Jump to content

Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 4

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

Investigative/Advocacy Journalist etc.

There has been a tussle over whether Berlet is an investigative journalist, an advocacy journalist, or something else. There is no source for either kind of journalist cited in the article. It does say that he once worked for High Times, which would make him an advocacy journalist, but that was a long time ago. According to his blog, he's a "human rights activist." That could be considered a contentious statement from a self-published source, but it's better than nothing. Waalkes (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Tussle? Do tell. Yes he once wrote an article for hightimes. There's this blue link at the bottom that links to a wiki page that contains his bibliography. It's interesting that you are going to use his blog it would seem his website would be just reliable. http://www.chipberlet.net/ It says he is a investigative reporter, independent scholar, photographer, videographer, and progressive activist. It also says he is a human rights activist.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Working for High Times would not make Berlet an advocacy journalist any more than working for Mother Jones or Playboy would. The association with a magazine is not what does it—it's the actual work performed by the journalist. We can simply throw out that unsupported bit of conjecture.
More to the point, your primary blog source has Berlet calling himself "an investigative researcher and reporter... an activist and organizer since the mid 1960s". So you haver personally elected to ignore the bit about being an investigative researcher and a reporter, and instead you have told the reader that Berlet is a "human rights activist". This shows you engaging in a non-neutral twisting of the source.
The source is in any case not what we want to use to define Berlet for the reader. We should be using WP:SECONDARY sources for that. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We should be but under the circumstances if no one has found any secondary sources these sources will suffice under my understanding of WP:BLPSPS. The thing that puzzles me is the logic behind removing the part about him being a photojournalist and investigative journalist. First was the push for him to be called an adcocacy journalist and then when a source couldn't be found all mention of his journalist career was removed to focus on activism. These changes are a bit suspect.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have a proper source, why are you saying anything at all about his profession? If some guy puts on his personal blog that he's the Amazing Spiderman, will Wikipedia put that in an article? But in fact, there is a secondary source, the Laird Wilcox book mentioned earlier. It describes Berlet as a "writer," which I think everyone can agree on, as well as "activist." For someone to claim "journalist" as a profession, he should be employed as a staff member of a reputable publication. It appears that currently Berlet is an unemployed blogger, but he used to work for PRA. 55 Gators (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@55 Gators:That was a proper source. If someone put's on his blog that he is the amazing spiderman that actual would would be an extraordinary claim. If someone has written for news paper, magazines, and other News media and claims to be a journalist that is not an extraordinary claim. Furthermore his self published sources do not violate WP:BLPSELFPUB. The last thing I would like to make clear is that your comment about his current career borders a wp:blp violation. You might consider deleting that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I also feel the need to point out that your comment, "For someone to claim "journalist" as a profession, he should be employed as a staff member of a reputable publication." is not very well thought out. Freelance journalist who make their careers as journalists do not work as staff members of for reputable publications. I'm also new to the whole requirement that you work with a reputable publication as there are numerous journalists that do not. Though as for reputable Chip Bertlet has done work for The Denver Post, AP, and numerous others.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Overy promotional.

Taken a load of self-referenced promo stuff out. No references as to why it was notable or relevant. Basically a list of 'Chip says this, Chip thinks that' almost all referenced to Chip himself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I did not insert that "self-referenced promo stuff", and while it was proper to delete it, the entry now primarily consists of references to obscure incidents and the views of critics while failing to include easily found sources of information about my 40 year career as a journalist, investigative reporter, and independent scholar. 20:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth, the *only* reason I left those for the moment was they had sources unrelated to the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Investigative Journalist & Scholar - Reputable Cites

It is relatively easy to find reputable citations for these descriptions. click here for reputable citations in books

See the Preface to Nella van Dyke and David S. Meyer, eds., Understanding the Tea Party Movement, Farnham and London: Ashgate, 2014.

See American Sociological Association. Annual Meeting-2013 Session Participant: Chip Berlet (Journalist); Section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements Invited Session: "Social Movement Scholars as Public Intellectuals"

The paper I presented at this session was revised for publication and appears as: "Public Intellectuals, Scholars, Journalists, & Activism: Wearing Different Hats and Juggling Different Ethical Mandates" in the international journal RIMCIS Chip.berlet (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to this article?

14,402 keystrokes later, I'm still not seeing a specific request for an edit here. If you want the article to read like a promotional blurb that you can use for commercial purposes (I see that you have helpfully included some examples), I think that would be a bad idea. 55 Gators (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and snide comments on the talk page. Thank you.Chip.berlet (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The request for needed edits is stated above based on the RFC question: Is this entry fair and accurate or biased due to a structural bias and dependence on selective framing? Perhaps we could start with a simple yes or no?Chip.berlet (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll say "yes." Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. Apologies.
A: This entry is fair and accurate
B: This entry is biased due to a structural bias and dependence on selective framing
A bit of cooperation would be appreciated.Chip.berlet (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I can help with at least some of your request. I have a busy string of real life assignments, then a few days of relative peace. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Chip.berlet (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that whoever selectively framed that weird picture of you with the friggin' turtle wasn't doing you any favors. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


I think that the article is too promotional in tone. Does that make me a "B"? I also think we should lose the bibliography. No other Wikipedia BLP has anything like that. Waalkes (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
PLEASE remove the bibliography page. It embarrasses me. Note that it served as a ploy to delete from this page links to my online bibliography and bio material at my websiteChip.berlet (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with deleting the bibliography page.Perhaps merging it with this page. But I see no reason to delete it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, Mr Berlet, your embarrassment isn't high on my level of concern nor should it be on any other editors. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Snide comments are not constructive. Please note that my entry is the product of repeated attacks by pro-LaRouchite editors (and others from my list of critics above), many of whom were sanctioned or banned over many years through normal Wikipedia review & mediation processes. My embarrassment is due to the fact that there is no reason I should have a separate bibliography page. It seems grandiose to me. I did not create it. A frequently updated bibliography already exists here.Chip.berlet (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't a snide comment. Your whining is neither constructive or productive. You are hardly the first author with a split biblio. The user that split your biblio got banned for being a sock. However I don't see this edit in question being in bad faith. The answer would be to maybe merge, but you feelings on grandiosity and embarassment aren't a reason to do so.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to unbiased edits

