Talk:Fred Newman (philosopher)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old comments

To say that Newman has consistently "challenged" the Democratic Party is slightly misleading, as he is an obscure figure with little political influence; he has certainly consistently "criticized" it -- I was wrong to remove that originally.

However, the second clause is absurd: "therefore is routinely attacked by the the left-wing press." First off, there's nothing routine about it -- it happens occassionally. Secondly, he's attacked for his highly-controversial methods of "therapy" and authorian political organization, not for attacking the party. Moreover, many of the writers who've gone after him are themselves no fans of the Democratic Party (Doug Ireland comes to mind). You may think that's why he's attacked, but lacking some citation, you don't get to suggest it in Wikipedia, and you certainly don't get to present it as fact.

RadicalSubversiv E 20:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the "Dr." in front of Newman's name but added below that he has a Ph.D. from Stanford University in philosophy and taught at several universities. The "Dr." in a paragraph related to Newman's psychotherapy practice would lead one to assume that he is either a psychiatrist or a Ph.D. clinical psychologist; he is neither. I also restored the wording about Newman (and some of his plays) being regarded by some as anti-Semitic (and not just anti-Zionist). Although Newman has expressed anti-Zionist beliefs he has also gone far beyond this and expressed negative remarks about the "Jews as a people" and "the dirty Jew" (his words). Also his plays have been criticized for their negative portrayal of Jews in general, not just (or even primarily) because of anti-Zionism. There are many people strongly critical of Israeli policy who have criticized Newman for his anti-Semitic remarks; for instance, Chip Berlet and Doug Ireland.

-- 17 Oct 2005

Deleted the reference to New York Times review of a Castillo play since the play was not by Newman. If there is a wikipedia entry on Castillo Theatre the review of this play, "Robin Hood," should certainly be mentioned. I will look for a comparable review of a Newman play to cite.--13 Jan 2006 [Subsequently added quote from favorable Christian Science Monitor review of Newman's "Sally and Tom"]

The No Room for Zion play very clearly refers to a shift in Jewish attitudes in the 1960s, not the 1940s. I reverted the date.--18 Jan 2006

Newman's town house

It was legitimate to remove the street number of Newman's house, however it was not legitimate to remove the fact that it is a communal townhouse where he lives with former therapy patients. This speaks directly to one of the key criticisms of Newman and other social therapists--that they do not recognize the need for boundaries between therapists and patients. The existence of this communal arrangement has been reported in The New York Observer, the New York Times, the New York Post, on NY1 News (in an award-winning series) and in other media. I restored the fact that the townhouse is in Manhattan but without giving any more specific location. Given that Manhattan is the psychotherapy capital of the world, the fact that Newman lives in Manhattan is certainly relevant.--8 Sept 2006

Newman and various investigations

I removed a recently added passage that said Newman had been cleared by investigations at the IDA and the NYS AG's office of claims by Dennis King. There is no evidence that the IDA or the AG's office ever even considered the claims by King much less investigated them. (The AG's office only investigated a single complaint by a single individual from California and found not that Fulani and Newman had good morals but simply that, in the single formal complaint made to the AG, involving kids from Oakland, Calif. who had returned to their home state almost a year previously, there were insufficient grounds for legal prosecution in New York State "at the current time.") Mayor Bloomberg himself told reporters (as quoted in the New York Sun, Sept. 14, 2006) that the IDA was not concerned with charges regarding Newman and Fulani because supposedly Newman and Fulani were no longer in the formal leadership of All Stars. The only investigation of All Stars that was at all concerned with King's allegations was the one by the NYC Department of Youth and Community Development. In that case, according to Tom Robbins writing in the Village Voice, August 23, 2006, ALL STARS WITHDREW ITS BID FOR A CITY CONTRACT TO RUN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RATHER THAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT SOCIAL THERAPY, THE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF ALL STARS OFFICERS AND STAFFERS, ETC.

