clearer and a better photo. The color photo is not fair use. It has been filshed without permission or proper credit. It does not belong on Wikipedia. The B/W photo has an explicit permission for use on Wikipedia. Please stop playing these stupid games with the photos. It is childish.--Cberlet 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Age of Aquarius" studio shot that presently graces this article, makes the article look like a commercial promo for Chip's business venture. I think it would be more encyclopediac to use this candid shot. --HK 21:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an article about Berlet, and we have a photograph of him on the page already. No need to replace it with one of your propaganda shots showing him with someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"Propaganda shots"? Please explain. --HK 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You want to make some kind of point, just as Cognition did when she uploaded the distorted photo. You're both arguably disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and it's tiresome, so please stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Slim, as WP:FAITH requires of you. It's one thing to politely explain why the old photo should be kept, but another to berate people who disagree with you and continuously accuse them of bad faith, so please stop the latter. Rangerdude 23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you by any chance wikistalking me, Randerdude? I sincerely hope not, given your reputation for activism on that front. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Since you've apparently forgotten that your effort to prevent me from editing this article [1] failed, I'll simply remind you that I've been a participant in editing here for some time now, Slim. Nor do I intend to abandon this article, thus when you or anybody else starts harassing other people who are editing it you'll likely find me commenting here and directing your attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Few people familliar with the facts of the case would see it as harassment, I wager. HK's et al. RfARs and related policies have long been institutionalized into Wikipedia. I would advise avoiding further (unresearched) conforntations while your own Arbitration case remains ongoing —to avoid the appearence of these being seen as provocations— as ultimately in your best interests. Thanks. El_C 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It's funny you mention the link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, El_C, given its following finding..."6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Passed 5-1-1." Perhaps she's not the only one who's forgotten that of late. Rangerdude 04:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the photo was distorted to make Berlet look obese "in good faith" but I doubt it. I'm surprised to hear an editor here saying that everyone is required to assume good faith about the deeds of others, as that same editor has frequently complained about the bad faith of other editors. In fact, ew can only assume good faith until bad faith has been proven. Uploading a distorted photo of a political opponent is a strong indication of bad faith, and given the history of the editor who did so, the assumption of good faith may be misplaced. -Willmcw 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL!! Rangerdude, that arbcom ruling has become something of a personal logo for you, hasn't it? I wonder how many times you've quoted it in the last few months. Never mind, you'll soon have one of your own to replace it with. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd sources

It appears that a large amount of info is being added to this page from an article on the Volksfront website: http://www.volksfrontinternational.com/ also known as http://tcbhatecrew.net. Is it really a reliable source? I'd say that it is an extremist group. -Willmcw 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox is a respected investigative journalist of all extremist groups http://www.lairdwilcox.com/ his copyright work includes an ISBN. His book, Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on the fringe, Prometheus Books, 1992. ISBN 0879756802 is a classic in the field of studying extremists groups, and recommended by Nizkor, among others. Here [http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/neamane/history210/essays/sharp_spring04.html]is an excellent review, see for example what Wilcox says aout the IHR, for example,
"hampers our understanding of important issues, muddies the waters of discourse with invective, defamation, self-righteousness, fanaticism, and hatred and impairs our ability to make intelligent well-informed choices.", other references, too. nobs 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Arleigh McCree opinion can stay in. He gets only 40 unique Google hits. [2] I'll find the part of the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be. It seems to me that this is in violation of NPOV, in that it's a tiny-minority claim. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I can't find the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be, except that there's a header in WP:RS saying "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," or words to that effect.
However, the Sgt McCree claim has to be excluded on three grounds, in my view: (1) McCree is not clearly a notable figure or an expert in the area; he gets very few Google hits, for example; (2) According to Amazon, the Wilcox book is self-published, [3] so this book can't be regarded as a reputable source for Wikipedia; and (3) McCree's view seems to be a tiny-minority one, which has no place in an article about Chip Berlet. Quoting WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, both policy, quoting Jimbo:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
So Nobs, I feel this material has to be excluded until you can find a more mainstream source for it, so that we know we're not publishing self-published tiny-minority views. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(Written before I read your above post...due to edit conflict)

Slim:I would recommend reading all 16 pages of Wilcox's report, and some of the issues raised under various subheads here (by far, not all the issues, only those linking associations with violent political organizations that have caused deaths, including their own members). Some of this material must be presented for NPOV. Please see my comments under Talk:Chip Berlet#More disininformation in connection with the section on the Guardian, another Soviet organ. For a human rights activist, this stands in marked contrast to the findings of this Commission (JCSD). I am happy with the inclusion & two footnotes as they exist now. So I would recommend studying all the evidence, and even allowing Mr. Berlet to respond. But as Mr. Berlet can probably attest, his efforts to suppress information have too often resulted in the bulk & the weight of evidence being inserted. Thank you. nobs 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If the Laird Wilcox thing is self-published, we can't use it. If the McCree view is a tiny-minority view, we can't include it. That is the NPOV policy. If you want to include this material, find a reputable source. If you can't find one, that should tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The McCree quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with Berlet, and apparently is a way of introducing a POV about the Guild. Apparently this is not a notable criticism of the Guild since it isn't even mention in National Lawyers Guild (yet). Criticisms in this article should be about Berlet, not second hand attacks on groups he was associated with. If the criticism doesn't directly refer to Berlet, then I don't see the need to have it here. -Willmcw 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This objection was handled last night; Berlet still refers to himself as "past" vice-president; Wilcox documents that (A) The Public Eye is an organ of NLG; (B) Berlet was managing editor in 1981; (C) McCree's comment is contemporaneous with Berlet's tenure. The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary. nobs 04:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, Berlet's association with NLG ‘Police Crimes Task Force’, which he's discussed with me personally; Carlos Zapata was associated with the group. nobs 04:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a smear. Unless the criticism is made about Berlet in particular, this article is not the place for criticisms of the National Lawyers Guild. Furthermore, unless the police officer in question is a notable attorney, I fail to see how his opinion is relevant. --Viriditas 06:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--
Laird Wilcox, "foremost expert in analyzing right and left wing extremism" (Military Law Review), [4]; I would suggest becoming familiar with Mr. Wilcox and his reputation before engaging in these types of smears against him. nobs 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Slim: read all the material, digest it, examine Mr. Wilcox presentation of Mr. Berlet's somewhat checkered background (sentiments aside). Then you may see what now exists is fair and NPOV, and only a fraction of what is presented. Look at the record: you objected to a twenty-four year old citation -- documentation was then added to prove (1) The Public Eye was an organ of NLG (2) Mr. Berlet was managing editor at the time. I was happy with the simple citation, but you demanded the second footnote. Moving the goal post isn't gonna work. Again, I recommend some effort be made to examine The Watchdogs, and let's not allow personal sentiments to obscure objective reading. Thank you. nobs 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I've no idea what you're talking about: the second footnote, moving the goalposts. I asked you maybe four times for a link to the source of your claim, because I couldn't find it, and you eventually provided one. It's a self-published book, which I didn't realize until I looked it up. We can't use it. Secondly, the source it quotes (McCree) is himself not a good one. So we have one poor source quoting another poor source, self-published by the first poor source, and yet the claim being made is a very serious one. I repeat: if you believe this is not a tiny-minority view, then please produce a more mainstream source. If you can't find another source, it means it's a tiny-minority view, and publishing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This is a question of policy and trying to do responsible research, not a question of "allow[ing] personal sentiments to obscure objective reading." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, some editors claim the sourced material is "inflammitory" (I can't imagine whatever for); as a compromise for now, at least til the ArbCom decides if it want's to get into a content dispute, I propose inserting Mr. Wilcox thesis from the report,

"There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information. "

This can be done without the link to a controversial site, and if some defamatory "link or tie" is alleged against Mr. Wilcox because others have posted his material on their site, we can deal with whoever wishes to defame Laird Wilcox when it happens. Thank you. nobs 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We already have material from Wilcox, and we can't quote from a self-published book on a Volksfront website, for the last time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe you misrepresent "self-published book on a Volksfront website", which given the evidence I've presented, may be construed as a defamatory smear against Mr. Wilcox. Can you clarify. nobs 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Either it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website, or it isn't. What's the problem here? --Viriditas 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Who republishes Wilcox where is not the issue; implying Wilcox is a white-supremacist fascist skinhead neo-nazi may be defamatory. nobs 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so do you admit that it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website? You said it was "republished", so I'm not sure what you mean by that. As for implications, I'll address those after you answer my question. --Viriditas 04:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, read Wikipedia:No original research. We publish material that has been published by credible sources. The Volksfront website is not a credible source, and a book that has otherwise been self-published by a single individual also doesn't count as credible, because there has been no oversight, no fact-checking, and perhaps no legal input. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas & Slim: I'll admit the United States Army recognizes Wilcox as "foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism" in its publication Racial Extremism in the Army, Pamphlet No 27-100-159, available in The Military Law Review http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf, published by the Department of the Army; can you suggest a better source the United States Army should be using to deal with racial disharmony in the ranks? nobs 05:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder why he has to self-publish his own book? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Cut out the middle man. nobs 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--Or you can visit the http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/kc/wilcox.shtml Laird Wilcox Collection at the University of Kansas. nobs 05:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But this is not material he has written. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, so the self-publishing foremost recognized analyst of political extremism in America has one of the largest political research University Library Collection's in the country named for him (which he started); he eacks out a living selling his writings to a limited market. nobs 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:CON

FeloniousMonk: From WP:CON,

  • This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
  • The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count only three editors involved in this polite discussion, with a consensus of roughly 1.33 to 1.66. I'm not certain that "concensus" applies in this case, but I do thank you very much for the link, and intend to abide by established proceedures, policies, guidelines etc. Thank you. nobs 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only does WP:CON apply, but WP:RS as well. Both you and I know what's going on here. Knock it off. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, FM. Statements such as the above do not. Rangerdude 05:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Good faith can only excuse so much. This has been going on for days with nobs. I think we're safely beyond that. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of excusing, FM. It appears to me that Nobs sincerely believes some of the AGF controversy is material to this article. I suggested a way of addressing it below that would comply with WP:RS by attributing the critique to a specific person (i.e. Horowitz). Would you or nobs be agreeable to something like this? Rangerdude 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm involved, now. --Viriditas 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If I could propose a possible solution, it would be appropriate to say something to the effect that Berlet has been critized for his involvement in the National Lawyers Guild and attribute that to Horowitz, who has made such a criticism. If done this could be placed in the criticisms section. Rangerdude 06:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Do you have a link to the criticism? --Viriditas 06:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A suggestion: familiarize yourself with the substance of the material before adopting conclusions. I took more than two months to study it. Also, I asked Mr. Berlet 20 Septmeber 2005 to respond to it (see above, Talk:Chip Berlet#Laird Wilcox), and all I got was the same cut & pasted response from the Washington Times that is now in the namespace. Thank you. nobs 06:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Could Rangerdude indicate which exact part of WP:AGF that FM's statement violates? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no intent to get into a semantics dispute with you, Will, beyond noting that it is evident in the tone of FM's first comment. I'll also direct you to his comment above after I asked him to assume good faith. His response was that they were "safely beyond that" now. Rangerdude 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, you said above that if we don't allow the current edit in, there may be worse to come and we'll end up wishing we'd allowed the terrorist reference, which sounds like a threat. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It worries me that you've spent two months researching this stuff because (a) it sounds a little obsessive and (b) if you haven't found a decent source after two months, it strongly suggests there isn't one.
I don't mind Rangerdude's suggestion of quoting Horowitz and leaving it at that. RD, you'll notice I'm agreeing with you. This is a red letter day. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
As of now, I'd suggest we can wait and let Mr. Berlet respond. Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented. to everyone else, go ahead and pick and choose what you want in so this article will be more balanced, there is plenty there. nobs 06:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
My response is simple: Wiki editors involved in a content dispute, who seek out or create a page entry on a Wiki editor with whom they are having or have had a content dispute to add negative or derogatory material should be penalized with an automatic one week suspension of editing privileges.--Cberlet 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say numbers 1 & 2 best describe your actions and the content you've been trying to add. Maybe 15 & 22 as well. FeloniousMonk 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me, as properly documented, Mr. Arleigh McCree made the statement; Mr. Wilcox also makes a similiar statement in his conclusion, which has not been inserted yet. Neither can be attributed to User:Nobs, and nobs makes no such original thought, research, or assertion. nobs 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I though we were discussing your actions in relation to consensus here. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Those involved in this discussion should be aware of Intelligence Identities Protection Act, in which nobs is inserting a reference to Berelet which seems to be totally irrelevant. Gamaliel 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobs' actions here and there seem to prove he is trying to grind an ideological ax at Wikipedia. Agreed? FeloniousMonk 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It certainly appears that way. Gamaliel 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this the "marginal site" refered to in the RfArb?