Badmintonhist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,179 bytes) (-426)‎ . . (Deleted material in lead about the recruiting of farmers in the Midwest into white supremacist groups because I don't see anything about this in body of article.) (undo) To delete something from the lead and not place it in the body of the article gives the impression of bias and bad faith. Let's not raise that issue. Just move it to the body of the article since it is properly cited.Chip.berlet (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Place it where in the body of the article? In what context and with what supporting facts? What we had there was the floating presumed fact that you were "known as one of the first researchers to have drawn attention to the efforts by white supremacist and antisemitic groups to recruit farmers in the Midwestern United States in the 1970s anf 1980s," sourced to a 21 year old article that is apparently unavailable on the internet. There was no cogent argument for including this in the lead as was/is. As for including it in the body we should have supporting facts for it. When and in what writings did you "draw attention" to this phenomenon? What reliable sources reported on your findings? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A 21 year old article and it's not availible on the internet? That's interesting. What's interesting is that is not relevent. However You'll never believe what I found on the internet with out any real effort. "Bridging chasms of race and hate" by Jason Berry. I found it in the archives of the publisher. Would you look at that? But then there's a pay wall. But I truly am fascinated to hear your explanantion of how a 21 year old article that isn't availible on the internet is not a reliable source. Wait is not good now because it's behind a paywall?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I congratulate you for going this far. Now perhaps you can complete the job by showing us where the Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg Times article tells us that Mr. Berlet is "known as" a pioneer in drawing attention to the recruitment of Midwestern farmers into racist and and antisemitic groups. Also, if this is feat is so prominent as to go into the lead of our Berlet bio, perhaps the TB Times and other reliable sources have some details about the the effort. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would I do that? You can read the source yourself. I gave you a link above. Why are you going on about the lead exactly? 2 editors have already said to stick in the body of the article. More details? Well if the article that you are about to read contains it maybe that is enough. We'll just have to wait and see. Then if you need more you could do something unsual and put effort in. You could ask Mr Bertlet if he's aware of any further reliable sources on this subject. But again that if it needs more.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This article now focuses on the negative and critics.

This article is a disgrace. It is now almost totally written from the point of view of critics. How many times over how many years do I have to waste time doing what Wikipedia claims it does--create fair unbiased entries?Chip.berlet (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be an often used but rarely useful comment from you. The major thing that needs to be taken care of immeadiately is that there are no BLP violations. Any other issues can be taken care eventually. The goal of wikipedia is not to finish this article today but to do so eventually.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And I'm not sure if I can answer your other question without it being a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
what Wikipedia actually claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho, note the comments on eventualism in WP:BLP#Balance. I have no idea whether critical views are disproportionately represented in the article as it stands, but if they are, it should be fixed as a matter of urgency by including independent third-party sources expressing more positive viewpoints. Andreas JN466 10:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This complaint are very broad. They mirror the complaints of this user and also another former user cberlet. The only area as of now that seems to have a overly negative and unbalanced section is "reception". That is not the total article and editors have responded quickly. And as I did say, If it doesn't relate to a BLP issue it can be taken care of eventually.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

lead

Journalists know the lead is for a simple synopsis of an article in order for a reader to see pretty much what is covered in that article - not for an exhaustive list of material in the article. I left in the PRA SPS reference to his being a worker there -- but that source is not of much value for anything else at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 07:55, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

I note the extensive laundry list of "occupations" was restored without discussion here, and that the SPS source was still in the lead. If a source would not be RS for a claim in the body of an article, it is not RS for a claim in the lead of a bLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure which jobs you are complaining about and how they would be exceptional claims or violate any other portion of WP:SELFPUB or WP:SPS.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not a "laundry list" to specifically mention what Berlet is notable for studying - extreme right-wing movements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, and I've restored it. Collect had no rational basis for his edits. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, is there a reason you deleted the npov template? As long as the reception section only contains criticism, I seriously doubt that the article could be said to be neutral. It seems implausible to me that someone as widely published should never have had a good word said about him. Andreas JN466 19:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It was deleted by mistake. Instead of tagging, can you just fix the section? Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed this to appeal to your concerns. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that was one of the sections I thought was over the top. Very weak allegations rather than analytical criticisms. I have ordered some books through interlibrary loan that have criticisms by scholars who make some sharp but valid points.Chip.berlet (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't contest the removal. I had questions in my mind of undue weight with the high focus on Wilcox. Still I have to question if your comments are fair, Chip. The criticism that remains is about your perceived technique of "Links and ties". The criticism removed seems to use a links and ties method. But again that's not to contest it's removal. You have come out publicly about Wilcox. I wonder if your criticism is fair. But I also have to add there is no reason to only add only Criticism. This is a reception subtopic. Praise can also be added. You may have also been given a Mixture of praise and Criticism that can be added. For NPOV a balance of both would be needed. As this article is a BLP NPOV is exceedingly important.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If folks want to restore the criticism of Laird Wilcox I have no objection. I appreciate the irony of Wilcox using the same method criticized in his criticism. Yet I note that I have two books, not three, and both Right-Wing Populism in America and Eyes Right received the Myers Award which led to the Drylongso Award.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I note that your do not object to the Wilcox material - and that there is no "consensus" that the Wilcox opinions cited as such ought not be in this BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I agree with the removal just on different grounds. I think your awards have a place in the article. I'm not sure though they offer meaningful commentary on your reception. I'm not sure what the Myers award is but believe you are talking Drylongso award from CCI. This is not to lessen the prestige of the awards. Just all that is communicable is that you won them. Wilcox comments are more perceptible. I'm not sure mentioning your awards does anything to balance the criticism.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Serious Scholar Critics