Newman and Fulani's reputation in New York has become so odious that the only way Mayor Bloomberg and the IDA could sell the All Stars bond was by constructing a political spin fantasy (also known as a bald-faced lie) in which Newman and Fulani are no longer associated with All Stars. If the IDA now says All Stars is worthy of receiving a bond this says NOTHING about the morals of Fred Newman, since to the IDA Fred Newman no longer was a factor at All Stars as of 2006 when the bond proposal came under scrutiny, and thus would not have been investigated at all. The Newman follower who wrote the passage in question can't have it both ways: EITHER Newman is no longer with All Stars, in which case the passage is not relevant to his bio, OR ELSE he is still with All Stars, in which case the IDA made its decision on the basis of a lie and its "investigation" proves absolutely nothing.

The IDA has good reason to pretend that Newman is no longer with All Stars. Newman openly supports patient-therapist sex (NY1 News interview, "Psychopolitics" Oct. 31-Nov. 12, 2005), has bragged in the most repulsive way about his conquests of female patients (as in his article "Women I Live With" available at [1]) and was in charge of efforts by his International Workers Party to give legal and/or political assistance to child molesters. When small children are rescued from an unlicensed "child care" pigpen and found to be suffering from venereal diseases of the throat, defense of the child care operator on grounds of her "Constitutional rights" (by All Stars Attorney Harry Kresky and later-to-be All Stars board chairman Levy, whose firm handled the woman's public relations) can only be described as disgusting. (See Section III.B.3 at [2]). Everyone has a right to an attorney, but the provision of conspiratorial political defense of evil predators by a Marxist organization that claims to be devoted to children is another thing altogether.--18 September 2006

Article reverted to previous. Mr. King's somewhat confusing ramblings of September 18 in no way justify removing recent news coverage of three investigations that show no evidence of wrongdoing of any sort by the All Stars Project. This may not be good news to Mr King, who went to great effort to formulate the charges (see http://dennisking.org/), but his insistence on maintaining his bias, despite evidence contrary to it, is simply not even close to NPOV. BabyDweezil 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. King's charges were not the ones investigated by the AG. One of the AG investigations occurred in 2002, when King had not formulated any charges. The other AG investigation was based solely on a charge from a person in California. The IDA investigation (not a criminal one but merely due diligence) was only about All Stars' finances and did not look at King's report, which was presented to the IDA only three working days before a hastily scheduled vote. Furthermore, the IDA due diligence was performed by employees and appointees of the Mayor of New York, a close ally of Newman. See above. --18 September 2006

Mr King's attempts to distance himself and his voluminous report from the issue at hand are odd on a number counts. firstly, is that he is doing it here referring to himself in the third person. Br that as it may, Mr. King would be at pains to deny that he has been the singular driving force behind the extended coverage given to Newman on NY1 News, as well as his energetic atempts to present his views to any and every venue in which coverage of Newman appears, be it the media or the extended list of NYC politicians in possession of his report. [this being only the more recent history of his 30-odd year vendetta against Mr. Newman, dating back to when he and Newman were both products of the world of Marxist-Leninist fringe politics). Mr. King remains (perhaps the last) "turn-to guy when a damning comment about Newman or any of his associates is required by the press (his most recent appearance can be seen on NY1's coverage following the IDA approval of the bond issue [[3]], where he is quoted as follows: "There is a clear history of Newman exploiting children, teens and their parents as well as naive adult volunteers." This seems to be a view that has become limited to Mr. King solely at this point, and whatever dwindling number of politicians wish to continue to attach themselves to that dead-end road of mudslinging. BabyDweezil 02:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, when you get into trouble blame everything on a single conspiratorial person. Singular driving force? A single disgruntled individual? Hey, Baby Delano Newman (the "D" was the giveaway), what about Marina Ortiz and her http://ex-iwp.org site with its hundreds of original source documents and investigative journalism articles from all over the country revealing the sordid truth about your IWP and social therapy? What about all the published testimonies by former IWP members under their own names on Marina's site? What about victims of Newman therapy like Erika van Meir and other former Atlanta patients who have filed complaints with the Georgia Sec. of State? What about Jim Retherford, whose infant son you almost killed? What about Vashti Gitler? What about the late Bobby Cohen, one of your most devastating critics? What about Bill Pleasant who has fought Newman for over 15 years and knows more about Newman than King could ever know? What about Rhonda Robinson and Dennis Serrette? What about Michael Niebauer and Pam Rinando and Michael Zumbluskas and other New York Independence Party activists who saw their party hijacked and turned into a vote fraud machine by the Newmanites in the late 1990s and early 2000s and who have done voluminous research on this fraud? What about the many journalists on this story who did their OWN research, like Rita Nissan, Tom Robbins, Stefan Friedman, and earlier the great George Jordan of Newsday? What about the reporters for regional publications in Boston, Philly, etc. who have uncovered the pathologies of social therapy in their own cities? What about Chip Berlet and his powerful research reports on Newman's misdeeds? What about Kellie Gasink and her complaints that ended up with Fulani being fined for election fraud? What about Joe Conason and Wayne Barrett? What about the cover articles in the Nation and The New Republic that skewered Newman and the IWP? What about the reports by the ADL and by gay and lesbian groups and by the New Jewish Agenda? What about the scores of former Newman victims who pour out their hearts on Marina's website Forum every evening? Are all these people just making it up? Are they all just puppets of the evil Dennis King?--19 Sept 2006