Arbitration filed concerning this page

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition, Herschelkrustofsky, and Sam_Spade for their participation in edit wars over this page and the page of my employer: Political Research Associates. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. I have posted my response, requesting the Arbcom to dismiss this matter as frivolous insofar as Mr. Berlet's allegations pertain to me. If anything, my posts in the most recent dispute here have been aimed at finding a compromise and urging tempers to be restrained via a good faith assumption. Please note that if the Arbcom does decide to take up this case, I will be requesting that they investigate Mr. Berlet for violations of WP:OWN in attempting to assert ownership and exercise content control over articles pertaining to himself and his organization. Rangerdude 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability of Subject and tone of article

Meaning no disrespect to the subject of this article, but its length and tone are out of proportion to his limited notability and that is probably why it has attracted opponents who feel compelled to balance its PoV with their own. The article reads like a c.v., not an encyclopedia entry. The subject is employed by an entity that has six employees and less than a $1M annual budget, the director of which Dr. Jean V. Hard hasn't warranted an article. OK, he has co-authored one book and edited a second, but we're not told how many copies sold, or how and where they were reviewed.

There are well known NYT journalists, who don't even have articles about them on WP, let alone a 3000 word essay. --FRS 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's that ol' Systemic Bias at work again -- or perhaps I should say "low-hanging fruit": articles that are easy to research or for which information is at hand get more attention. And controversial articles with opposing partisans get bloated as the various sides pile up the evidence against each other: call it a POV/NPOV Arms Race. And once that happens -- well, it's much easier to add in detail than it is to condense, since condensing means making explicit choices about what stays and what goes. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion. Consider a much shorter article that contains neither a hagiographic section (like the current article's first half) nor much space allotted to opponents' PoV. Clearly, the subject of the article has views that many consider controversial, and has opponents with their own controversial PoV. There are ample fora better than this WP article for the principals to fight out these battles. Rather than drag all that into an article about the living, marginally notable, person who is also a WP editor, limit this article to simple statements of fact, e.g., "CB, a senior researcher at PRA, is the co-author of book AAA, and the editor of Book BBB. He frequently contributes articles to C, D and E and has appeared on F, G, H. He is the former VP of THIS and sits on the board of THAT. He is a proponent of the view that (fill in the blank) and has criticized (fill in the blank). His opponents have contended that (fill in the blank)
Provide a few links to appropriate sources and be done (and delete the long list of papers and associated links to PRA) --FRS 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please do not edit this article pending the arbitration. (unless it is of vandalism or spelling etc.) Olorin28 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, that Wilcox book is on the Volksfront website. You're going too far. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That does not denigrate the substance of the material, or the source. nobs 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, who Mr. Wilcox is:

"John George and Laird Wilcox, two of the foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism, state that this definition reflects a common proposition about extremist behavior: it is more an 'issue of style than of content.' 30 What the extremist believes is less important than what behavior he exhibits. Rather, extremism can cut across the political spectrum."31

Quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 [6]. nobs 03:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Protecting so edit disputes can be resolved. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How long is it proposed to continue protection on this page? FRS 06:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
That's currently up to Nobs. Did you want to add something, FRS? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'd like to try taking some things out and tone down the language in general, as remarked above [7]. I have a little sympathy with those who feel compelled to add negative PoV about the subject due to the overly positive PoV presented in the first half of the article. IMO, the article should be considerably shorter, more neutral and distant in tone (w/ links provided to the partisan sites of the subject and his critics). I also believe there's a lot of material in there that is not verifiable without reference to the subject himself or PRA. FRS 14:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
FRS raised good NPOV points; the article 'as is' is basically a sales brochure for PRA published materials, a source of revenue as declared on PRA's site. Mr. Berlet even complains about all the solicitations and advertising being removed from the PRA article here [8]. I will pledge not to "edit war", or make inserts from the Wilcox material if the protection is lifted pending the outcome of an ArbCom process, however it may proceed. There really are only three small references from the Wilcox source I'd like to discuss with interested editors that could give this article balance. Also, Mr. Berlet's attack on Mr. Wilcox I believe is unsubstantiated, and Wilkipedia should not be used as a platform for Mr. Berlet to attack Wilcox without evidence. This also needs discussion. nobs 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Illustration: User:Cberlet removed this rebuttal to criticism [9] this morning in another article; yet in this namespace Mr. Berlet is allowed to rebutt critics with,
Berlet responded that Wilcox had mischaracterized PRA's activities. "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter," Berlet told the Washington Times. "He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."
This is a serious double standard and cries out for NPOV treatment in both articles. nobs 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've filed a request to unprotect the article [10] FRS 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Request Denied by Woohookitty 06:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[11]--FRS 15:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
FRS: I would be interested in your comments regarding Chip Berlet's unsubtantiated smear of Wilcox; is this the normal format in Wiki articles were "Criticism" subhead have been created for NPOV, where than the critics are then smeared with unsourced allegations. Thank you. nobs 21:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No comment on whether it's an "unsubstantiated smear" or on whether including it is "normal format."
I will say that I don't understand the encyclopedic relevance of including so much back-and-forth between Berlet, Horowitz, Wilcox, Arabia, Dees, etc. etc. IMO, this article started life as a highly PoV and defamatory slam against Berlet that apparently went unchallenged for several months. Since then, I believe the PoV has been allowed to swing too far in the opposite direction so that it now sounds too much like it was written by the subject. And along the way, the article has accumulated a lot of gratuitous personal details, criticism, and criticism of the criticism that should be pruned out. FRS 00:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Nobs! Desist!

Nobs! This page is not your personal garbage dump. I have filed an arbitration naming you. Have the common courtesy to stop piling up more and more outlandish guilt-by-association trash on this page and await the vote on whether or not the arbitration will proceed.--Cberlet 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ok; say, I was trying to get that report on "Eco-Racism" from the PRA site. What happened to it? nobs 02:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for a New Approach

If this article is unprotected, I plan to introduce a much shorter version that avoids most discusions of the subject's views and the views of those critical of the subject. Berlet is an author, and his words on various issues speak for themselves. I don't see a need to rehash them or criticize them here.

I did some research on how articles concerning how other political commentators are handled on WP. Here are five well-known commentators that contribute to NPR, among other places, and links to their NPR bios.

E.J. Dionne [12] David Brooks [13] Andrei Codrescu [14] Daniel Schorr [15]


The four WP articles combined have fewer words than the current Berlet article. On a notability scale of 1 to 10, if Daniel Brandt is a one and the five commentators above average a ten, Berlet, imo, is around a three, and the article should be edited with that in mind. FRS 21:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In general, I oppose the arbitrary comparison of articles, since different articles receive different amounts of attention from different editors for different reasons which usually have nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Usually, the answer is to expand the shorter articles, not shorten a longer article. However, in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree, but only if we can condense the existing material instead of chopping out whole sections. Gamaliel 22:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I also don't see that the comparison tells us anything, especially when three of the articles chosen are just not very good, and that they're too short is part of that. This one's under 32K, I believe. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a model article you'd prefer this one looked like? Preferably of someone that that takes controversial positions on political subjects, but is a non-public-figure? FRS 15:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Giving Berlet a "three" is something of a stretch. In light of Cberlet's recently filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others, one of the issues which will be increasingly under scrutiny is the propriety of using Berlet as a source on Wikipedia; since, in my view, the current use of his views as source material is wildly out of proportion to his notability, it is probably appropriate, for the time being, that this article be out of proportion to a similar extent, so that the Wikipedia reader may know something about this obscure individual who is so often quoted at Wikipedia. --HK 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I will make a proposal, as time allows, on three different quotes from the Wilcox Report. The subject of Berlet's unsubstanitated attack on Wilcox as "unethical" also needs to be addressed. And then I will present a case for listing this article in Category:Notable Wikipedians, given the connection to the Guardian as outlined by Wilcox, and in fairness to the families of 15,000 Korean War MIA's who perished in Soviet Gulags. This directly involves the name of Wikipedia in this instance and should be examined. nobs 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

3 quotes

Here are three quotations from the Laird Wilcox Report which can be excised to give context to its entirety:

  • "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information."
  • "Unlike the far right, where alliances are difficult and unstable and individuals tend not to work well together, alliances and linkages among certain elements of the extreme left appear common and more enduring, even when they have the effect of destabilizing U.S. government operations against terrorism, domestic and foreign."
  • "Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to promote real racial understanding and dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [PRA] have compromised this goal."

All quotations are directly attributable to Mr. Wilcox, none reference Mr. Chip Berlet directly. All accurately reflect the detailed examination Mr. Wilcox did of Chip Berlet & PRA's links and ties over more than two and a half decades. They may seem on the face of it, 'inflammitory' to some, but it is really spoken from a source regarded as one of the foremost experts in studying extremism from an NPOV, who began his career in a public debate with George Lincoln Rockwell on the University of Kansas in 1964, on the subject of extreme views and political action. Mr. Wilcox is the sort of voice Wikipedia needs to promote moderation and understanding of views. nobs 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Prof. Harvey Klehr

If the reference to "past" NLG associations is to remain, this relevent context in appropriate:

"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."
In addition to the elephant in the living room, the above wiki link (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) leads to a brontosaurus hiding under the rug. nobs 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


This wikipedia article is ridiculous

I stumbled upon this article and it is ridiculous.

The above user said it best:

Meaning no disrespect to the subject of this article, but its length and tone are out of proportion to his limited notability and that is probably why it has attracted opponents who feel compelled to balance its PoV with their own. The article reads like a c.v., not an encyclopedia entry.

All this article is, is a resume. I have never seen a single other wikipedia article start out with the entry: "resume". This article should be deleted and started from scratch. Travb 00:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


I completely agree with Travb. Olorin28 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to the subject of the article and to the editors who imported in or defended the resume-like portions of this article, the article was started as an attack piece against Berlet, and still contains considerable criticism of him, some of it from dubious sources. In shortening the article, I hope to remove a lot of that stuff as well as the hagiography. --FRS 16:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
For new land founders, I say that I agree with FRS -- Svest 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Remedies and note

As per the Proposed remedies, and on the advice of the presiding Arbitrator, I wish to appologize to Mr. Chip Berlet aka User:Cberlet, fellow Wikipedian, for the manner in which I have acted. nobs 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to appologize on behalf of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee for reading thier newspaper outloud. nobs 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to try unprotection

The Arbcom remedies are about to become official, so hopefully the edit warring will cease. I will unprotect for now. I'm also putting this on my watchlist. If this page goes back to excessive edit warring, it'll be protected in a heartbeat. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

New approach implemented

OK, I took a shot at weeding out what I considered excessively resume-like language and personal factoids, as well as shortening the criticism section significantly and taking out the marginally sourced stuff about Albania. --FRS 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FRS: I thought you mentioned something about reducing the self-promotion & sales brochures for PRA materials. Also, is there a problem with including something from the Laird Wilcox, the "foisting on an unsuspecting public", or "nothing scholarly"; if we have a problem verifing Wilcox, I could bring more qualifications to his expertise forward if necessary. Thank you. nobs 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you first start an article on Laird Wilcox, so his notability/credibility, third party supporters and critics can be discussed by the WP community at large (and in the proper place, rather than in this article.) --FRS 19:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
May I say sir, your level headedness has prevailed once again. There is a foundational article Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe, which interested editors may wish to start from. Thank you. nobs 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection

I am raising an objection and notification for the record that the deletion of discussions in Archive 2 were improper. nobs 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others and found that there are not yet any injunctions, temporary or otherwise. Yet SlimVirgin notes that she is deleting material from this talk page "per ArbCom ruling." What ruling might that be? --HK 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The "body count" allegations were a personal attack on Chip Berlet. It doesn't take an ArbCom to determine that. Personal attacks do not belong in Wikipedia and may be removed by any editor. -Willmcw 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"The "links & ties" material posted by Nobs01 on Talk:Chip Berlet or any other page may be removed by any user as personal attacks." [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Somehow I managed to miss Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision. --HK 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Are any of the papers or articles in peer reviewed journals?

If any of the papers or articles are in peer reviewed journals, It think it would help if they were in a separate section, to make them easier to find amid all the opinion pieces, and collections of essays.--Silverback 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I saw that there is tons of criticism from Chip Berlet on the LaRouche articles, but no criticism from the LaRouche group on this article, so I am adding this one line: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have charged that Berlet participated in a campaign, organized by individuals from the intelligence community, to defame LaRouche (see John Train Salon.)"