Find some serious specific criticism of my work regarding the Militia Movement in this cite: Chermak, Steven M. (2002). Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement. UPNE. p. 92. ISBN 9781555535414. Also criticisms in Fenster, Mark. 1999. Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; and Durham, Martin 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.00:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Chip.berlet (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a link to "Bridging chasms of race and hate" that isn't behind a paywall or a copy of it that you can share without violating any copyright law? I'd also like to say this is a more productive use of your time than complaining about the state of this page. I do to say though that readability could definitely become an issue if you keep opening a new topic or subtopic everytime you make a post especially if the topic is being discussed in different area. Please take that into consideration.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about proliferating topics and subtopics. I will try to restrain my angst. :-) I will track down some hard copy or online archive material by critics and post the wording and cites here. Feel free to re-arrange my proliferated topicomania.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Although Chip's press releases tout him as a crusader against the Right, in the real world he is also known for persecuting Leftists who have "incorrect associations." I think the article should include some of the comments from Daniel Brandt [1] and Ace Hayes [2]. 55 Gators (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt and Ace Hayes are well known conspiracy theorists with marginal publications. The issue regarding Brandt and L. Fletcher Prouty was that he allowed his book Secret Team to be republished by a notorious Holocaust Denial outfit run by one of the leading antisemites in the world.Chip.berlet (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I will second that neither of those sources are close to being acceptable for claims about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. But even if those two people were reliable sources, Your choice of source material would be questionable. Brandt's is self published. Hayes material can't be authenticated. The page with Hayes material may be a copyright violation which would prevent us from linking Under WP:ELNEVERSerialjoepsycho (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip's denunciation of Brandt for being previously associated with Fletcher Prouty, who is denounced for once having made a business transaction with an organization run by an antisemite, seems like a textbook example of the "links and ties" technique. It's strictly guilt by association to avoid responding to the points made by Brandt. By the way, doesn't Brandt get any BLP protection on this talk page? As far as Chip's attacks on leftists, here is another source, Cult Rapture: Revelations of the Apocalyptic Mind by Adam Parfrey, Portland, OR : Feral House, ©1995, p 327:

"Another non-profit organization media star, Political Research Associate's John Foster "Chip" Berlet, has become something of a ubiquitous presence on establishment news shows and so-called progressive magazines, as an expert on the "extreme right-wing." Berlet stumps for the division of anti-establishment rightists and leftists at a time when even Republicans see the "Democratic" president as "Bush Lite." His pooh-poohing of "conspiracy theories" serves to question government skeptics rather than the government itself. Even though he's a prolific contributor to leftist magazines, Berlet's passionate defenses of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton protect rather than "question authority." Targets of Berlet's smears and criticism include Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute, Daniel Brandt, whose NameBase software is a leading resource for tracking government misdeeds, and Ace Hayes, the prolific Portland-area researcher. Both Brandt and Hayes insist that Berlet's past associations seem to render him a chip off of John Foster Dulles' block. Hayes and Brandt contend that the true division in the country is not between left and right, but between up and down, the haves vs. the have-nots." 55 Gators (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, can anyone explain to me how "links and ties" is any different than "conspiracy theories"? 55 Gators (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Links and ties being an opinion of Wilcox. Wilcox actually being a notable commentator.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Concise Published Bio Data from 2004

"Chip Berlet is Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a progressive think tank near Boston. He is coauthor, with Matthew N. Lyons, of Right-Wing Populism in America (2000) and editor of Eyes Right! (1995). Both books received the Gustavus Myers Center award for the study of bigotry and human rights in North America. Berlet has studied and written about the U.S. political right for over twenty-five years, with articles appearing in academic books and journals; popular magazines, including the Progressive and the Nation; and daily newspapers,such as the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Sun-Times. From 1977 to 1987 he worked in a multiracial community group organizing against a neo-Nazi/Ku Klux Klan movement that sought to block the integration of a southwest Chicago neighborhood." in Ferber, Abby L. ed. 2004. Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York, NY: Routledge, p. 269.

Note that I have two books in print, not three See also Selected journal articles at WorldCat

Chip.berlet (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mr. Berlet, but it really does look a little silly to have you on the talk page requesting that Wikipedia base your bio on commercial ad copy. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you calling commercial ad copy? His excerpt from the Book? Above someone is complaining about an SPS being used when honestly there no real controversy over his career claims. Hell go read above where someone claims that he can't claim to be a journalist because he never worked for a reputable publication on staff. That ignored of course his career working for numerous reputable publications. It also discounts the work numerous freelancers. There was a request above for him to provide some Non-sps reliable sources that reference his work. If you have an issue with the sources could you drop the trash talk and get to the point about what is wrong with them? Mr Berlet is that the Abby Ferber with the PHD in Sociology?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That link shows 32 books.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please just call me Chip. We all are all Wikipedians. Abby Ferber has a Ph.D. in Sociology and is Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Routledge is a well-known publisher of scholarly books. I rather liked the turtle photo, but I will round up some open source photos and plop them on the Commons. Thanks to everyone trying to improve this page and make it align with Wikipedia standards. (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

opinions sourced and cited as opinions

Can properly belong in a BLP. Opinion cited to named authors from the "Washington Times" was removed with an edit summary of Per NPOV concerns on talk, this claim from the Washington Times is extreme in and of itself. Removed. [3]


That editor than asserted that removal of the opinion was per consensus here -- Check the talk page. There is consensus to remove it.