Calm down, Dennis, your working yourself into a tizzy. "Are all these people just making it up? Are they all just puppets of the evil Dennis King?" Nah, its not that complicated. Just a bunch of people looking for either a quick buck, a quick path to political stardom, a quick journalistic "scoop," or just a plain old axe to grind, all taken in by your fraudulent and dishonest "research." No worries. The IDA, the NYS Attorney General, a bunch of NYS Supreme Court justices, and the general public have all issued their verdict on your "research." Thumbs down. And if the NY Press CluB makes Rita Nissan give her award back, the blood is on your typewriter :) BabyDweezil 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A description of publicly reported investigations, evaluations and due diligence examinations of All Stars from 1994 to 2006 has now been added to this article.--22 September 2006

Raving about "dirty Jews" is not a "tragic" vision

It is absurd to describe Newman's anti-Semitic rant as some kind of tragic vision. Wikipedia is not the Institute for Historical Review. I removed the phrase in question.--18 September 2006

Reverted to original. The sentence reads "and in his view, tragic post-war shifts in Jewish political alignments, both domestically and internationally." ie, *in Newman's view.* Your personal opinion of his view is really not the issue.BabyDweezil 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing about pointing out the FACT that the IDA and the AG's office never investigated Dennis King's charges and therefore their decisions say NOTHING about King's charges. There is nothing confusing about the FACT that the IDA took an official position that Newman was no longer involved with All Stars and therefore did not investigate anything about him before the 6-4 majority of mayoral appointees voted to approve the All Stars IDA bond. Furthermore there is nothing POV about saying that Newman used "harsh" language in his ravings about the "dirty Jew" who supposedly sells his soul to capitalism, etc. To call Newman's bigotry a "tragic" view is beyond bizarre. I am going to continue reverting Baby Delano Weezil's political spin as long as it takes.--19 September 2006

New Left, Old Left or "Left Behind"?

To take up a less heated issue. The groups squabbling for control of the left in the early 1970s were not really "New Left" but rather were either "Old Left" (CP, SWP, PLP, WWP, etc.) or groups that had evolved in directions the New Left participatory democracy folks of the Port Huron Statement would never have dreamed of (LaRouche, the Weather Underground). By this time the "New Left" types had long been shoved out of SDS and its surviving factions or else had been converted to the more radical ways of thinking of the post-New Left ultra-left (or had even themselves taken the lead in breaking with the New Left to form vanguard groups). LaRouche never regarded himself as New Left, nor could he since he evolved directly from the SWP into his own weirdness. So, I have changed "New Left" to simply "left-wing" which can designate any of the above permutations.--19 Sept. 2006

Lay Psychotherapy?