--NathanDW 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I took this out, as inadequately sourced, because the only link was to another WP article. Looking quickly at the LaRouche links found at John Train Salon, it seems Berlet is reported to have been at a meeting where some kind of media campaign to criticise LaRouche was supposedly discussed. I don't see anywhere a claim that "Berlet participated in a campaign...to defame LaRouche." --FRS 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, NathanDW has put up a new variant of the criticism that says "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have charged that Berlet participated in a campaign, organized by individuals from the intelligence community, to discredit LaRouche." But the link actually only says that CB attended a meeting (in 1983!) with "Roy Godson, then a consultant to the National Security Council and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; John Rees, a longtime FBI informant; Mira Lansky Boland, head of Fact Finding at the Washington, D.C. offices of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; at least one representative of Freedom House, a private research organization headed by PFIAB Chairman Leo Cherne; Richard Mellon Scaife, a wealthy Pittsburgh businessman, whose tax-exempt foundation would later come under federal criminal investigation for illegally financing the arming of the Nicaraguan Contras; and several dozen journalists from major national media outlets, including NBC-TV, Readers Digest, Business Week, The New Republic and The Wall Street Journal. " According to the LaRouche page, this meeting led to a smear campaign against LLR, but the page doesn't claim that CB participated in the campaign, and, anyway, why is this claim about a 22 year ago incident relevant to the current article about Berlet?--FRS 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The article also covers an award Berlet received for an attack on LaRouche in High Times magazine in 1982. One is as relevant as the other. It's a biographical article, and almost all criticism has been deleted since the last time I read it. --HK 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the articles on Wikipedia policy carefully before I attempted to make any edits. Does anyone else do this? Yesterday editor SlimVirgin deleted the neutrality disputed announcement from "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche," without participating in the discussion on the talk page. If that editor had read the talk page, it would have been clear that there were serious reasons for the neutrality dispute. Then SlimVirgin simply deleted criticism from the "Chip Berlet" article, also without participating in the talk page. This seems like it could be considered biased editing.

Time to take down PoV flag?

From my PoV, this article is neutral enough. What are the objections to taking down the PoV marker?--FRS 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, FRS. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Let's take it down. BCorr|ÑAÑÇÑpÑzÑuÑ~ 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion

There is no mention of the Wilcox report; I would propose this extraction directly from the report (not a Review of the report, which was in the original article):

"It's certainly true there are right-wingers who have intolerant ideas about opponents and who would like to silence them, or worse. However, Berlet's analysis omits any mention of the same behavior on the extreme left, not to mention by himself."

which gives a fair synoptical analysis of that report, sourced to "Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates, "A Study in "Links and ties", Editorial Research Service, 1999. ISBN 0-993592-96-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum nobs 19:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there are objections to Laird Wilcox as a source. I personally know nothing about him and don't believe this is the right place to discuss the notability of his opinions. Besides, the present criticism section already includes material from and links to David Horowitz' views which are along the same lines as Wilcox's. I've suggested above that you start a Laird Wilcox page so that his notability and credibility can be evaluated by a broader audience.--FRS 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wilcox is qualified here:
The objection was not to Wilcox, but a link to a highly contoversial site which hosted the Wilcox Report. I fully agree, the link to that site is inappropriate; however, there is an attempt to forge a guilt by association smear against Wilcox, to silence Mr. Berlet's critics, which is itself highly inappropriate. nobs 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For my own part, I object to anything that has been self-published by Wilcox. Anything he has written that's been published by others i.e. that has been through some form of peer review, I'd probably be fine with. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If anything self-published by Wilcox isn't acceptable, then I'm sure you would agree that anything self-published by Berlet (and his "employer" Political Research Associates) is also unacceptable. Therefore I am going to begin removing all uses of Berlet's self-published writings as references on Wikipedia. Also, Wilcox briefly criticizes Berlet in his book American Extremists which is not self-published. This criticism at least should be quoted in the article. Alexander Cockburn has made similar criticisms which were published in The Nation. They should be included too.
Cockburn was forced to retract the criticism by the Nation magazine becasue it misrepresented what I had said. PRA is a publisher. I work for PRA. The material by my published by PRA is not self-published, anymore than Cockburn's articles in the Nation are self-published.--Cberlet 13:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You "work for" PRA in the same sense that Laird Wilcox "works for" Editorial Research Service.
PRA has a paid staff of eight, a board of directors, an executive director (not me), a director of research (not me), and a budget of over $600,000 per year. It publishes material written by several in-house research staff, and outside scholars and journalists. Editorial Research Service consists of Laird Wilcox. --Cberlet 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Only because you set up PRA that way, jumping through all the right hoops. I could set up my own nonprofit, solicit $600,000 in grants, appoint a board of directors, an executive director, and a director of research, publishing writings by others (especially reprints of others' writings that happen to fit my own agenda), yet still essentially be running the entire show. Anyone could. Wilcox could if he wanted.

<----- I did not "set up" PRA. It was set up by Jean Hardisty, an academic. She hired me. To claim I am running PRA is simply sexist.--Cberlet 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

guilt by association

Also, the list Chip Berlet#Selected papers and articles by Berlet links to many guilt by association smears against large numbers of people. This is evident by a cursory review.

A quick example, taken from Chap. 14 of the much touted Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, which is mentioned four times, including the first sentence of the article. Extract:

"Conclusion
Many commentators have portrayed the Patriot and militia movements as fascist. We believe it is more accurate to describe them as right-wing populist movements with important fascistic tendencies-thus they are quasifascist or protofascist. Like the America First movement of the early 1940s, the Patriot movement and the militias represented a large-scale convergence of committed fascists with nonfascist activists. Such coalitions enable fascists to gain new recruits, increase their legitimacy among millions of people, and repackage their doctrines for mass consumption. [17]

I had no idea Progressive isolationist and pacificst, Sen Robert LaFollette, Jr. was a fascist til I read this.

While not directly included in the namespace, is it proper for Wikipedia to link to these subjects? Perhaps this discussion should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability if it can't be resolved here. nobs 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the question, "Should Wikipedia articles contain links to web pages that contain items that are not verified?"? 24.62.4.123 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
We never wrote that Sen Robert LaFollette, Jr. was a fascist. We specifically wrote that there was a "convergence of committed fascists with nonfascist activists." --Cberlet 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The Rt. Hon. Chip Berlet is certainly the author of this:
"the trail from the bloody atrocities of the Waffen SS to the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican Party and even to the paneled walls of White House briefing rooms." [18]
from the Introduction by Chip Berlet of Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Republican Party. It is available from the link to PRA's website [19], and certainly fits the example [20] written by Mr. Bauder of a dubious source at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Guilt by association. nobs 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, political commentators/analysts are properly held to a different editorial standard than encyclopedists. I think the criticism excerpted from Horowitz in the WP article on CB captures the essence of what CB's critics find objectionable about his work. Of course, anyone is free to improve on the "criticisms" section, but I do hope to avoid an "arms race" where every added criticism is met by a new accolade, because that will take us back to where the article stood two months ago. --FRS 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Both my introduction and the Bellant book are accurate. Pulling a snippet out of context is shabby. Bellant was able to document that the leadership of the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican Party in 1988 included a significant number of persons who had been actual Nazi collaborators in WWII. This claim was substantiated in a number of newspaper articles that followed the first publication of the report by PRA, and articles in Washington Jewish Week. Some were invited to attend events at the White House. The story in fact led from the Nazi Waffen SS to White House briefings.--Cberlet 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we see how Mr. Berlet wrote,
"Guarino is linked in published accounts..." [21].
How did these "published accounts" come about? Russ Bellant of Political Research Associates writes a report. David Lee Preston of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes about the report. The Rt. Hon, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates writes about the Philadelphia Inquirer article writing about the Political Research Associates report. Mr. Berlet of PRA writes,
"The Philadelphia Inquirer runs an article by David Lee Preston ... cites the Bellant report which describes how the Republican Party has been recruiting ethnic facists, racists and anti-Semites for over 20 years"
So we have a self-publishing source quoting a secondary source, quoting the same self publishing source (not even a real tertiary source). Then we have the Wiki axiom "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Mr. Berlet states in the same parqagraph,
"most major media drop the story. The charges in Bellant's report are not covered in the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, or United Press International."
This is a text book example of how defamatory information is manufactured and spread, (giving context to titles like "Leftist Lie Factory" [22])., and how defamatory "published accounts" proliferate. nobs 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

<-----Nobs01, once again, misrepresents the underlying source. Here are some actual full paragraphs showing corroboration of the Bellant Report in published sources.

9/9/88 -- Bush spokesperson Mark Goodin announces Jerome Brentar has resigned, saying Brentar's "association with [convicted Nazi war criminal] John Demjanjuk put him at odds with Vice President Bush." No mention is made of the more substantial charges regarding Brentar.

As for Galdau and Guarino, Goodin says, "We have absolutely no substantiation at this point of any of these charges".

Michael S. Miller, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, however, says his group has information supporting the Washington Jewish Week descriptions of Jerome Brentar, Florian Galdau and Philip Guarino. "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that these three individuals have expressed sympathies with Nazism, with fascism," Miller tell the New York Times. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles is also cited by the Times as having corroborating background material.

9/10/88 -- The Philadelphia Inquirer runs an article by David Lee Preston which corroborates much of the material in Washington Jewish Week. Preston also cites the Bellant report which describes how the Republican Party has been recruiting ethnic facists, racists and anti-Semites for over 20 years, through its Heritage Groups Council.

The Bellant report includes a photo of George Bush on the campaign trail at a July 1988 event co-sponsored by a pro-Nazi group, the anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations. Also reproduced is a 1984 Republican ethnic pride calendar which urges the celebration of "Croation Independence Day." The Croation state was run by a Nazi-puppet government which oversaw the slaughter of over 500,000 Serbians and Jews.

9/18/88 -- Philadelphia Inquirer reporter David Lee Preston demolishes more Bush campaign lies. He notes that since 1969, several dozen alleged Nazis, fascists and anti-Semites have held leadership posts in the Heritage Groups Council. He quotes Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (now with the legal office of Harvard University but formerly director of the Justice Department's OSI war criminal probe) as saying he had read Bellant's report and found it to be "well documented and reliable."

Preston also reports that in 1972 a convicted Nazi war criminal Boleslavs Maikovskis of Minneola, N.Y. served on the advisory board of the Latvian-American section of the Republican's Heritage Council for the Re-Election of the President.

9/27/88 -- The Boston Herald carries an Alan Dershowitz column where Dershowitz reveals he has independent knowledge of some of Bellant's charges. "I first heard about the presence of Nazis in the hierarchy of the Republican Party as far back as 1970" In the course of working on the New York governor's race, Dershowitz says he "learned that several members of a Republican `Captive Nations Committee' were Nazi sympathizers who had been personally involved in the Holocaust in Europe, as well as with racist and neo-Nazi groups in America."