I find no such consensus on this talk page, and suggest that it is improper to remove material which one editor describes as "extreme" where no such discussion is extant here. Cheers -- but when one asserts "consensus" and such a consensus does not exist, one risks being devalued for ones opinions. I oppose "criticism" which is not properly ascribed and cited as opinion, but where it is properly cited and ascribed, it is reasonable to include. Collect (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Scroll up to the talk page section titled lead. There's a small consensus on it's removal. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
And I would note that I demur and a "small consensus" is worth its weight in air <g>. By the way, the material is not in the lead at all. Collect (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Seems that I read in one of the rules that material should be kept unless it violates a policy. 55 Gators (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It carries enough weight to make the change. Your objection is noted. Revert it and join the conversation on it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
While Laird Wilcox was a prominent expert on "extremism" in the 80s, his more recent research receives little attention, and are restricted to sources like the Washington Times, and self-published works. The proper place for his comments is Wilcox's own article, where they are well presented. TFD (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Is he "noted in his field"? Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] seems to be the applicable part of policy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Wilcox opinion, is clearly labeled as such. I don't see anything remotely contentious that warrants a BLP removal. As far as criticism, it is fairly mild. Nor is the source, the Washington Times, impeached because they are owned by the "moonies". In fact, I'd appreciate it if people would stop referring to them as such, as it is clearly a pejorative term. We don't call Roma "gypsies", black people "niggers", jews "bagel biters" or a million other insulting phrases. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But the issue is how significant opinions reported in the Washington Times are. Incidentally, please do not use offensive racial epithets on talk pages. TFD (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no love for the Washington Times, but it is certainly no worse as a source than the rest of what is used in this article. A little over a third of the source citations are still to articles by Berlet or his organizations. It seems to be difficult to find commentary on Berlet that doesn't come from sources connected to the subject. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no commentary on Berlet except that provided by Laird Wilcox. Lot's of edtiors who defend groups targeted by Berlet and other experts on right-wing extremism think that neutrality means providing parity between experts and their subjects. But it does not. TFD (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no commentary on Berlet except that provided by Laird Wilcox -- I don't a problem with this. Wilcox is a subject matter expert, that is undeniable. Are there more subject matter experts with opinions? I'm not fond of using terms like I did above, however there are far too many editors who think "moonie" is ok. Those that have and read my comment, welcome to the proverbial brick.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no one complains about using his comments that were published in the book edited by Jeffrey Kaplan and Heléne Lööw. We just draw the line when he leaves the academic realm and talks to a former member of an defender of a neo-confederate hate group (according to the SPLC) writing for a Unification Church-owned newspaper of all things. I mean, how far from the mainstream is that? You still have not said whether the conversation was part of an editorial (and hence not rs) or part of an article. Do you think that writers of serious encyclopedias (or serious anything) comb through the Washington Times except to learn about the people who publish it? TFD (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In short -- TFD does not like "Moonies" despite the fact the topic has naught to do with the Moonies whatsoever, and the interview should stand on its own unless the Moonies falsified it. If that is the case, say so. Otherwise "IDONTLIKETHEM" is all I see here. did that paper misquote Berlet or not? Collect (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually just question the over reliance on Wilcox. Which overall isn't a major complaint. It probably would be if it continued further but would depend on extent. The only issue of parity I see personally is the absence of mixed reception or praise.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I never called them that. In fact you and Two kinds of pork are the only editors to call them that on this talk page. However, I do not think that views expressed only in a Unification Church paper carry any weight. And the same applies to any publication outside the mainstream. Mainstream sources of course carry minority views, and in fact I have no objection to reporting them. Weight and rs are of course two different policies. It may be that the story is rs - that depends on whether it is a news article or an editorial, which would be the case even if it were in the New York Times. So far you have not said which it is. TFD (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception section commented out

Criticism sections are deprecated, and the current "Reception" section is a criticism section in drag. It refers only to negative material, by a political opponent of Berlet's. That's scandalously unbalanced — well, it's hardly the whole story of the reception of Berlet's work, is it? Does anybody think it is? I see this is discussed above, but I don't think the section in its current state should sit there while we wait for some balance being hammered out.

My own opinion, though, is that we shouldn't have such a section at all. With the subject as politically polarizing as it (he) is, a separate reception section is bound to serve as something of a magnet for a slow edit war, and to create problems of demarcation between the sections. The ("generally favorable") reviews of Berlet's books are in the "Books and other writings" section — aren't book reviews part of the reception of his work? The material currently in "Reception", which addresses Berlet's writings in general, should be folded into the "Books and other writings" section as well, if it's deemed to be due at all. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