Removed the word "lay." This word is used in the term "lay psychoanalyst" to designate a person trained in psychoanalysis who does not have a medical degree. Since psychotherapists are a profession exclusively of non-M.D. mental health workers, the use of the word "lay" is redundant in this context. (I understand that Newman underwent some training at a psychoanalytic institute in the early 1970s, but he has never claimed to practice the methods of psychoanalysis since founding his own movement, and in fact does not do so.) I did not restore the word "unlicensed" since an additional change by the previous editor had added that information in a more appropriate place.--20 Sept. 2006

Evaluations and investigations of Newman's All Stars: the ongoing record

Deleted, although some usable information in there. This is a biography of Newman, not a forum for Dennis King to publish his speculations on various cases.

Would be acceptable if properly referenced, and absent the editorializing as to why particular cases resulted in no charges, and alternately, absent overstating NPOV comments about "seriousness" of ongoing cases.

If discussing ongoing cases (e.g., GA is claimed to be a site of one) provide a reference, and where public, the complainants. These supposed investigations are unverifiable absent sourcing.

When using phrases such as "Critics of All Stars have charged that..." name and source the critics. If it is only you, then use your name.

Every instance of an investigation resulting in no charges has some or another caveat editorializing about "why" that is so. This is not NPOV, and poor journalism. If you want to make a case, cite actual cases of finding of wrongdoing. As a great philosopher once said, "you saying it's so don't make it so."

Please dont turn this into a reversion battle--these requests are fully within Wikipedia guidelines.

First you complained because the article didn't include the record of All Stars investigations, and tried to put in baldfaced lies about the investigations (as by saying they refuted King's charges when in fact they never addressed those charges). Now when an accurate account of ALL the investigations is placed in the article you simply delete it. I'm restoring it and will put in citations over the next few days as well as making substantial changes in the wording and presentation; but delete it again, Fred, and I'll simply restore it again.--21 Sept.. 2006

Dennis--I'll accept on faith that you will provide references. in the meantime, reasonable edits were made, a fair amount of editorializing and speculating removed and references added. Changes include:

--A rather serious flaw in description of Vygotsky's work corrected. There's a sizable amount of Vygotsky material available, and the bulk of Vygotsky's work has been translated if you wish to further explore his work and background.

--The section referencing defenses of Tony Alamo, Branch Davidians etc reluctantly and provisionally removed pending your requested rewrite. As is, it is included simply to juxtapose in scare fashion with the All Stars work with youth, and does not clearly state that there isn't a shred of evidence that Newman shares the slighest bit of affinity or support with these groups or individuals, and that, in fact, every bit of evidence shows him to be diametrically opposed to their views. The "support" given was defense of groups or individuals against overeaching prosecution by various authorities, including the obvious murder of many children in the disastrous Waco situation. To present these situations that in any way implies support for these groups views, or implication in any crimes, is as absurd as accusing the ACLU of being pro-Nazi based on their involvement in the Skokie case. You are welcome to redo it; as it stands, its basically yellow journalistic technique.

--The Teacher's College report on the All Stars. Did you actually read it, Dennis? You SERIOUSLY misrepresented and falsified the report's findings; rather shocking for a veteran journalist. Corrected, with references provided. Probably too long, but mainly to put in the record your tendency towards misrepresentation of facts. That was pretty bad, and reflects poorly on the overall project.

I'm not sure of the meaning of your ongoing claims that "only" financial aspects were considered in investigations. Is the implication that ANYONE can get approval, as long as they demonstrate fiscal responsibility? This seems to be an unfounded speculation. Also, please provide references to your descriptions of the inner workings of the IDA process. BabyDweezil 08:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO ABOVE: To say that the previous editor "seriously misrepresented and falsified" the Teacher's College report is just another IWP lie. The previous version stated (in just two sentences, since the TC evaluation was being mentioned only in a list of other evaluations) that the TC report was "generally favorable" to the All Stars programs but that it did not address the allegations of cultism, unethical therapy and extremist politics in and around the Newman organization. Both of these statements are true. The TC report did NOT attempt to study whether or not the cultism and related allegations were true or false. Indeed, it only mentioned the controversy around Newman and his followers very briefly, citing their involvement in Independent and anti-establishment politics rather than the deeper allegations of cultism. (And even the single brief mention of politics did not address the issue of Newman and his followers' politics, since NO mention was made of their self-styled proletarian ego Marxist-Leninist ideology or of the existence of the "non-public" IWP which in fact controls all "public" organizations in the Newman network.)