How long will this vendetta by Nob01 be tolerated?--Cberlet 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me guess, these sources are the same unnamed "old spies" strenuously documented and footnoted in John Loftus book. (Incidentally, I found Loftus's comments regarding the Gehlen organization quite interesting. That was closer to the direction I wanted to go after the Venona series; perhaps you could put in a good word with the ArbCom and we could collaborate on that.) nobs 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobs01, I defend your right to be an apologist for antisemites, fascists, and Nazis here on Wikipedia. I do not defend your chronic POV misrepresentation of sources, nor do I defend your personal attacks, whether petty, vicious, or veiled.--Cberlet 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Mr Berlet: I will take that above comment as personal attack, and post it as evidence within the hearing. And I beleive it warrants an appology. nobs 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Nobs -- Cut it out! Don't push and push and push and then complain when you anger someone by with veiled ad hominem attacks. Really, this is unseemly. As soon as people started to reach a consensus about this article you started fanning the flames. BCorr|ÑAÑÇÑpÑzÑuÑ~ 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, my appologies. I believe some of the problems have been brought to light, and given the evidence presented, and the changes at WP:Verifiability, there is no need for four references to "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort" within this article. I only highlighted the Conclusion to Chap. 14, which Mr. Berlet rebutted. If necessary, more guilt by association smear tactics in that book could be presented for readers of this page. Perhaps it would be easier, by concensus, to pare down the number of references to the book in the namespace. Thank you for your input. nobs 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You want to talk about guilt by association? What is this following link doing on this page?
Court TV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army
Because I am a member of the NLG I am linked to terrorists? Talk about guilt by association and smear tactics. --Cberlet 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This is very interesting An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis. I'm not sure if it's a disclaimer or an object lesson. Let's examine these two items briefly,
  • Association does not imply agreement, hence the term "guilt by association" has a pejorative meaning. Association proves association: it suggests further questions are appropriate, and demonstrates the parameters of networks, coalitions, and personal moral distinctions - nothing more.
  • Participation in an activity, or presence at an event, does not imply control.
Then in Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Chapt. 14, Inside a Patriot Meeting, we have
"You could even purchase the book Hunter by neonazi William Pierce... a book that describes parasitic Jews destroying America and extols the virtues of armed civilians who carry out political assassinations of Jews and homosexuals to preserve the White race. Pierce’s earlier book, The Turner Diaries, was the primary sourcebook of racist underground terror organizations such as The Order during the 1980s.
Now pardon me for being dense (I'm sure you can attest), but is An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis meant to educate people how to detect misinformation or how to employ it. Thank you. nobs 22:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Before I leave for Cancún, let me leave this quote from Butler Crittenden, Ph.D., past President of the San Francisco PC Users Group [23],
  • "I have seen Berlet's 'guilt by association' strategy 'up close and personal,' so I know he is capable of shoddy journalism."
quoted in On Being a Conspiracy Theorist. nobs 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Activist

Here's some more stuff to work with while I'm on vacation:

  • “The Public Eye is produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes;”
  • "Chip Berlet, Managing Editor."
  • Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), p. 161.
  • "The NLG [National Lawyers Guild] is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."
  • "An estimated one million Afghans were killed between 1979 and 1989"
  • "Significant 20th century democides...Afghanistan (1979-2001) 1,400,000 "

Criticism

It seems that almost all criticism has been deleted. I found a quote which seems to be representative of the criticism of Berlet that I have read: Online Journal Associate Editor Larry Chin charged that "Berlet is a gatekeeper who has made a career out of slandering and attacking whistleblowers, researchers and critics of the US government, of every political affiliation."[25] --NathanDW 17:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Lot's of criticism was already there. This is a popular accusation about me (I deny that it is true-but similar claims are published all over the web) so at least it has some merit.
Dan Brandt criticized me after I criticized him and was summarily thrown off the board of his non-profit. If Brandt's criticism is fair to have on the page, then there at least should be a link to my version of how his antagonism began:
  • Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains a very useful research tool, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective. He later began openly praising "Spotlight," claiming he could find no anti-Jewish bias in its pages, and denouncing me as part of an alleged PC thought police movement on the left.
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html
And from Brandt himself:
  • The first hint of a PC crack within Public Information Research came in October, 1990, when Chip Berlet resigned from our Board of Advisors because he objected to the fact that Fletcher Prouty was also on the Board. We did not discuss the issue because I was putting in overtime on my technician job and wasn't in the mood to call him back. I whipped out the white-out and removed his name from the letterhead, and thanked him for his past support.
  • In July 1991, Martha Wenger resigned from our Board of Advisors after reading something about Prouty in a leftist publication, and her final advice to me was to "think long and hard about working together with others who may be opposed to CIA covert operations, but whose political commitments are diametrically opposed to those of the progressive movement." I first met Wenger and her husband Konrad Ege when our paths crossed while working on CounterSpy magazine, and think very highly of them. Wenger is an assistant to Joe Stork at the Middle East Research and Information Project, which does excellent work.
  • Meanwhile, Chip Berlet was starting to release early drafts of Right Woos Left, which received wide coverage in the left press beginning in early 1992. I still wasn't into writing long letters, so Martha Wenger got the same polite white-out that Chip received the previous year. Then in January 1992, Holly Sklar resigned from our Board, stating that "I find Chip Berlet's objection to sharing a board with Fletcher Prouty compelling, even more so at a time of increasing right wing efforts to build insidious alliances with often unwitting leftists."
So some of these criticisms would be more NPOV if put in the context of anger over my claims that some on the political left are overly attracted to conspiracy theories in general, and antisemitic conspiracy theories from the political right in particular. Concern over antisemitism makes me a gatekeeper? Also, I did not resign from Brandt's board, I sent him a note raising some serious concerns and asking for a discussion. Brandt's response was to summarily dismiss me from the board without answering my concerns.
Finally, I would ask why this link is on the page:
  • Court TV – Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army
Other than guilt-by-associaiton, what is the connection?--Cberlet 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Berlet's credentials

According to the edit by ColonelS, Berlet did not complete his degree. Is this true? If so, why does Wikipedia promote him so much as an expert? I guess I would ask that question even if he did complete his degree. --NathanDW 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably because despite not finishing my degree, I am now regularly invited to write articles for scholarly and academic books and journals. --Cberlet 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When somebody who doesn't have a law degree becomes Vice President of a legal bar association it is very unusual. That's why it is worth mentioning. It is also important because it was not clear in the earlier version of the article. When you're vice president of a bar association people automatically assume that you're a lawyer and Chip Berlet is not - he has no law degree either. In fact he's probably the only relatively well known person I've ever seen who is a bar association's officer despite not being a lawyer at all! -- ColonelS

Berlet probably gets quoted in books even though he's not an expert because that's what liberals do -- they prop up their own to be more important than they really are. Liberals love to portray extremist activists on the left as "experts" even though they don't really have a degree in anything. Michael Moore is another one just like Berlet. Moore and Berlet are both college dropouts from undistinguished regional universities. After they quit they both got jobs writing for extremist liberal magazines and now they're flaunted as "experts" by the liberal media even though they don't have any real expertises to their names. It's all about show and their lack of expertise is apparant in their writings. Moore and Berlet are the types that go around calling conservatives -- or anybody who isn't liberal -- "fascist" and "hitler" all the time. Just because some of their fellow leftists quote them doing it -- that doesn't make them an expert. -- ColonelS

Please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not to serve as soapboxes for our opinions about the subject of that article. Gamaliel 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Berlet probably gets quoted in books even though he's not an expert because that's what liberals do -- they prop up their own to be more important than they really are. Liberals love to portray extremist activists on the left as "experts" even though they don't really have a degree in anything.
What exactly do you think this contributes to the article? As Gamaliel said, please discuss how the artcile can be improved.--Kristjan Wager 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It improves this article and makes it more accurate when it is truthful about Chip Berlet's lack of any degrees. Before adding that the article was written in such a way that an unsuspecting person would automatically assume that he is a distinguished lawyer because he was a high ranking officer of a bar association. All I'm saying is that that's deceptive and the truth about him not having a law degree needs to be there. A "Regular Joe" who dropped out of college is much less of an expert than an actual lawyer who was vice president of a bar association he was actually admitted to practice under. Berlet's NLG role is all about him supporting their far left politics and has nothing to do with being a lawyer. The readers need to know that because it tells who this guy really is. -- ColonelS

Okay, so he's not a lawyer and you think that fact belongs in the article. You've made your point, let's move on. Gamaliel 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias creeping back into entry

Nowhere is my article from 1992 called a "voter guide" except here in a fraudulent attempt to misprepresent the article, which is a long essay on fascism, not a voter guide. Cheap fabrication.--Cberlet 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also factually false is the claim that this was written for the National Lawyers Guild. It was a post on a listserve run by the NLG Civil Liberties Committee.--Cberlet 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's straining at gnats and a silly case to make - "It's not for NLG, just a listserve belonging to NLG." If it was done for NLG's listserve on some NLG subcommittee, then NLG is the affiliation it was written for. That's not bias creeping back anywhere and its not a cheap fabrication either. If Chip Berlet didn't intend it to be a voter guide then why did he write it about the candidates in the 1992 election that happened a month later? That's like saying "Berlet's article about the election wasn't really about the election." And it all glosses over the real main point of that article -- it is one of Berlet's more fanatical pieces where he calls everybody but the liberal candidate a "fascist" and tries to link them all to David Duke. -- ColonelS

An email to a listserv commenting on candidates is hardly a voters guide. Every time a commentator an elecito is not a "voters guide". Further, an email to a listserv is hardly a published source, so it really isn't a notable opinion. There's no reason to believe that it was distributed (at the time) beyond the limited subscribership of that email group. Lastly, it is an opinion by Berlet, not a criticism of him. -Will Beback 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Berlet's voter guide article shows his true fanaticism, and it looks like you're trying to cover it up. I just did some research on it and it was NOT a simple email he sent to a listserve - it was fully intended to be a stand alone article and was actually a modification of another piece he published in a book where he also slammed Republicans as "fascists." CHip Berlet said so himself in the opening line: "This article is adapted from the author's preface to Russ Bellant's book "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party," co-published by South End Press and Political Research Associates." Indeed, Chip Berlet has recycled this exact same rant dozens of times in SEVERAL ELECTIONS to accuse whoever the conservative candidates were at that moment of being fascists!

  1. [26] - Version on Chip Berlet's own website
  2. [27] - 1992 presidential election adaptation calling Bush, Buchanan, and Perot fascists
  3. [28] - 1996 presidential election adaptation attacking Buchanan, Perot, and Pat Robertson for being fascists

Versions of this same article are all over the internet calling whatever Republican of the moment Chip Berlet is mad at a fascist. -- ColonelS

It appears to me that the link you are using as a source combines two separate pieces of writing - an article and an email. I don't see the material about Bush, et al, in any versions of the article. -Will Beback 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
ColonelS has added to the entry material that is simply a distortion of the facts. It represents the worst type of superficial Internet surfing and oversimplification coupled with a nasty and biased POV. None of the material posted on the Internet by me on various listserves is voter guides in any stretch of that term. The original article was a preface to a book by Russ Bellant that documented that some top "ethnic outreach" officials of the Bush campaign in 1988 were former Nazi collaborators or supporters of fascist parties and regimes in Europe in the 1940s. Those charges were verified in numerous media investigations.--Cberlet 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gamaliel -- Since you "monitor" this article please look above. There are lots of insults, personal attacks, and other "uncivil" comments directed to and about me in that post by Cberlet. Any chance you're gonna lecture him on Wikipedia's civility rules or are ya gonna let that one slide too? -- Col. S

Would you like me to block him? While I'm at it, I'd have to block you for referring to him as fanatic and similar uncivil comments. Please address the content dispute at hand. Gamaliel 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still selectively dodging the issue of your inconsistency I see. I did not call Cberlet the Wikipedia user a fanatic. I said that Chip Berlet the public political figure is a fanatic and I contend that that's a fair assessment for somebody who runs around calling all conservatives who disagree with him "fascists." If Cberlet the wikipedia user wants to post to me with your vaunted principle of civility in mind, I'll be polite to him as well. He has yet to be polite to me though and both posts he made to me contained insults directed at me as an editor here on wikipedia. But I don't believe he's supposed to be editing his own article anyway, so using his presence here as an excuse to ban political criticisms of the real life public political figure Chip Berlet is, well, our good old friend of censorship at play again. -- Col. S

Give it a rest. He cannot "ban" criticisms of himself from this article. All he can do is edit this article, just like you or anyone else can. Gamaliel 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem, Gamaliel. I can't edit this article like everybody else because all my edits get attacked. I added facts to it that were negative about Berlet and only a day later liberals showed up and tried to remove them all. One guy even deleted the entire paragraph I added here and so did another on the NLG article - even though both were sourced quotes that came from Berlet himself on National Lawyer Guild material. Then Berlet showed up and tried to remove my stuff AND repeatedly insulted me in the process. I don't mind it if these people want to change the wordings or make things that I added better as long as they don't distort the truth about it and don't censor out quotes of Berlet because they think it makes him sound like an extremist, which he is. But when they go in and wipe the whole thing clean that's censering and nothing more. -- Col. S.