It is due. Berlet has a reputation for smearing a wide range of people using guilt by association and similar tactics, including so-called Paleoconservatives, non-conformist leftists, or anyone who breaks out of the controlled Democrat vs. Republican debate and starts questioning the power of the 1%. There are articles all over Wikipedia which feature Berlet's "criticism" of his political opponents, so I don't get why you should argue that he should be immune from criticism himself. However, it does make sense to combine "reception" with book reviews. 55 Gators (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That is the POV of supporters of the groups studied by Berlet, the SPLC, the ADL and other mainstream sources for right-wing extremism. But we are not supposed to provide parity between different views, but to provide weight in accordance with their acceptance. None of the criticism has much support in the mainstream, which is why we need to resort to using an article from the Washington Times. TFD (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The overall weight is still skewed. You have one commentator praising one of his books and then you have another commentator damning his career. Further Wilcox seems really to be given more weight. That should be fixed asap but I see no objection for it standing right now. I also question if the comments about Ralph Nader would be better served on the Ralph Nader article. They seem our of place to me here. The Jeremiah Duggan info belongs in a separate section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reduced Wilcox's section by removing the quote. His views of that "links and ties" argument don't merit more space in the article than the Library Journal and New York Review of Books combined. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That could be remedied by providing more content from the book reviews. However, the one sentence from the New York Review that is presently in the article is everything that the New York Review had to say on Berlet -- the bulk of the review is of two other books. And as it turns out, the quote attributed to Library Journal is unsourced -- a web search for that quote takes you only to Berlet's website. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We weight points of view based on their prominence in reliable sources, and Wilcox's view doesn't appear to be significant or broadly-held enough to merit more than a brief mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem that keeps cropping up in this discussion is that there doesn't seem to be much discussion of Berlet at all in reliable sources, which is why so much of the article is based on Berlet's own writings. Wilcox, whose commentary appears in the Washington Times as well as a couple of books, seems to be the front runner as far as "prominence in reliable sources" is concerned. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
A typical source writing about Berlet, Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right, p. 37, says, "Chip Berlet, an expert researcher and writer on the right wing...." Then it explains his categorizations of the Right.[4] That is the standard view. Laird Wilcox is in a distinct minority that questions the entire scholarship on right-wing extremism, except his own, not just Berlet in particular. It is questionable whether Wilcox's views belong in this article. Probably better to move them to an article about right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The article should take note of Berlet's attacks on leftists and moderates. There is currently no mention of this. 55 Gators (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for this? TFD (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Cult Rapture: Revelations of the Apocalyptic Mind by Adam Parfrey, Portland, OR : Feral House, ©1995, p 327:
"Another non-profit organization media star, Political Research Associate's John Foster "Chip" Berlet, has become something of a ubiquitous presence on establishment news shows and so-called progressive magazines, as an expert on the "extreme right-wing." Berlet stumps for the division of anti-establishment rightists and leftists at a time when even Republicans see the "Democratic" president as "Bush Lite." His pooh-poohing of "conspiracy theories" serves to question government skeptics rather than the government itself. Even though he's a prolific contributor to leftist magazines, Berlet's passionate defenses of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton protect rather than "question authority." Targets of Berlet's smears and criticism include Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute, Daniel Brandt, whose NameBase software is a leading resource for tracking government misdeeds, and Ace Hayes, the prolific Portland-area researcher. Both Brandt and Hayes insist that Berlet's past associations seem to render him a chip off of John Foster Dulles' block. Hayes and Brandt contend that the true division in the country is not between left and right, but between up and down, the haves vs. the have-nots." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55 Gators (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It does not say he attacks leftists and moderates, but that he attacks conspiracy theorists. Parfray says that Berlet's writings on conspiracy theorists "serves to question government skeptics rather than the government itself." That is not a mainstream view, it is what conspiracy theorists say. TFD (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be inserting your own opinions here. "Conspiracy theorist" is a convenient epithet and may be a BLP violation, so I would ease up on that. Although the source doesn't call the Christic Institute leftist, Wikipedia uses the term "progressive." The source uses the term "government skeptics," which seems fair. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I never referred to anyone as a conspiracy theorist, but said the argument is one that conspiracy theorists make. Berlet wrote of the Christic Institute, "The Christic Institute is something of a rarity among advocacy groups: starting out on the left of the political spectrum, over the years it was drawn into the conspiracy theories woven by the radical right."[5] These theories include a government cover-up of UFOs and their role in killing Kennedy. What mainstream source would criticize someone for opposing those ideas? Would we really put in something like, "Berlet has been criticized for not being a conspiracy theorist?" TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Berlet's former organization, the PRA, has been criticized for being conspiracy theorists.[6] Incidentally, I agree that the "links and ties" approach is also a form of conspiracy theory, in that it attaches exaggerated significance to very tenuous connections. It seems likely that there are opposing camps of activists here hurling the "conspiracy monger" charge at each other, and it is not our job to decide which camp is wielding the sword of righteousness. We should just proceed with the approach dictated by NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid weasel-wording." Instead of saying "has been criticized", write something like Stanley Kurtz writing in the National Review that mainstream view of Dominionism is a conspiracy theory. (I do not see where it mentions the PRA.) This is the same Kurtz who is trying to connect Obama to Bill Ayers. All you can say is that the right-wing fringe Berlet writes about do not appreciate his interest. NPOV btw does not mean we provide parity between mainstream views and fringe ones. TFD (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Berlet suggested that Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan were neo-fascists. Is that a typical "mainstream view" in your book? 55 Gators (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for that? TFD (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ummh, instead of niggling criticisms of each others Talk page comments can we get back to suggestions for changes to the article? What ought to be changed in the "Reception" section of the article and why? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I would remove it. Extremist groups do not like to be studied and a very few individuals have taken their side. But I think that discussion is more relevant to articles about extremism. Furthermore, criticism sections are always poor style. (No criticism section in the Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler articles for example.) TFD (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The comparison to Manson or Hitler is a little over the top, and the issue of a criticism section was resolved by combining both positive and negative assessments under "reception." I see no problem with that. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is weight. On the one hand the overwhelming majority of scholars see him as a leading writer on right-wing extremism. On the other hand a very few scholars dismiss the main scholarship in the field, of which Berlet is a leading member. Really the place to present these tiny minority views is on articles about extremism. Otherwise, we would take a couple of obscure articles by Wilcox and others and add them dozens of articles, which is a violation of neutrality. TFD (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You're making some rather grand assertions. It would be helpful if you could cite some specifics. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It is just a summary of what I have outlined above. You made the comment at NPOVN "King, Berlet et al. are simply political activists who have been published in books, no different than LaRouche in that regard." That shows an ignorance of the subject and I do not see that conversing with you would be productive. TFD (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to ask TFD if he wanted to eliminate the material from the Library Journal, The New York Review of Books, and Contemporary Sociology along with the negative criticism in the Reception section, but since TFD does not want to converse with fellow editors then perhaps we should just drop the whole thing and leave the article as is. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The article now presents a one-dimensional picture of Berlet as a guy who is simply out there opposing right-wing extremists, which is incomplete and misleading. I offered the Adam Parfrey book as a source to improve the article. Is it acceptable? 55 Gators (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No. We do not provide parity between mainstream and fringe views. TFD (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you never offer any sources. You just give your own opinion, which apparently you believe defines the "mainstream." I found some more useful sources, which reinforce what the others say: "More damning, however, are charges made by Alexander Cockburn that Berlet overemphasizes the threat of small, marginal groups, and minimizes real centers of power and the abuses they perpetrate. In his long running column in the Nation, Cockburn accused Berlet of serving as an apologist for the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith (ADL), which in 1993 was indicted for collecting and distributing illegally obtained information and for running a private spy ring covertly associated with police departments that infiltrated and carried out surveillance on private, legal organizations opposed to or merely critical of Israel. Berlet, Cockburn alleged, had assumed the ADLs "old trick of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism," and during the reaction against following the disclosures of its intelligence operation, Berlet's apologetic criticism "edge[d] any uncompromising criticism of the A.D.L. into the verboten zone of kookdom." Ultimately, Cockburn asserted that Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing the New Alliance Party and LaRouche, whose deeds are entirely insignificant beside the deeds of Israel." Ironically, Cockburn has accused Berlet of the same crime for which Berlet condemns conspiracy theory: misidentifying the enemies of democracy in general and the left in particular, and paying too much attention to individuals and groups that are far less important in the struggle to achieve positive social change." pp 59-60, Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture by Mark Fenster, U of Minnesota Press 1999. Then there is this one: "Chip Berlet, perhaps believing that it takes a conspiracy theory to fight a conspiracy theory, took it one step further by arguing that the Right was seducing and disrupting the Left with conspiracy narratives (e.g., 1994)." p. 100, Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture by Jack Z Bratich, SUNY Press 2008. 55 Gators (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Alexander Cockburn was certainly a prominent, though hardly an even-handed or "scholarly", political commentator. His take on Berlet is probably worth a brief mention by, I would suggest, combining it with Wilcox and George's criticism in a sentence or two. Let's be pretty concise in both the positive and negative takes on Berlet's work. We are not talking about Orwell or George Kennan. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I have presented enough evidence to support two basic points: that Berlet is not simply an anti-Rightist, but also targets leftists and moderates including Daniel Sheehan, Daniel Brandt, Ace Hayes, New Alliance Party, LaRouche(?) -- and also that Berlet has been accused of using the same conspiracy theory methods that he denounces. Here's another instance, where David Horowitz refers to Berlet as a "leftwing conspiracy theorist": http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16570 55 Gators (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A more accurate statement would be that he writes about people who believe in conspiracies, including those who were once on the Left. Sheehan for example was a UFO enthusiast, Larouche claims that Elizabeth II runs the international illicit drug trade. TFD (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant policy is "Due and undue weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
In his book Fenster describes Berlet's views and says "his is an important and generally worthy critique of the politics of conspiracy theory." He then says he is "not without his critics in both conspiracy-fearing and progressive circles." But the nay-sayers, Alexander Cockburn and Laird Wilcox, are well outside the mainstream, if the mainstream is defined as groups such as the ADL and SPLC, and major news media such as Fox News, NBC ant the New York Times.
Here are a few quotes from Wilcox's The Watchdogs: A close look at Anti-Racist “Watchdog” Groups (1999):
These government statistics clearly establish that ethnic violence against whites is far, far more prevalent and far, far more deadly than so-called “hate crimes.”
Even if an Oklahoma City-style bombing occurred every year, the casualties would remain but a fraction of those attributed to ethnic gang violence in that same period.
At least part of the Canadian neo-nazi movement, it turns out, may have been a black operation operated by the Canadian Jewish Congress.
Whether true or not, Wilcox'a views are in the minority.
TFD (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Your criteria for what constitutes "mainstream" seem peculiar. For example, why would the Washington Times be out of the mainstream, while Fox News is in it? I can't discern a lot of difference between the two. And why would you choose the ADL as a representative of the mainstream? They went through a domestic spying scandal in the 1990s which thoroughly discredited their claims to be a "human rights" organization, demonstrating that they are more some sort of private intelligence service (like LaRouche's group.) Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE which will explain it. I notice you brought up Hayes's article, "Berlet for Beginners" which says, "a cog in the Imperial Secret Service, which is documented in Mr. Herbert Quinde's sworn affidavit in the LaRouche federal appeal."[7] Quinde was a Larouche aid. Even people like Hayes, Larouche and Quinde do not claim they are mainsteam, they attack the mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't mentioned Hayes. When I think of "mainstream," I think of something like the New York Times or LA Times. Certainly not the ADL. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholar?