I have no objection to BabyDweezi's expansion of the paragraph on the TC report; it is part of the record and its viewpoint deserves to be heard. But readers of this discussion page should note that IF the TC report authors had wanted to seriously examine the charges against the Newman network (and considering that All Stars works with kids, I think that the TC authors should have), they would have found a vast wealth of material about alleged Newman cultism and unethical psychotherapy available at http://ex-iwp.org and elsewhere, including cover articles from The New Republic and The Nation, the ADL report "A Cult by Any Other Name," the PRA report "Clouds Obscure the Rainbow" and many other scathing articles from newspapers all over the country, eyewitness-testimony articles by ex-Newman followers, the sworn deposition of Dennis Serrette, the scholarly book on political cults (including Newman's) by Tourish and Wohlforth, and on and on.

I am not aware that the TC team ever contacted a single one of the many ex-members of the IWP or ex-social therapy patients who had spoken out, and some of whom (like Bill Pleasant and Bobby Cohen) had raised direct criticisms of All Stars. Considering that Newman's politics and therapeutic methods permeate All Stars, one must ask: Why DIDN'T the TC team make such inquiries?

The idea that it is "yellow journalism" to point out the long string of instances in which the IWP led by Newman provided aid and comfort to child molesters (while at the same time running programs for children) is beneath contempt. You say that "every bit of evidence" shows Newman to be "diametrically opposed to their views." What evidence? The fact that the IWP's inhouse law firm kept giving them legal support? That the current chairman of the All Stars board gave public relations support? That a newspaper whose contents were totally controlled by Newman said of the National Man-Boy Love Association, "What is desirable (what should be) is not always what is possible"? That Fulani under Newman's guidance became the "political advisor" to the infamous Kodzo DoBosu? That Newman recruited teenage girls to his cult through psychotherapy and turned them into lifelong slaves of his latest whims?--23 Sept. 2006

Dennis--

Thanks for clarifying what your difficulty with sections of the article and with the sources. Namely, not that they are incorrect, but that they don't conclude what you WANT them to conclude. That's fair enough, but of course your version should not be in the article if it cannot be verified.

You DID misrepresent the TC report. Politics is discussed throughout the report, implicitly and explicitly, i simply put one citation for brevity. The reference is there for anyone who wishes to read. Likewise the use of social therapeutic and other modalities. So, for you to claim politics and social therapy weren't addressed simply means that they weren't addressed from the point of view of YOUR bias.

What is your evidence for concluding that the professionals from Teacher's College "did NOT attempt to study whether or not the cultism and related allegations were true or false."? Because they didn't speak to you?

Your claims are a bit like complaining that a history of the NASA program is flawed because it did not address the explosive claims by some that the moon landing was fabricated. But, just as most such histories of the moon project implicitly address that claim by sufficiently demonstrating just what DID happen, likewise for the TC report.

The fact is, Dennis, wherever these claims, in whole or in part, have been addressed in (as best as possible) an objective framework, they have been dismissed. The "claims" put forth by organizations such as the ADL or Chip Berlet's politically charged organization do not stand up under the scrutiny of the investigations (however you may attempt to discredit them) of the NY State Attorney General, the Industrial Development Agency, an expert panel from Columbia University, or a variety of NY State Supreme Court Justices.

If you have evidence that they are all part of a grand conspiracy against you and your moon landing fabricating authorities, then that would make a fine book, one I would be sure to happily purchase and read. More immediately, if you feel the NYS Attorney General is guilty of a corrupt cover-up of your "serious" charges, you could well turn the current election in NY state, as he is the front runner in the gubernatorial race there.