Other people are free to edit or remove your contributions, just as you are free to edit or remove their contributions. If someone removes material they feel is not relevant or encyclopedic, that is not necessarily censorship, regardless of whether or not the material is sourced. If you feel that the material is being removed unjustly, you are free (within the bounds of Wikipedia:Three revert rule) to restore that material and use this talk page to convince others that the material deserves to be included. What you are not free to do is to create a hostile atmosphere and poison the collaborative process by throwing around accusations of bias and censorship. That's how it works around here. Gamaliel 05:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not true:
  • "Berlet has written an article accusing the Republican Party in general of having connections to fascism, first published as an introduction to Russ Bellant's 1991 book 'Old Nazis, The New Right, and the Republican Party.'"
The Introduction I wrote for the Bellant book makes no such claim, as anyone can clearly read for themselves. It is not true that I tried to remove the material posted by Col. S. The snippet I wrote about the various political tendencies inside the NLG meetings I chaired is taken totally out of context. Original research, misrepresentation of cited material, sloppy, badly written, numerous spelling errors. This material by Col. S. is not up to Wiki standards.--Cberlet 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The above is yet another personal smear by Cberlet, and it contains lies this time. I just ran the paragraphs I added (beggining "According to Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine.com" to "Benito Mussolini's Italy.[19]") through Microsoft spell checker and it only had one single word come up - Bellant in Russ Bellant's name, which isn't in their dictionary. And exactly what is "original research" about? Everything I quoted from Berlet is a public article by a public political pundit! This guy doesn't seem to be happy with anything including his own written words - as if he's embarrassed by them! I call them a voter's guide and he gets mad, saying its a listserve article. I change it to article and he gets mad, saying its an email. I change it to email and he gets mad, saying its out of context. I've done more than any of you have to accomodate these requested changes but nothing ever seems to be enough for this guy except removing it entirely! And to achieve that he's willing to lie and claim what I added was "sloppy, badly written, numerous spelling errors" when in fact it has NONE! -- Col. S

The email is just an email, it is not a criticism. I don't see the point in including it. -Will Beback 07:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I also don't see the point in including it. It isn't criticism of him; it just repeats some of the many hundreds of thousands of words he has written over the course of his career, so why pick these words out and not some other? Or must we now reproduce everything he has ever written? Someone went through this article a while back and shortened it to get rid of extra details like this, and I'd prefer to see it not creep up in length again unless the new material is really interesting and relevant. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This material should not be included in criticism, it should be included in the body of the article. I have recently read Berlet's material and the most noteworthy thing about it is that he uses the word fascist to apply to any public figure that he doesn't like. This is very relevant to the article and the examples should be cited to document it. --NathanDW 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you should remember your reasoning when editing other pages, your quite selective, the reversion I made was legitimate and corresponds to fairness and accuracy. You had no plausible right to revert back to a previous version without inclusion of the factaul information on Mr. Berlet's extreme views towards people and fringe ideas, such as towards Buchanan, Perot and the Republican Party. What is your exact reasoning here? Don't give me the bs from above, as using that criteria would make other biographies change accordingly. --Northmeister 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is twice SlimVirgin has reverted today. There is a three reversion rule, is this user going to continue to undo the work of other editors without cause or reason? What are the reasons for reversion of material well cited and relevant? What are your motivations? Explain to the community please. --Northmeister 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Northmeister. I also agree with all the people who have been in favor of keeping the Berlet quotes - Northmeister, NathanDW, and Pollinator. Slim Virgin should not be trying to enforce her deletion of it when that many people agree to keep it. -- Col.S
The community has decided to keep the inclusion of material SlimVirgin has taken upon herself to delete out. It is not I or the majority of others who push POV, but you who do so SlimVirgin. You have not answered my legitimate questions and have taken out material relevant and backed up with outside sources, without the community accepting this. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a one-woman show. --Northmeister 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister makes a valid point. None of the people who keep removing the Berlet quotes out of the article are trying to come up with any other solution to it. They aren't participating in the talk page debate and they only delete it -- often without giving any reason at all. The fact of the matter is this though -- David Horowitz's organization blasted Chip Berlet for his frequent and casual use of the word "fascist" to label any conservative who disagrees with him, and they gave the election article as an example of where he does this. The places where he accuses conservatives of fascism in his article is quoted with a full accurate source link, and NOBODY disputes that Berlet actually authored those articles. If they're his own words and people have considered them controversial I don't know of any good reason to censor them out of this article. Put the words in and let the people who read it decided. Was it fair of Berlet to call Bush, Buchanan, and Perot "fascists" or was it extremist? I personally think it was extremist of him but since they are his own words you can decide for yourself by reading them. -- ColonelS 03:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is original research. Take away the loaded language and all you are left with are out of context quotes. Furthermore, the claims are not even substantiated. If you can quote a reliable source that makes the claim that Berlet "accused" and "attacked", then by all means do it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research - it is Berlet's own words, and they've been criticized in print. And here is one of the places where he is "accused" of abusing the fascist label. And it refers to the exact same voter guide quoted here. -- Col. S

Quote: "Typical of this technique, Berlet co-authored a piece suggesting, "There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right" in the U.S. He asserted that "fascist potentials" and "right-wing populism" are "too close for comfort." Vagueness unanchored in any perceivable fact helps Berlet make these associations. For example, writing on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild a month before the 1992 Presidential Election, Berlet charged that the first Bush Administration "pursued its agenda . . . which borrows heavily from the theories of corporatism, authoritarianism, and militarism adopted by Italian fascism." So too, Berlet described independent Reform candidate Ross Perot in these terms. "[Perot] provide[s] us with a contemporary model of the fascist concept of the organic leader . . . whose strong egocentric commands are seen as reflecting the will of the people." Under Berlet's definition, any popular non-left politician is a fascist." -- David Horowitz, [29]

If that's a reliable source, then accurately incorporate it into the article. Don't make claims that we can't verify. Reading the previous cite, I found nothing indicating that Berlet accused the Republican Party of having connections to fascism. And the loaded language providing context for the quotes was original research. —Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The contents of this article have been decided by consensus over quite a long period, and the consensus was that we have enough criticism from Horowitz. The article isn't called "Criticism of Chip Berlet by David Horowitz." It was also felt the page was too long, so quite a bit was cut. Colonel S, you've arrived here, as a post of yours on another website indicates, with a hostile attitude toward Chip Berlet, and it's not a good state of mind to be editing in if you're trying to achieve NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell us where they're coming from? I'd like to try to have something of an advance warning next time I deal with someone like ColonelS. Gamaliel 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin -- That's evidently not the consensus anymore here because lots of people have supported keeping the quotes I added. WikiPedia as I understand it is not permanant - it changes as new people add new information. Also - I've been open from the very beginning that I'm a Republican and I've been open that I consider Chip Berlet a left wing fanatic in the same boat as Michael Moore. That's my opinion, and its no less healthy to my state of mind than you adoring him. People with opposite views can write a fact-based article where both sides can participate, but you'd seem to have it that I can't participate since my view opposes Berlet while yours likes him. I mean this in no disrespect or insult to you personally, but that type of mindset smacks of the censership I've complained about. -- ColonelS


Viridatas -- Berlet's article that was adapted into that voter guide is a preface to a book called "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party." That's where the statement about him accusing the Republican Party of being connected to fascism comes from. Also please be more specific about what the loaded language is. Saying that Berlet accuses somebody of "fascist sympathies" isn't loaded at all when Berlet's own quote describes that person as a "fascist" and uses the word "fascist" or "Mussolini." Also, if that's what you object to so much isn't a better technique to it rewriting the language to make it more neutral instead of deleting it like you and Slim Virgin and the others did? -- ColonelS 06:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I read Berlet's article and found nothing about him accusing the Republican Party of being connected to fascism. In addition, the use of loaded language like "attacked" and "accused" is the editor's opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 06:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Then change "attacked" to something else instead of deleting the whole thing! It'd save you the revert wars and the trouble of having a drawn out fight on the talk page. Or if you're willing to undo the last revert (since we've both reached 3 for the day) I'll change words like "attacked" to something lighter. -- ColonelS 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

ColonelS...Every single argument made by SlimVirgin, Veriditas, Gamiliel are directly opposite their arguments when it comes to the Lyndon LaRouche pages. These people are inter-linked and a small minority here. Your inclusion of material from a credible source with words spoken or written by Berlet himself are indeed relevant to a man who has made a career out of attacking such honorable men as Perot, Buchanan, Horowitz and others whom he disagrees with and with whom he opposes their attempt to forge compromises between left and right such as Buchanan and Fulani joining together. They have not provided any credible reasons for deleting your material and the same mantra of Original Research is often repeated by this repetitious crowd to drown out any legitimate citatitions they can't attack on validity. My personal reccomendation is to stick your ground and do not be bullied by McCarthy like tactics as Wiki-pedia is an open forum where truth will only prevail for our readers and researchers when it is allowed to be presented without censorship from person's who are on a witchhunt and abusing their positions and editing powers. If you have citations and they are valid, which they are, you have every right to include them in this article -they are highly relevant. --Northmeister 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


"Criticism"

  • Berlet has written an article accusing the Republican Party in general of having connections to fascism, first published as an introduction to Russ Bellant's 1991 book "Old Nazis, The New Right, and the Republican Party." During the 1992 U.S. Presidential elections Berlet emailed an adapted version of this article along with comments on the presidential candidates to a committee of the National Lawyers Guild. The email accused all the major candidates, except for Bill Clinton, of having fascist tendencies or sympathies.[30] Berlet accused then-incumbent President George H. W. Bush of an "agenda of a managed corporate economy, a repressive national security state, and an aggressive foreign policy based on military threat" that "borrows heavily from...corporatism, authoritarianism, and militarism adopted by Italian fascism." Berlet accused Independent candidate Ross Perot of having fascist tendencies, saying "Perot's candidacy provided us with a contemporary model of the fascist concept of the organic leader."
  • Berlet also attacked the Republican Primary challenger to Bush Pat Buchanan, who he said "hearkens back to the proto-fascist ideas of the 1930's." He accused Buchanan in his speech to the Republican Convention of "eerily invok(ing) Nazi symbols of blood, soil and honor." The voter guide article also grouped candidates like Perot and Buchanan with White Supremacist David Duke, saying "Duke, Buchanan, and Perot all feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger and fear."[31]
  • During the 1996 U.S. Presidential Election Berlet published another adapted version of this article, again accusing Perot, Buchanan, and televangelist Pat Robertson of having similar connections to fascism. He described them as "three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse" and likened this populism to Benito Mussolini's Italy.[32]

I've pulled this from the article so we can discuss it here. This does not appear to be a criticism, not is it a summary of his political beliefs. What is it? The history of an email? -Will Beback 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've placed it back in because it is cited and contains Mr. Berlet's views which are important to understand Mr. Berlet. It is Mr. Berlet talking and writing and is of primary consideration. It is a credible source by wiki-standards and does not deserve deletion or 'taking out and putting here' unless credible objections are given. It is not original research by the editor who put it there. --Northmeister 07:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Emails are not credible sources for anything in Wikipedia. The original research comes in the interpretation of the material, and in the POV characterization of its contents. This is not an accurate summary of the material, or their history, and the underlying material is not terribly important. People send millions of messages to listservs, and there is no evidence that this caused any controversy to make it notable. Please show good faith by not edit warring and continguing to restore the contested material while we're discussing it. -07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may chip in... I'm not really involved in this article, but someone posted a link to it on Wikipedia Review. Anyway, I can somewhat understand both viewpoints. This information does appear to be well-sourced, and may indeed meet the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, but, unfortunately, it does not mean the Wikipedia standards for Nuetral Point of View. If there is a way you could re-write the text in a nuetral tone, you may get far better results than continuing to re-add this heavily loaded segment of the article. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there is a controversy here. Since it is well-sourced, it should not be deleted. It is widely available as well since Berlet is outspoken on his views. If there is contradicting material, it would be much more NPOV to add the opposing viewpoint, than to delete what one does not like, as some have been doing. Pollinator 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

ColonelS...Blu Aardvark has a point above. The material is credible but needs to be re-written. Since you are the original editor who has contributed, I would suggest you do this. Although, I am not sure what areas are NPOV. Maybe those who object to this would like to explian to us which parts are NPOV? (The person above who did not sign, I do not respond to unsigned material. Take a 'profile in courage' and sign your name next time, it would be chippy to do so.) --Northmeister 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the page history, the statement was made by User:Will Beback. Judging by the datestamp, my guess is that he intended to sign, but accidentally used five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four. It's a surprisingly easy mistake to make; I've done it dozens of times. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My objection is that the summaries by ColonelS of my articles are not only OR and POV, but also misrepresent the content and central themes and make obvious false statements.--Cberlet 17:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please specify how. Pollinator 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet has accused me of all sorts of horrible things and above he falsely claimed that my addition was full of mistakes and spelling errors (MS word showed it had zero). I've given all the sources including the one where Horowitz gives this very same article as an example of Berlet's tactics. I don't see how it could be "OR" or original research though since it all has a source. The solution to POV is not to delete but to change the language that is considered the problem. NONE of the people who are upset about using Berlet's quote have tried to fix what they say are POV language uses. They just delete it and claim that as an excuse, even though that's not the way you're supposed to resolve things on WikiPedia. -- ColonelS 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that ColonelS denies making any errors of fact, and then rewrites the text in a way that corrects some of them.--Cberlet 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't given any examples of what these supposed "Errors" are. I rewrote the text to remove words like "attacked," which Viriditas said was too strong and not neutral. Otherwise the quotes are exactly the same and show Chip Berlet accusing everybody he doesn't like of fascism in his own words. -- ColonelS 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Text by ColonelS that is factually false: "Berlet has written an article accusing the Republican Party in general of having connections to fascism, first published as an introduction to Russ Bellant's 1991 book..."
Text by ColonelS that is still biased, but cited to actual quote: "Horowitz gives an example where he says Berlet uses this technique in an article that Berlet first published as an introduction to Russ Bellant's 1991 book 'Old Nazis,..."
Thanks for asking.--Cberlet 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixing complaints

I am getting complaints that I am posing as an attorney, so I added "a paralegal investigator" as in "Berlet, a paralegal investigator, is a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild." Also, I cited a quote to Namebase but removed the URL link because Namebase is now on a spam filter here at Wiki and the page could not be saved otherwise. I hope this is considered general non-controversial housekeeping. In another matter, is it really necessary to note that some critics consider the NLG to be a communist front? I would also object if editors started to add to the article on Horowitz that he is a fan of the "Republican Party, which some critics consider a fascist front..." :-) --Cberlet 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

False and biased claims abound

This page is full of false claims and biased attacks.