I don't know anything about this person, but reading the Background section of this article it appears he doesn't have any academic degree. If this article isn't missing any information, then the description should be removed unless there is some specific non-academic definition of scholar in mind (it's still unsourced though).

Also is the investigative research analyst a meaningful primary title? According to citation number 2, it was his job title at the Political Research Associates, so it seems to be tied to a certain organisation instead of a general title like investigative journalist. --Pudeo' 15:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and removed the desription 'scholar'. It was especially redundant as 'writer' stays. --Pudeo' 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Berlet has written peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals and articles for encyclopedias[8] and is considered one of the leading experts on the far right in the United States. His writings are frequently referenced by other scholars. TFD (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it seems. I wonder if it's a standard practice that writers without a degree write in academic journals. But clearly atleast it's a sign that those journals in question respect him. --Pudeo' 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Berlet is an independent scholar, trained in the School of Hard Knocks. He is not your typical scholar who follows a predictable academic career arc. The reason Berlet is a scholar is that his writings have been included in other scholarly works, his writings have been cited by scholars in their own works, and he is described as a scholar by many sources.
There are more of these kinds of writings that I could bring here, and more examples of the media calling Berlet a scholar, but I think this amount is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Library Trends, despite its silly name, is one of the leading professional journals in my field. The places he is publishing all appear to be solid scholarly outlets. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Pudeo', it is unusual for people without degrees to get their papers published, although apparently some doctoral students do.[11] Realistically, one would need to devote a lot of time to be familiar with all the relevant literature, and preferably have an assistant. TFD (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence of the lead is awful; way, way too "busy". The career titles, many of them overlapping, should be streamlined and the specific areas of his research/writing should be saved for other sentences. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased Editing is Unbalancing this Entry with Criticism...Again

Seriously, how many times do I have to object to the relentless attempts to emphasize criticism of me in this entry while removing numerous cites that document my work.