In the meantime, you would do best to take note of the words of the fine scientific historian Giorgio de Santillana who, when analyzing the bias of early modern historians who denigrated the achievements of ancient, non-Western cultures, noted that their methods "will yield only childish stuff out of them, when chidish stuff is expected." BabyDweezil 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As a non-participant until this moment I must say that BabyDweezil is living up to his identity as being quite infantile, rather nonsensical and, to use his own word, Childish in his response. Might I recommend a licensed, ethical, professional and reputable therapist or board certified psychiatrist with no compromising allegations against them so you can work these issues out in a more adult, productive and healthy manner? Clearly you have no idea how to relate to other people and this is interfering in your life and thought processes. You must admit to yourself that you need help before anyone can actually help you (and it is abundantly clear that you NEED help). Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Baby.GrownUpAndWise 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Grownup person--Please refer to the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines regarding your post above at [[4]]

Note also that there are additional prodedural steps that are applicable if advising offending persons does not result in a discontinuation such violations of the Code of Conduct. BabyDweezil 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again on Newman's townhouse

The deletion of the sentence about how Newman cohabits in his Manhattan townhouse with a number of therapy patients and other followers is unwarranted. Newman himself has boasted of his personal living arrangements and/or sexual or extra-therapeutic political relationships with women patients on numerous occasions. In a 1990 article, "Women I Live With" (Practice, Winter 1990) he named the names of these women in a most unseemly manner. Several of the women then wrote accompanying essays (under intense pressure from the International Workers Party leadership, according to ex-IWP members) about how much they "wanted" Newman, his then newly selected number one mistress, Gabrielle Kurlander, and the "revolution." One of Newman's second-level mistresses obediently penned a poem in which she talked about how she had turned herself into a "machine" for Fred and his revolution. "I want to want you--and I will!" she declared. ("Manifesto for FN and GK," Practice Winter 1990.) Newman subsequently boasted of the living arrangements at his townhouse, which he had not yet purchased at the time of the "Women I Live With" article, in several media interviews. The bizarre worshipfulness towards Fred at this quasi-commune was described by eyewitness Frank MacKay, chairman of the New York State Independence Party, who visited there often, in a 2005 interview with the Village Voice.

Unlike Newman himself, the reverted version of the wiki article did not mention the names of the patients, although it did provide a link to a report that mentioned names in the context of warning the city of New York not to give these bizarre "friendosexuals" public monies to work with kids. The street address of the townhouse was removed earlier from the wiki article (a deletion I regard as reasonable) even though it is a matter of public record reported in the media. The fact of Newman's relationships with patients and former patients, which mainstream psychotherapists would regard as professionally unethical, speaks directly to Newman's character and morals, the nature of the Social Therapy movement he founded, and the nature of the youth charities he runs based on Social Therapy principles.--25 Sept 2006

Dennis--The sort of hostile, invective-laden rants such as the one above that you have filled this discussion with are becoming progressively out of place even on a discussion page. But they surely provide no rationale for inclusion of information regarding their patient status of any individuals. Additionally, your continued attempts to include this information places not you but the Wikipedia project in jeopardy, should your claims become actionable. BabyDweezil 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis--You continue to revert the questionable paragraph, despite it's having been removed by a Wikipedia mediator. I am requesting you cease, as you have given no justification for these continued reversions. Your explanation that the information is "widely reported" is disingenous; the citations you give are either from your ownpublications or those for which you were a primary source. All of these publications have presented information that has been shown to be false, further making their citations as sources questionable. "GrownUpAndWise"'s irrelevant soap-boxing comment also deleted. from this section. They are welcome to put their comments in ann appropriate section, although their personal attacks, such as their first comment about which they were warned above, will not be tolerated.BabyDweezil 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King was not the source of the information; Fred Newman was. He wrote "Women I Live With" in grotesque violation of psychotherapy ethics. He, not Dennis King, gave the interviews to Rita Nissan and the New York Observer. He has only himself to blame.--26 September 2006

Referred to mediation BabyDweezil 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the grounds for editing my second comment out (posted once again below); I am not stating any untruths and I ask for someone to offer contrary information if Fred Newman has, indeed, finally obtained a license to practice psychotherapy or mental health counseling in New York State. This being edited out leads me to think that Fred is still unlicensed and whoever BabyDweezil is wants that kept from public knowledge.