"that "bills itself as a watchdog group that monitors rightwing extremists" [1] "

PRA has never described itself this way. See PRA home page for actual self-description.

"the National Lawyers Guild, a body described as pro-communist by conservative critics. [4] "

Not appropriate to include this highly biased tertiary criticism in this section.

"I have chaired [NLG] committee meetings with debates featuring cadres from Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, and Maoist groups, along with Marxists, anarchists, libertarians, and progressive independents." [17]

This quote is taken out of context from an article I wrote critical of sectarian Leninist and Stalinist cadre tactics in mass-based groups.

" The email suggested that all the major candidates, except for Bill Clinton, had connections or characteristics of fascism.[19]"

The e-mail was a response in an ongoing discussion about the boundaries of what was appropriate to call fascism and what was not. The quote is, again, taken out of context. Here is an excerpt that shows I was trying to explore different aspects of fascism and contemporary U.S. politics:

"These three candidacies were played out as the Bush Administration pursued its agenda of a managed corporate economy, a repressive national security state, and an aggressive foreign policy based on military threat, all of which borrows heavily from the theories of corporatism, authoritarianism, and militarism adopted by Italian fascism."

This is a much more complicated analysis that the smear job by Horowitz and his allies suggest.

"The voter guide article also grouped candidates like Perot and Buchanan with White Supremacist David Duke,"

It was not a "voter guide." The text did not lump Perot, Buchanan, and Duke arbitrarily:

"Duke, Buchanan, and Perot all feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger and fear. Their supporters tended to blame our vexing societal problems on handy scapegoats and they sought salvation from a strong charismatic leader."

The distinctions are important. The criticism once again misrepresents the underlying text. The same is true for the nect criticism:

"Berlet published another adapted version of this article, again identifying Perot, Buchanan, and televangelist Pat Robertson of having connections to fascism. He described them as "three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse". and likened their populism to Benito Mussolini's Italy.[21]"

Not a simple lumping together. Once again, the text is taken out of context. Here is the actual text:

"The Buchanan campaign incorporates themes of right wing populism, scapegoating, reactionary politics, and Fascism."
"Scapegoating and demagoguery are powerful tools for reactionary backlash movements, and have been used effectively to promote a form of right-wing populism, which channels legitimate anger over declining economic prospects or uncertain social status towards scapegoats that are easy to blame due to the existing currents of racism, sexism, homophobia, and antisemitism flowing through the US social system."
"Many people presume that all populist movements are naturally progressive and want to move society to the left, but history teaches us otherwise. In his book "The Populist Persuasion," Michael Kazin explains how populism is a style of organizing. Populism can move to the left or right. It can be tolerant or intolerant. In her book "Populism," Margaret Canovan defined two main branches of populism: agrarian and political."
"Agrarian populism worldwide has three categories: movements of commodity farmers, movements of subsistence peasants, and movements of intellectuals who wistfully romanticize the hard-working farmers and peasants. Political populism includes not only populist democracy, championed by progressives from the LaFollettes of Wisconsin to Jesse Jackson, but also politicians' populism, reactionary populism, and populist dictatorship. The latter three antidemocratic forms of populism characterize the movements of Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, and Pat Buchanan, three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse."

Once again, the text is taken out of context.

This page has been transformed from a legitimate entry with serious criticisms into a smear job based on the hatchet jobs on me by Horowitz and his allies. It is not a legitimate entry in a serious encyclopedia.--Cberlet 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tom_harrison has edited the cited text to reflect the actual underlying articles, thus solving most of the problems. --Cberlet 13:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I still have major problems with the article. Just to double-check, am I allowed to even comment on the facts in the talk page? If not, then I'll leave. I don't want to give Will, SlimVirgin, Snowspinner, et. al another excuse to block me. Cognition 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages)." -- seems rather clear -- and you've already violated it. -- Jibal 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Cberlet. The article needs to be reverted back to the 14 August 2005 version [33], only without the totallydisputed tag.

Repeated removal of sourced critical material

Removing unsourced criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The material on Chip Berlet's criticism of the left and the left's criticism of Chip Berlet keeps being removed, most recently by User:FeloniousMonk and User:KillerChihuahua. This material belongs in the article because it is at the very core of what Berlet was doing throughout the 1990s - criticizing others on the left and calling them "right-wing populists" or part of a plot to introduce right-wing theories into the left. 70.108.136.19 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has to be written in accordance with WP:BLP, which I suggest you review. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You probably wrote that policy. Tell me, does WP:BLP apply to Daniel Brandt too, or is he an exception? 70.108.136.19 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an informal committee that decides which biographical articles are covered by WP:BLP. It is commonly referred to as "the cabal." --207.200.116.130 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for tipping your hand. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a relevant section from WP:BLP. "Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material." Problem is, how can we include this material without overwhelming the article? I would suggest paring down the criticism from David Horowitz to 2 or 3 sentences and limiting the criticism from each of the others to 2 or 3 sentences. Berlet's criticism of the left isn't really criticism of Berlet but a core part of his bio so it wouldn't count toward "overwhelming" the article to begin with. 70.108.136.19 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, selective reading of WP:BLP. Read it again in light of the section directly above this one, Talk:Chip_Berlet#False_and_biased_claims_abound, and explain how it's accurate relevant material from reputable sources again. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the anon's unsourced criticism from here per BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. FeloniousMonk 14:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Berlet, resigned or were removed

I still don't see a source for this statement either here on in the Daniel Brandt article. Can you post it here for everybody to review. Thanks --Tom 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the Brandt page where the relevant text from the Lobster article by Brandt is posted. This is properly sourced. Not all text is for free on the Internet.--Cberlet 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw what you posted from the Lobster article and it said you resigned, not that you were removed? Can you source that you were "removed"? Thanks. --Tom 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I already responded to this on the Brandt page and accepted "resigned." Please stop chasing me around Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you accepting this. I did confirm the Lobster article with the editor Robin Ramsey by e-mail. Thanks --Tom 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Undue amount of critcism from David Horowitz

The criticism section mostly consists of one person's disparaging comments, which compromises the article's neutrality. Some of the content is not even criticism. For example:

During the 1996 U.S. Presidential election, Berlet published another adapted version of this article in which he characterized as "antidemocratic forms of populism" the movements in support of Perot, Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. He described them as "three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse".

-- WGee 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, in order for neutrality to exist, there must be a response to the criticism embedded in the criticism section, provided the response is sourced and published (i.e. not based on Berlet's comments on Wikipedia). Any well-faithed inclusion of criticism without a response from the criticized is an NPOV violation, usually based on the backward assumption that the rest of the article portrays the subject favourably and must therefore be counterbalanced by criticism. -- WGee 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. What if someone is dead and unable to respond? No critical views should be heard? --TJive 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of a dead person is not exempt from Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. If the person is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, chances are he/she has supporters to offer rebuttals. Wikipedia policy states: "At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available." [34] And in this case, I believe rebuttals are available. -- WGee 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If they are available, by all means cite them. I do not see that this is an issue. --TJive 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an issue because to exclude rebuttals is to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states: "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." Currently, the article represents only the anti-Berlet viewpoint. -- WGee 00:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is relevant "pro-Berlet" material, include it. You aren't going to use specious pedantry in order to delete swaths of material. --TJive 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much about David Horowitz's criticism. Tom Harrison Talk 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I returned the Horowitz criticism to the amount that was agreed a few months ago. I still think it's too much, but it was agreed as a compromise. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. --TJive 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section lacks weight

The purpose of a criticism section in an article, as I understand it, is to provide notable criticisms, ones that are either held by a significent portion of the population, factor into the public view of the subject in some significent manner, or otherwise tell the reader something important about the topic. By comparison, the criticism in this article seems to be nothing more than a laundry-list of such-and-such a newspaper editorial criticised him. Certainly, it isn't encyclopedic to note each and every person who was criticized in an editorial by the John Birch Society or David Horowitz; if we did, roughly half of our U.S. political articles would have to focus on such criticism! Is there anything that makes those criticisms particularly significent in this case? Finally, the second criticism listed, from Larry Chin, appears to be from a private email; while I'm sure Mr. Chin feels strongly about his views, they're not encyclopedic on their own. --Aquillion 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably should keep a few sentences pointing to the Horowitz criticism, though there is no need for the elaborate detail. The links are useful if they include my rebuts as well. The Horowitz matter is probably the best know criticism outside the 9/11 "Truth" movement, which also deserves a sentence and pointers to critics and the PRA page on 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Cberlet 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For later:

Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarify not an attorney

"Berlet, as a paralegal investigator, was a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive bar association." I seldom edit this page, but for too long it has left the impression at the top of the article, that I am an attorney, which is unethical for me to not clarify. Also, the NLG does not decribe itself as "liberal," but as "progressive."--Cberlet 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since my edits were reverted (without explanation) by Tom Harrison, I would like to ask two questions.
  • Is it not the case that Chip Berlet has no college degree whatsoever? The article says no law degree, leaving one with the impression that he may have a degree in something else.
  • It seems a bit of a double standard to say that because the NLG describes itself as "progressive," the article must use that term, whereas Berlet's target organizations throughout the article are referred to as "right-wing." I suspect that, given the opportunity, they would prefer to be called "conservative" or some other warmer, fuzzier term. --207.200.116.130 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You may have a point about liberal/progressive vs. right-wing, and we clearly can't rely only on self-description. Still, it doesn't seem to me that the groups he studies are anything other than right-wing. The John Birch Society is not conservative as I understand the term. Do you have a citation that says he has no college degree? Tom Harrison Talk 01:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it appears that much of this article is drawn from promotional materials provided by Berlet's company. It includes a lot of not-very-notable stuff; it looks to me like Berlet is very anxious to make himself look respectable. If he had a college degree in anything at all, I am certain that he would be announcing it from the roof-tops. --207.200.116.130 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, get over it. The NLG was founded as a "progressive" bar association and when it opened up membership to legal workers of various stripes it did not abandon that label. It is the height of arrogance to proclaim that a group cannot self-identify as "progressive." PRA and I study right-wing groups that include conservative, Christian Right, neo-conservative, paleoconservative, white supermacist, fascist, and neonazi organizations. The umbrella label that fits is "right-wing." I do not think that conservatives are fascists or neonazis. If an anonymous editor is too ignorant to appeciate these distinctions, it is not my concern, nor should it be the concern of a majority of sensible Wikipedia editors, no matter what their political preferences.--Cberlet 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP Sources