— Chip.berlet — continues after insertion below The request above was made with a level-1 header at the same time as all the sections now within it below; I have reformatted them. Chip, there is no specific request of the form "please change this to that", such as we usually receive. There was only a request for comment, which editors dealt with at the time. I am turning off the edit request because, although there is a lot of data, we don't know how you want others who are already using their own independent judgment to use your long list of new points. You also said later that this page had been much improved. Please use Template:Request edit again if you have some specific text change to suggest for this article. You might also want to read Help:Merging. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been a paid professional journalist since 1967. My byline has appeared in The New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun–Times, Des Moines Register, Columbia Journalism Review, Amnesty Now, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Progressive, New Internationalist, Tikkun, Chicago Reader, Chicago Lawyer, The Humanist, Greenpeace Magazine, Boston Phoenix, Pacific News Service, The Guardian (NY), WIN Magazine, In These Times, Boston Real Paper, CovertAction Information Bulletin, National Reporter, Liberation News Service, High Times, and Utne Reader among others.

As an independent scholar, here are some of my published book chapters and encyclopedia entries, most of which are verifiable on WorldCat:

Chip Berlet. 2014. “Heroes Know Which Villains to Kill: How Coded Rhetoric Incites Scripted Violence,” in Matthew Feldman and Paul Jackson (eds), Doublespeak: Rhetoric of the Far-Right Since 1945, Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag.

Abby Scher and Chip Berlet, 2014. “The Tea Party Moment,” in Nella van Dyke and David S. Meyer, eds., Understanding the Tea Party Movement, Farnham and London: Ashgate.

Chip Berlet. 2013. “Repression, Civil Liberties, Right-Wingers, and Liberals: Resisting Counterinsurgency and Subversion Panics.” In Kristian Williams, Will Munger, and Lara Messersmith-Glavin, eds., Life During Wartime: Resisting Counterinsurgency, AK Press.

_______. 2013. “From Tea Parties to Militias: Between the Republican Party and the Insurgent Ultra-Right in the US.” In Sabine Von Mering and Timothy Wyman McCarty, eds., Right-wing Radicalism Today: Perspectives from Europe and the US. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2013.

_______. 2012. “Reframing Populist Resentments in the Tea Party Movement.” In Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party. Lawrence Rosenthal and Christine Trost, eds. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

_______. 2011. “Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium.” In Richard Allen Landes, and Steven T. Katz, The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-year Retrospective on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. New York: New York Univ. Press.

_______. 2011. “Muckraking Gadflies Buzz Reality” In Ken Wachsberger, ed., Voices from the Underground: Insider Histories of the Vietnam Era Underground Press, Part 1, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univ. Press, pp. 267-297.

_______. 2010. “The Roots of Anti-Obama Rhetoric.” In Donald Cunnigen, Marino A. Bruce, eds. Race in the Age of Obama, Vol.16, Research in Race and Ethnic Relations, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 301-319. _______. 2009. “Violence and Public Policy,” in Criminology and Public Policy, special issue on terrorism, Vol. 8, Issue 3, (October), pp. 623-631.

_______. 2008. “The United States: Messianism, Apocalypticism, and Political Religion.” In Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, and John Tortice, eds., The Sacred in Twentieth Century Politics: Essays in Honour of Professor Stanley G. Payne, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 221-257.

Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. 2007. “Neo-Nazism.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 15 of 22 vols. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA/Thomson Gale, pp. 74-82.

Chip Berlet. 2007. “The New Political Right in the United States: Reaction, Rollback, and Resentment.” In Michael Thompson, ed., Confronting the New Conservatism. The Rise of the Right in America. New York, NYU Press.

_______. 2005. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” In Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion, London: Routledge, pp. 175-212.

_______. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman and Devorah Kalekin Fishman, eds., Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 115-144.

Chip Berlet. 2004. “Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements.” In Abby Ferber, ed., Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York: Routledge.

_______. 2004. “Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theories: A Narrative Form of Demonization and Scapegoating.” In Arturo de Hoyos and S. Brent Morris, eds., Freemasonry in Context: History, Ritual, Controversy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

_______. 2003. “Terminology: Use with Caution.” In Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds., Fascism, Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science. New York, NY: Routledge.

_______. 2003. “Apocalypticism,” “Report from Iron Mountain,” “Scaife, Richard Mellon,” “Secular Humanism.” Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Peter Knight, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

_______. 2003. “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopedia of Religion and War. Gabriel Palner Fernandez, ed. (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.

_______. 2002. “Encountering and Countering Political Repression.” In Mike Prokosch and Laura Raymond, eds., The Global Activists Manual: Local Ways to Change the World. New York: Thunder Mouth Press/Nation Books (with United for a Fair Economy).

_______. 2002. “Surveillance Abuse.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. David Levinson, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

_______. 2001. “Apocalypse,” “Nativism,” “Devil and Satan,” and “The Illuminati.” Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge

_______ (associate editor). 2000. “Apocalypse,” “Conspiracism,” “Demagogues,” “Demonization,” “Militia Movements,” “Populism,” “Survivalism,” Totalitarianism,” and “Year 2000.” Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements. Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.

_______. 1998. “Following the Threads: A Work in Progress.” In Amy Elizabeth Ansell, ed., Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. New York: Westview, pp. 17–40.