"- It seems as if Fred Newman is still not licensed to practice psychotherapy or provide any sort of mental health counseling in New York State. The law now requires him to be licensed and yet I, nor anyone I know, cannot find his license number anywhere. This information is publically availbale concerning every other licensed professional in New York and it is a consumer’s right to obtain that information. Oh, and leading and co-leading Group Therapy and charging a fee for this service still counts as psychotherapy and also requires a license. If anyone has information showing that Newman has now obtained a license and under which profession, that would be welcomed."GrownUpAndWise 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BabyDweezil: instead of editing this out, why don't you simply provide the answer as to whether or not Fred Newman has finally obtained a license to practice psychotherapy in New York State and clearly tell us what his chosen profession is: Mental Health Counseling, Social Work, Marriage and Family Counseling, Psychologist, Occupational Theraapy, Accupuncture, etc. Deleting my post will not make a license materialize. So tell us if Fed Newman finally obtained licensed to perform psychotherapy in the State of New York or not: Pure and simple.GrownUpAndWise 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the folowing references are primary sources and consequently should not be used in this article:

• http://ex-iwp.org/docs/2005/ip63.html
• http://dennisking.org/devloan.htm

If you want to reintroduce this material, could you find secondary source information that hasn't been self-published.

Thanks, Addhoc 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal information and Wikipedia policy

With respect to the phrase "...therapy patients of Newman, some of whom live with Newman and Kurlander in a communal townhouse in Manhattan", I am deleting [hopefully for the final time) instrusive personal references to individuals who are not the subject of this entry, nor are they identified as public figures. While it is debatable whether this personal information about the article's subject is relevant enough to include in the entry (the argument being that a only minority viewpoint considers it relevant) the exposure of private information about Non-Public Figures is clearly proscribed. Further, as the individuals are largely unnamed, the statement's implication is that anyone residing in the mentioned residence at any time past, present or future is possibly included in the description. This is a clear violation of the rights to privacy of these actual or hypothetical individuals. Additionally, the statement makes reference to unnamed "board and staff members" who likewise, by virtue of the statement, involuntarily find themselves cast in the possible category of "therapy patients", regardless of whether the statement is true or not, and if true, in clear violation of their privacy as non-public figures. Please do not reinsert this material without satisfactorily addressing these policy issues. See Wikipedia policy below:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.[[5]] BabyDweezil 19:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King was not the cause of the NY 1 series. This was done because of the efforts of several people Dennis King was one the people that the reporter was referred to. This reporter had a horrible experience with various members of Fred Newmans cadre. She was manhandled in front of members of the press. In response to seeing this event on television several of us wrote and called the station. Please do not rant and rave about Dennis King. His report was research given to him by several people. If you want to come after him you will have to go after several of us and other members of the media. We are ready. You make him out to be this lone ranger. He is not. He is not a cult leader. Several of us asked for his input and help as we did others. So again please stop the ranting and raving. You are out of line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightback (talk • contribs)

Hi, this isn't a discussion forum. In future, could you comment about how the article should be improved instead of making personal remarks. Thanks, Addhoc 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with new edits

Hi, I changed the headline here. I don't think it is appropriate to refer to Fred Newman, myself or other contributing editors of this article to being part of a totalitarian cult. Such name calling is not allowed on wiki. pKGood to be the King 23:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the process of followers of Fred Newman taking over this article. It seems they are determined to remove step by step anything negative about their leader, no matter how well sourced, and turn this page into pure propaganda. They are threatening lawsuits, arrogating to themselves the role of wikipedia administrators out of nowhere, issuing diktats that this or that is "forbidden," deleting comments from the article's discussion page that don't fit with their ideology, and even declaring that the work of an award winning TV journalist who has criticized Newman can't be cited and must be removed herewith. They are out of control and someone should do something about it.DimensionX 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

some rather sick commentary that was added in this space by user at 216.194.60.175 and made to look as part of Dim'x's post has been deleted. see history. BabyDweezil 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King on wikipedia mediators

from: [[6]]