I see that SlimVirgin has deleted a mention of Berlet's Albanian group that was sourced to a David Horowitz site, with the edit memo "not a reliable source for a BLP." I am not a fan of David Horowitz, but it seems to me that he and Chip Berlet are in fact very similar: they both operate small research and propaganda shops, funded by foundation grants. Berlet's web articles are widely used as sources in Wikipedia BLP articles. It seems to me that both Berlet and Horowitz should either be included or excluded. Could you please comment on this and explain, as specifically as possible, what the criteria are for a BLP source? --NathanDW 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of RS. SlimVirgin seemed to be suggesting that there were special criteria for BLP articles. I would like her to specify what they are. I would also like some discussion on the suitability of Chip Berlet and David Horowitz as sources. Are they equally suitable? If not, why not? --NathanDW 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't leave {{fact}} tags on article of living people. We just remove the information pending source. Self-published material outside of that published by "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist" are never acceptable. If you have examples of such, please remove the poorly sourced information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On the face of it, judging from the Wikipedia article on him, David Horowitz would seem to be an adequate source. This was, however, disputed by SlimVirgin. I'd like to hear her rationale. I hope you understand, Hipocrite, that I am not asking you what the Wikipedia policy is, I'm asking for a discussion on the particulars of how it is being applied in this instance. --NathanDW 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've re-added the Chicago Area Friends of Albania (CAFA) involvement, citing Berlet himself, and an article already cited for other purposes as an example of the resultant (in Berlet's words) "red-baiting", moving it from the Biography to the Criticism section. It won't work, but I have no objection to bending over backwards to be fair to Berlet and his zealous defenders. Berlet claims to have been a minority voice against "enforce(ing) conformity of action through democratic centralism" in a "democratic mass organization", but CAFA is quoted in a number of places (FPM, DTN, a number of others) as being an organization, apparently self-identified, of those who "are friendly and supportive of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania", and as having "sent out a letter to its members and fellow travelers asking for "condolences" to be sent to Hoxha’s elderly widow, Nexhmije Hoxha" (here [35]), and since Berlet claims he was one of the few non-Stalinists that doesn't seem too surprising. This material seems to come originally from a booklet by one Laird Wilcox called "The Watchdogs: A Close look at Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups", probably based on material he has in a collection at UKansas, but SlimVirgin wouldn't let it be cited even if you had a copy. And digging up the documents would be OR... What Hipocrite deigns to notice is an unreliable source is fairly inexplicable. DTN is no good, but National Review is. Go figure. Andyvphil 11:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<---The material is mostly false and based on speculation rather than actual research. If folks want to mention CAFA and cite to the wildly false and defamatory article by Chris Arabia, then at leastr have the common decency to cite to the article I wrote (before Horowitz "discovered" my past) about my time in that organization: [Abstaining from Bad Sects]. The National Review is a serious conservative magazine. DTN is hyperbolic online red-baiting and terrorist-baiting gossip and screed. That's the difference. Note that I have protested the false claims in the Chris Arabia article, but never got a response from either Arabia or Horowitz--Cberlet 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I had cited the article you ask be cited, as well as moved the note on your CAFA membership from Biography to Criticism. You explain in "Bad Sects" that you got involved with the CAFA founding for reasons other than its subject matter and, if I understand you correctly, remained a member to thumb your nose at "democratic centralism" and perhaps for social reasons (I think I saw ~"Some of my best friends were Communists ;)"~ or somesuch just a second or so ago, but can't immediately find it). I then cite the Albania article as an example of what you characterize as "red-baiting" criticism of you. My guess is that Arabia is relying on material in the Wilcox archive and cited by Wilcox for the activities and declarations of CAFA, and that since the CAFA membership was mostly Stalinists of various stripes, by your own statement, those activities and declarations presumably had a pro-Stalinist tinge. Since you remained a dues-paying member until you left Chicago there is a rebuttable presumption that you approved, and you can't expect much benefit of the doubt in a polemical exchange. I assume none of this will have been covered in the New York Times and, given SlimVirgin's interpretation of BLP, the one sentence I've put in pretty much exhausts what will be allowed to be said sans wheelwar. Andyvphil 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And for Wiki editors who care about facts, here is where this matter already was : [discussed in detail].--Cberlet 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ((nb: refers to exchange on Chris Arabia article, not CAFA. Andyvphil 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)))

Larry Chin edit

I've removed the material sourced to Larry Chin at Online Journal. Larry Chin is a red link. The Online Journal is a red link, and there's no information on its website saying who runs it. Leftgatekeepers also has no information on its site saying who runs it, so these are anonymous sources, possibly personal websites. Also, there's no reason to quote Online Journal and yet cite another website, given that Online Journal is presumably ... online. All in all, this is not a reliable source for anything, and particularly not for a BLP. If I'm mistaken, please explain why here, but do not keep restoring it. Editors who continue to restore material in violation of BLP risk being blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As Andyvphil and NathanDW are reverting, I've protected the page per this section of WP:BLP until the issue is settled on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"The Horowitz matter is probably the best know(n) criticism outside the 9/11 "Truth" movement, which also deserves a sentence..." --Cberlet 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[36] Don't WickiLawyer us. Your claim to exemption from 3RR in this matter cannot be in good faith. It is implausible that you've suddenly become aware of this sentence after so many months when you are notorious for policing this article closely for material critical of Berlet. I'm not a defender of the permanent use of the Chin cite as (the) "sentence", but it serves as the placeholder for a better one and as you are quite familiar with this material there is no excuse for you deleting it at this late date without replacing it. Politics is not science and details about marginal figures do not get extensive coverage in the New York Times. It is difficult not to conclude that you know this but are pretending not to in order to push a POV. Feel free to disabuse us by inserting your own NPOV sentence in the article for editorial review. Andyvphil 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The link you gave to Chip talking about Horowitz, above, didn't show him arguing for the Chin quote, which is what we're discussing. In fact, that link shows another editor objecting to it because it's a private letter from an unknown person. If you want to keep it, please say who Larry Chin is, who is behind Online Journal, and link to his views in a reliable publication, not in the form of a letter on an anonymous website. Alternatively, please confirm that you won't restore the material so that I can unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The title you chose for this section is not "Larry Chin Quote", but "Larry Chin Edit". That is what I'm discussing. nb: the subject of the sentence I quoted is not Horowitz, but the "9/11 'Truth' movement. Chip Berlet says it "deserves a sentence". Why don't you provide one? I might want to edit it, but I am unlikely to replace it with the Chin quote. Andyvphil 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to SlimVirgin: at Wikipedia:Protection policy it says: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." --Tsunami Butler 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section I linked to above from WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I see that it provides for protection by an involved editor under these circumstances. --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is just trying to apply Wiki policy here. I do think that the constant attempts to add more and more dubious criticism to this page are problematic. For example, the critical review of the Populism book is not balanced by positive reviews, which outnumber the negative reviews by 10 to 1 in published sources. Hardly fair or accurate. When I said the 9/11 Truth movement criticsm deserved a sentence, I was not endorsing the insertion of material that falls outside of Wiki standards, and SlimVirgin is doing what an admin is supposed to do--enforce these standards on a WP:BLP page.--Cberlet 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Chin quote isn't an example of "attempts to add more and more dubious criticism", since it's apparently been on the page for more than six months, which makes it presumptively true that there's been a consensus to keep it that SlimVirgin is trying to overturn. And her arguments for doing so seem disingenuous, or are simply false. Larry Chin is indeed a reliable sorce for his own opinions, and contrary to what SV says, Online Journal is not being quoted but is merely referred to to establish which Larry Chin is being quoted on the other site. And he's not anonymous, he's...Larry Chin, Associate Editor of Online Journal. The only arguments remaining to remove this quote would be if it appeared to be fabricated or if Larry Chin is non-notable. A quick Google of his name and yours indicates it is entirely consistent with his usual take on you, so it does not appear to be fabricated. And while I have no independent opinion as to his notability the fact that the quote was discussed and retained leads me to believe that that objection was overcome. I would not have added the quote myself, but I did revert in support of NathanDW to put him on the right side of 3RR becase SV's pretense that she just noticed this twice-red-flagged sentence is absurd, and that taints her attempt to delete. I've offered her a reasonable way out. You've said that a sentence on this conflict is desirable, and I don't doubt her familiarity with the subject of Chip Berlet. So all she has to do is write that sentence and if it is NPOV I will have no reason to support restoration of the Chin quote. Andyvphil 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

An editor just added "Category:Conspiracy theorists" to the Chip Berlet article; I removed it. Chip Berlet is not himself a conspiracy theorist, i.e., one who speculates about conspiracies to act or conceal actions; he studies conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. More of a conspiracy theorist theorist, but let's not get too meta; I've removed the category. --lquilter 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A second editor has now added the category, stating "restore -- he advocates the "Jeremiah Duggan" conspiracy theory, which is on Wikipedia's list)". This isn't documented anywhere in the Berlet article and should be removed, at least until and unless it is documented; and arguably until it is one of the major things he is known for. (Categorization shouldn't be used for relatively minor aspects of someone lest it lead to category bloat. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Overcategorization.) However, in the interests of harmonious editing, I'm raising it here rather than reverting again. --lquilter 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the documentation, and it was immediately deleted by Tom Harrison [37]. --NathanDW 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am insufficently familiar with Duggan case to characterize CB's involvement as making him a "conspiracy theorist", but Nathan's actual text seems unexcptionable. It doesn't have to be "one of the major things he is known for" to justify a couple lines. Anyway, investigating LaRouche and publishing a report on him seems notable (and more power to him).Andyvphil 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone can check my German, but I don't think the source says 'conspiracy theory:' "Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise" I think is "Four years after the suicide of Jerimiah Duggan, the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents, but no new evidence."Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is probable (for the sake of argument) correctness of theory a bar to being a "conspiracy theorist"?... And the Wiesbadener Kurier is clearly saying "the murder conspiracy theory continues to find new adherents" even if Mordverschwörung could be translated in some other context without that word. It's not a cabal to kill Duggan thats getting new Anhängers, after all, but a theory of the LaRouche group's responsibility for it. Andyvphil 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The main issue here is original research. Please note that I have published only a few things about the Duggan case, and I pick my words carefully. Wiesbadener Kurier does not claim I am a conspiracy theorist regarding the Duggan matter. Only the LaRouchites rant in print about my connection to the Duggan case.--Cberlet 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
How does what the Wiesbadener Kurier says about Jeremiah Duggan tell us anything about Berlet? While the last sentence belongs in Jeremiah Duggan's biography, I'm not sure it belongs in Berlet's. If it does belong here, maybe what other news organizations have said about Duggan should also be presented, for balance. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem here with a category being used as a slur. "Conspiracy theorist" sounds bad, "Believes LaRouche thugs may have played a role in the death of Jeremiah Duggan", not so much. There's a problem with the way the category is set up that needs addressing... If the Wiesbadener Kurier is taking about "Justice for Jeremiah"'s allegations, and if CB associates himself with JfJ's allegations, then it's perfectly appropriate to quote the WK dismissively on JfJ's position here. If you asserted that Oswald probably didn't act alone it wouldn't be wrong (or WP:OR) to quote the Warren Commission dismissively on that theory merely because the WC didn't mention you. ... But I'm on board for an offsetting quote, showing support for JfJ's plausinbility, as TH suggests. Andyvphil 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a printed cite from a reputable source demonstrating that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations." I have been asked by Jeremiah's mother to provide two written statements for her use. I have done so. Please read them. They exist on the JFJ website. I have made other statements to reputable newspaper and magazine reporters. I have written a paper for a scholarly conference on antisemitism where I talk about LaRouche's antisemitism and the Duggan case. Feel free to cite them. The claim that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations" is false and original research.--Cberlet 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Now it's my turn to insist that I picked my words carefully. In particular, "if". There were several "if"s in my last post. I already said I was not an expert on the Duggan case. But neither is TH, and I did not have to be an expert on the case to see that his reasons for removing mention of your association with JFJ didn't hold water. As your reason for removing mention of WK's comment does not. What JFJ's exact assertions may be and the degree to which you have in fact associated yourself with them is something about which I claim little knowledge at this point. I did not revert WK's comment back into maintext for that very reason. But the actions you declare and the text at the cite clearly indicate some degree of association. Which doesn't seem disreputable to me. OR has nothing to do with this. Gotta run. Andyvphil 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison added the word "new" in front of evidence. There is no basis for this. "keine Beweise" means no evidence, period. I translated this headline for the other articles. I agree with Andyvphil that it makes no sense at all to say that the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents. The English term "conspiracy theory" is clearly what is intended. --Masai warrior 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has objected to your translation of that, though (see Talk:Jeremiah Duggan), arguing that the English "conspiracy theory" is stronger than the phrase used by the newspaper. We should err on the side of caution, especially in a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I consulted with you before posting my translation.[38][39] And here is my response to Mr. Diderot on the Talk:Jeremiah Duggan page: "I am an experienced translator. I would always use a cognate when appropriate. However, an important feature of translation is to take into account the context. That is why Babelfisch and other translation programs produce such comical results -- they simply attempt to translate word for word. I invite you to translate this headline into something that makes sense in English: Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben - Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise. If you come up with something better than what I have done, then by all means we should use your version." --Masai warrior 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It corroborates what was already pretty obvious -- that Berlet was promoting a conspiracy theory about Duggan's death. --NathanDW 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What source does it corroborate? Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It corroborates the conclusion that may reasonably be drawn from the material in the article Jeremiah Duggan. The police rule the death a suicide. Additional investigations by German authorities arrive at the same conclusion. Despite all this, a group of people refuse to accept these conclusions, and began to suggest other scenarios, including suicide caused by "mind control" (see Schiller Institute) and also murder. They also theorize about possible motives. Compare this to one of the classic conspiracy theories, that of the JFK assassination conspiracy, which follows the exact same format: the official explanation is rejected in favor of alternate theories (usually with some kind of political agenda.) --NathanDW 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is precisely the type of bogus faux logic employed by conspiracy theorists. See Conspiracy Theory. The source corroboration here is interpolated from existing anecdotal information in a manner that implies logic yet, if diagramed, reveals itself to be a disconnected fallacy. Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism!--Cberlet 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
When some reliable source draws that conclusion, and applies it to Berlet, you may have something that doesn't violate policy. From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey! That's what I said, only in plain English. No fun at all.--Cberlet 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd have been a fool to try to beat Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism. Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I just coined the phrase. Now I just have to find a way to use it in a reputable printed published source...--Cberlet 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
CB has, by providing two written statements to JD's mother "for her use", associated himself with the claim that his death was improperly investigated. WK says this is a crackpot endeavor. Ergo, WK is commenting on CB's actions. Which answers your question. Andyvphil 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It also refutes the edit memo on SlimVirgin's latest revert: "(that has nothing to do with this article)". --NathanDW 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, both the above claims by Andyvphil and NathanDW reflect original research, as patiently and pecisely explained by [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]. No original research -- not a steep learning curve.--Cberlet 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. In order to be OR, by the quote TH has provided, there has to be a "position C". (a)To quote SV,[40] "Berlet has lent support to a campaign run by relatives of Jeremiah Duggan...". (b)For context, WK is quoted saying the campaign is based on myths without evidence. I've already stated that I'm in favor of a second, contrary quote, assuming a suitable one can be found. (c) There is no (c). Andyvphil 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased language

"The British student was ruled to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. The conclusion by law enforcement authorities is being challenged by Berlet and others."