_______. 1998. “Who’s Mediating the Storm? Right-Wing Alternative Information Networks,” in Linda Kintz and Julia Lesage, eds., Culture, Media, and the Religious Right, Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, pp. 249-273.

Seriously, this is tiresome and frankly a disgrace.Chip.berlet (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cites to My Scholarly Work on Google Scholar

Cites to My Scholarly Work on Google Scholar Chip.berlet (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As a journalist

"Chip Berlet is a journalist and independent scholar studying rightwing social movements in the US. His writings on scapegoating, conspiracism, and apocalyptic aggression have appeared in popular and academic serials and books." Sabine Von Mering and Timothy Wyman McCarty, eds., Right-wing Radicalism Today: Perspectives from Europe and the US. Routledge, Abingdon, UK Chip.berlet (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Typical bio blurb found online

"Chip Berlet, an investigative reporter and scholar, has studied repression, right-wing movements, and political violence for over forty years. He was an associate editor of the Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements and recently authored the study “The United States: Messianism, Apocalypticism, and Political Religion” collected in The Sacred in Twentieth Century Politics. Berlet also coordinated and co-authored the revisions for the entry on “Neo-Nazism” in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica." San Diego Free PressChip.berlet (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

American Sociological Association

American Sociological Association. Annual Meeting-2013 Session Participant: Chip Berlet (Journalist) Section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements Invited Session. Social Movement Scholars as Public Intellectuals 

	Unit: Section Invited
	Scheduled Time: Sat Aug 10 2013, 10:30 to 12:10pm
	Session Submission Role: Panelist

The paper I presented at this session was revised for publication and appears as: "Public Intellectuals, Scholars, Journalists, & Activism: Wearing Different Hats and Juggling Different Ethical Mandates"

in the international journal RIMCIS

Other Scholarly Conference Papers

_______. 2011. “Bad ‘Banksters’ or Capitalism's Punch Line?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, session on “The Resurrection of America's Radical Right,” Las Vegas, NV, August.

_______. 2010. “Reframing Resentments in the Tea Party Movement: How Right-Wing Populists use Demonization, Scapegoating, and Conspiracy Theories to Justify Apocalyptic Aggression.” Paper presented at the conference on Fractures, Alliances, and Mobilizations: Emerging Analyses of the Tea Party Movement at the Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements, October 22.

_______. 2010. “Attacks against President Obama in the Right-Wing Media.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Thematic Session on “Countermovements against Citizen Rights,” Atlanta, GA, August.

_______. 2010. “From Tea Parties to Militias: Between the Republican Party and the Insurgent Ultra–Right in the United States.” Paper presented at the conference on the New Right-Wing Radicalism: A Transatlantic Perspective, Center for German and European Studies, Brandeis University, April 28.

_______. 2005. “Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium.” Paper presented at the conference: Reconsidering “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”: 100 Years after the Forgery, The Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, October 30-31.

Brenda E. Brasher and Chip Berlet. 2004. “Imagining Satan: Modern Christian Right Print Culture as an Apocalyptic Master Frame. Paper presented at the Conference on Religion and the Culture of Print in America, Center for the History of Print Culture in Modern America, Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison, September 10-11.

Chip Berlet. 2001. “When Hate Went Online.” Paper presented at the Northeast Sociological Association, Spring Conference, Fairfield, CT: Sacred Heart University, April 28. (Revised July 4, 2008).

_______. 1999. “Hate Crimes, Hate Groups, and Racial Tension in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood, 1978-1988.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL, August.

_______. 1998. “Y2K and Millennial Pinball: How Y2K Shapes Survivalism in the US Christian Right, Patriot and Armed Militia Movements, and Far Right.” Paper presented at the annual symposium, Center for Millennial Studies, Boston University, December.

_______. 1998. “Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism.” Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology (XIVe Congrès Mondial de Sociologie), International Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

_______. 1998. “The Ideological Weaponry of the American Right: ‘Dangerous Classes’ and ‘Welfare Queens’ (L’arsenal idéologique de la droite américaine: «classes dangereuses» et «welfare queens»). Paper presented at the international symposium, The “American Model:” an Hegemonic Perspective for the End of the Millennium?, (Le «modèle américain»: une perspective hégémonique pour la fin du millénaire?), Group Regards Critiques, Univ. of Lausanne, Switzerland, May 12.

_______. 1997. “Fascism’s Franchises: Stating the Differences from Movement to Totalitarian Government.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Toronto, Canada, August.

Chip.berlet (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How Structural Bias and Selective Framing Trumps Fairness and Accuracy in this Entry

A considerable portion of this entry is biased by the selection of my publications and public life that focus on controversies which play a relatively small role in my professional life as a journalist, scholar, and researcher. In this way the entry allows biased editors to quote at length from a relative handful of critics in a way that suggests that these controversies and criticisms accurately reflect the totality of my work and the fact that it is generally respected by my colleagues in journalism, scholarship, and research. The criticisms generally come from a few sets of tendencies:

  1. Conspiracy theorists
  2. Defenders of persons or groups I have criticized
  3. Authors who despise anyone on the political left as an “extremist.”
  4. Red-baiters who make false allegations about me as supporting Stalinism, Leninism, Communism, Totalitarianism, etc.

Chip.berlet (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind the BLP policies, but let ask you to speak more directly. Which of these are sources we can disqualify, based off which relevnet wikipedia policy,and why do you feel that policy applies to said sources?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this entry fair and accurate or biased?

Is there a Structural Bias and Dependence on Selective Framing? 

Chip.berlet (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments--- The lead is overly long and detailed for an article of such modest length. Otherwise the article looks OK to me except for the final portion of the article starting with Ties and Lies section. In this one sentence section and the sections below I see what appears to be cherry picking of sources and info added only to create drama and controversy by giving undue weight to minor aspects of a very full and prestigious career. PS I also think the photo is inappropriate as well.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_4&oldid=1178179054"