The text above is biased and misleading. The following is factual and NPOV:

"The British student was ruled by German authorities to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. A British coroner rejected the suicide ruling."

I hope this can be changed, and hope the constant attempts by LaRouche apologists to add misleading and POV material stops.--Cberlet 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet's prefered version doesn't mention Berlet. There should be some mention of the role Berlet has played in the affair, and the specific accusations he has made. --NathanDW 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware that he has made any. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way is the first version biased and misleading? --MaplePorter 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention in article of prolific Wikipedia contributions

Noticing how a prominent contributor to the Norwegian Wikipedia, the late Tron Øgrim, who was also a somewhat noted public figure has his Wikipedia effort mentioned, shouldn't the same be allowed in the case of Berlet. At least it is my impression that his Wikipedia efforts have been considerable. __meco 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be against that unless there are reliable sources who talk to that point. Anyways, --Tom 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I restored some criticism from Leftists, since the present criticism section makes it appear as if Berlet only has critics on the Right. Also, according to WP:LEAD, notable criticism should be reflected in the intro. Why is there none? --MaplePorter 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That sourced you provided looks very questionable, wp:el, imho. --Tom 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Portland Free Press

SlimVirgin says that the PFP was "self-published." I don't know much about it. Is there evidence that it was self-published? In this cite a man named Per Fagereng is described as a senior editor at the Portland Free Press. In this cite Ace Hayes is also described as an editor. Likewise in the Willamette Week obituary for Hayes, which describes the Portland Free Press as "far-out" but says that Hayes "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia." --MaplePorter 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This suggests it was self-published. And if the best that can be said of a source is that he "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia," he's probably not appropriate per BLP. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it looks like a one-man show. --MaplePorter 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Prouty

We should all certainly be careful with the reputations of living people. It's verifiable that Prouty has had certain associations. It's reasonably verifiable that the subject, Chip Berlet, objected to those associations. The article is about Berlet so we need to keep our focus on him. Berlet's departure from [the PIR board] was apparently related to Prouty's "objectionable" activities. If that was his reason, then we should report that in a way which conveys that his reasoning may not have been the obejective truth. That's what we'd do with any article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I made this small but very important correction above.--Cberlet 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The conflict between Berlet and Brandt goes way beyond this single incident; is documented both in places that Brandt would like to bury as he "reavealed too much about himself" and in places some people feel wikipedia is better off not naming; is something wikipedia perhaps should not go into due to BLP concerns as it fundamentally consists of mutual accusations of political immorality between two seminotable people who formerly found common cause in left-wing political activism; and therefore needs careful editing. While I prefer my edit to the paragraph, I feel Will Beback's edit is within the BLP policy and I will not revert it. WAS 4.250 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved mysteries

The edit history of this article has been wiped clean from June 23 to July 22. Does anyone know how or why? --Don't lose that number 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Was the page protected or something? I know this bio is related to Daniel Brandt(sp) old article so maybe thats the rub?? I have NO clue but HATE when ANY history is removed. Thanks! --Tom 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

geocities links are garbage, and not appropriate for this project, period. Thanks! --Tom 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked an admin, Will Beback, about a similar situation, and he indicated that anonymous sites were still permissible under WP:EL (see [41].) --NathanDW 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I protest that gross mischaracterization of my response. All I did was direct you to the WP:EL guideline. Which, if you read if carefully, makes it clear that a one-person, anonymous attack site is inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
geocities is still garbage and is still not appropriate for THIS project. Anything else? Cheers! --Tom 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consolidate

I see that the "further reader" section is all links. I would rather those get merged back into the main body of the prose as <ref> references.--SallyForth123 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http and .com

Let's try to keep http and .com out of the visible text and the prose. Right now, the visible text is free of them and the external links section is short. Neato.--SallyForth123 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews of Right-Wing Populism in America

The only current review of Right-Wing Populism in America is a negative one:

Reviewing Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Robert H. Churchill of the University of Hartford criticized Berlet and other authors writing about the right wing as lacking breadth and depth in their analyses, failing to make contact with significant figures in the movement and conduct significant research on the Internet, and for providing analyses of far right movements that proscribe as "racist" a broad range of conservative political ideologies that are "driven more by the association of the author with various civil rights organizations and leftist political activists outlined in the acknowledgements than by the primary evidence presented in the footnotes."

Most of the published reviews were very positive. I think a little balance would be nice.--Cberlet 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete research and cites on Nader/Milliken

I removed the following link that was being used as a reference. Hope this was ok. Thanks, --Tom 14:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the text of the article in The New Republic specified by the ref it was included in, not an email (as you suggested in your edit comment). I've removed the long-standing text claiming that Berlet criticized Nader for accepting support from Milliken since it was not supported by the cites. The only real support for the current text is the "New Politics" cite. but I left (actually improved what was an indirect mention) the New Republic cite in as a resource for someone who wants to improve this stub of a subject. The maintext could be improved if we had a cite for NP's claim that Berlet was cited as support for the claim that M supported N. If it happened anyplace else than Wikipedia, that is. (Is this a case of the Heisenberg principle? Was NP referring to WP misquoting TNR? I guess the dates don't work, but it's a charming thought...) Andyvphil 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a mess. There is ample evidence that M supported N (at times providing a car and driver), but the word "funding" in my mind means a transfer of money, which I never claimed. The TNR article made it seem I implied more. Hard to sort out. In part, the Naderite letter to TNR made it seem that I claimed more than I did.--Cberlet 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What TNR article is this? The Lizza article, assuming the topica copy is accurate, doesn't seem to imply anything much. Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is the result of very sloppy research, questionable use of the word "cite," and dubious POV juxtapositioning:

Berlet has been cited as a source for allegations that Ralph Nader has accepted funding for his projects from Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 Presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart. Berlet has also been cited as saying that he has no evidence of any such funding.

It makes it seem as if I made the claim despite having no evidence. Here is a factual text:

Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 Presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart. Berlet denies ever suggesting that Milliken funded Nader's work, although this is sometimes attributed to Berlet, who was quoted as saying he had no evidence of such funding.

The entire last sentence should simply be deleted, since it is based on one article's footnote that has been misinterpreted.--Cberlet 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CB: I take your point that, although I did not intend it, the two sentences I wrote could be read as saying you made the claim that Milliken funded Nader despite not having any evidence that he did. But it wasn't "dubious POV juxtapositioning" -- I was simply quoting the "New Politics" footnote virtually word for word, except for adding the identification of Millikin. The footnote reads: "Chip Berlet, a researcher and writer on right-wing movements, who has been cited as a source for Milliken's funding of Nader projects, told Walter Contreras Sheasby that he has no evidence of any such funding". Note the use of "cite" in the original.
The reason I replaced "Berlet has more recently criticized Ralph Nader for working with Roger Milliken on antiglobalization issues.[8][9]" was that, as I have already pointed out, the sentence was not supported by the two citations provided. Your proposed replacement "Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken..." has the same problem -- I believe you when you say you've done it, but I shouldn't say so in the article unless I have a RS saying you've done it. And I don't think I can use this page as my RS. So, can you provide citations for your paragraph?
And, no, I didn't engage in "very sloppy research [or] questionable use of the word 'cite'". I didn't do or pretend to do any substantial research at all beyond that necessary to determine that the two citations provided did not support the assertion that you had criticized Nader. There was a blog pointing at the New Republic article which, when I found the text at topica, said nothing more than that you found it odd to be picked up by a Milliken lobbyist when you went to visit Nader (not in itself a criticism of Nader). And there was the "New Politics" footnote which I essentially simply repeated. Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't rate a paragraph in his biography that Berlet is mentioned in a footnote, and in passing in the New Republic. I don't know enough about Nader to say whether it belongs in Nader's biography or not.

I removed the link to lists.topica.com. It's not necessary since we can just cite the New Republic. There is no way of knowing if it is an accurate copy of the article, and even if it is it says at the bottom "(Copyright 1999, The New Republic)". If this is someone's copy and paste it's a copyright violation, right? Tom Harrison Talk 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point, as usual. The New Republic article, as I explained 27 August, isn't even a source for anything I wrote. The actual source for the revised paragraph was solely the New Politics footnote, which mentions the TNR article, and I provided the link to the text of the latter "as a resource for someone who wants to improve this stub of a subject" (see above). The subject is not the footnote but whether Berlet alleged Milliken funded Nader and whether he criticized Nader for being involved with Milliken. We have a RS alleging the former (presumably wrongly) and we have CB alleging the latter (presumably truthfully, but we don't as yet have a RS). Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the information about this matter is either on listserves and websites, or in printed publications not on the internet. Thus the problem of insufficient research. It is insufficient because it relies solely on what is easily found on the internet. Some of it is in Right-Wing Populism in America near the end of the book, in a discussion on Nader and Buchanan (pp. 338-344).--Cberlet 18:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My talk page comment (above) already stated the need to "improve this stub of a subject". There was no citation of any kind to support the statement that you had critcized Nader and I was surely required by WP:BLP to remove it. My replacement of that statement by an accurate paraphrase of the one RS that had been cited should not have been characterized as "very sloppy research, questionable use of the word 'cite,' and dubious POV juxtapositioning". You might consider an apology. Andyvphil 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You might consider doing better research before posting material on Wikipedia about me. The research was sloppy, the text misleading, and you might consider an apology.--Cberlet 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. I replaced unsourced contentious material (which policy says should be done immediatly and without discussion and, I might add, without waiting for further research) with an accurate and verifiable transcription of the underlying reliable source. If the result was misleading your argument is with New Politics, not me. Andyvphil 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is unsourced:
  • Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 Presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart.
The source for the subsequent passages doesn't mention any such criticism.[42] Can we find a source for Berlet criticizing Nader? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Source is: Right-Wing Populism in America(pp. 338-344). There are several other sources in print, but not on the internet.--Cberlet 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization

Might it be better to combine the sections Criticism and Political views into one section using his works in chronological order to present his views and notable criticism? Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Left vs Dropped Out

Subject of article claims to have dropped out [43] Uncle uncle uncle 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with summary of article

I don't think this is an accurate summary:

The point of the article is that conspiracy theories are not progressive, and antisemitic conspiracy theories undermine work that seeks justice for Palestinians. See the Rosenwasser quote. Also, the article ends with: "Fenster warns that if our ‘simple, populist narrative slips and becomes racist or antisemitic or exclusionary, then its power to affect positive social and economic change disappears’. The current summary makes it seem as if I support the Bush administration around Middle East policies and its claims about 9/11--which I do not.--Cberlet 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this: McCain, Robert Stacy. "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat", The Washington Times, May 9, 2000. Maybe stick to "main stream" articles rather than self published stuff. If this was from the washington times, can we cite that instead? Thanks, --Tom 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)ps Just to clarify, I was reffering to the web site and not the article. If we want to list this article, fine, but I would rather not link to a personal web site, thanks, --Tom 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it at the WaTimes site, feel free to switch. But McCain should be a RS for his own article in the publication he edits (WaTimes). Not aware that this violates any policy. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to deal with real life right now. My problem is linking to a self published site. I will try to find the article or maybe we can just list it as a footnote? Again, I am not really disputing the content, I just don't like any links to self created web sites. Does that make sense? Thanks and cheers, --Tom 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I have no objection to your preference, so long as it is expressed by finding a better source rather than in deleting reference to relevant material. Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2&oldid=1136610286"