Fred Flintstone's Wikipedia War

wordsmith Familiar Face

Joined: 2006-09-25 Posts: 2

Now it's Fulani too Posted: 2006-09-26 18:21:00

BabyDweezil (see above) has removed a huge chunk of the Wikipedia bio of Fulani, including the quote from the New York Times circa 2000 in which Fulani defended Fred's ideas on patient-therapist sex. The Bank Street family seems desperate to get ANY mention of patient-therapist sex or Fred living with his "former" patients removed from the web. They even solicited a Wikipedia monitor of some kind (any high school kid can sign up and call themselves that and get an intimidating little official page that means about as much as Sponge Bob's "hall monitor" title) to post a message that Rita Nissan's series could no longer be cited in the Fred Newman article because it is not properly sourced (or something like that).

Why all these transparent hand-in-the-cookie jar tricks at this particular moment although Fred didn't pay much attention to Wikipedia in the past? It might be that some of his Wall Street and celebrity supporters are worried about their friends and colleagues outside the cult googling Newman and Fulani (Wikipedia is just about the first thing that pops up) and thus are beginning to insist that Fred take steps to build a shield around their reputations, or else.

thanks for clarifying, Dennis BabyDweezil 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Newman organization violation of Wikipedia policy

Hi, Sorry I changed cult to organization since it is clearly derrogatory and has no place on Wiki... pKGood to be the King 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear and prominently displayed rule against copying material from other web sites. In the above case, BabyDweezil has taken material from a non-Wikipedia discussion forum at http://ex-iwp.org. The contents of the ex-iwp forum are copyrighted and the web page clearly states that material therefrom cannot be reproduced without written permission from the owner. Did BabyDweezil obtain such permission from owner Marina J. Ortiz?

I urge any reader of this discussion page who is puzzled by BabyDweezil's postings to go to ex-iwp.org and obtain some background information on the Fred Newman therapy cult.DimensionX 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see ex-iwp.org aficionados have finally taken up the cause of copywright protection, after years of flagrant disregard for the principle on your own site.

I can see, however, why Mr King's posting from your site being quoted here would be disturbing, as it clearly shows that he, and your site, have nothing but disdain and contempt for the Wikipedia process, which you only see as providing a convenient vehicle for presenting misinformation, biased viewpoints and other material that has consistently violated even the most basic guidelines of Wikipedia.

If you are concerned about the supposed copyright violation, you can bring it to Wikipedia through the appropriate channels. I'm sure one of the "high school kid Sponge Bob hall monitors", as the "copyrighted material" from ex-iwp describes Wikipedia mediators, will be happy to assist you. BabyDweezil 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the complaint is about the material on the talk page rather than material used in the article, and unless some material was added and later removed on this talk page (I haven't looked carefully through the history), this is a quotation of relevant material, almost certainly within fair use under copyright law. And, yes, I am an administrator or (as BabyDweezil would have it) an (aging) "high school kid Sponge Bob hall monitor".

I would like to remind all parties here of WP:CIVIL. I would also suggest that if (as appears to be the case) there are issues in dispute in the article, someone would do well to attempt a short, neutral summary here on the talk page of what is being disputed. Frankly, I can't get myself to slog through the entire swamp above and map it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel, I have recently accepted a MedCab case regarding this dispute. Addhoc 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Case

<<remove medcab template>>

SO FAR FRED NEWMAN IS NOT LISTED AS BEING LICENSED TO PRACTICE PYSCHOTHERAPY, PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL WORK OR MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING ON http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm IF HE IS LICENSED AND IT SIMPLY IS NOT POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE YET WOULD SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS FRED NEWMAN AND SOCIAL THERAPY PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF THIS.GrownUpAndWise 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is moot since the article already says he is unliscensed. Also, he may not be required to have a license...What if he is exempt under a NYS PL, Article 153, Sect. 7605?

pK--its Good to be the King!

Agree with pK, seems moot. Also, please try not to post in all caps; we can hear you just fine in conversational voice. BabyDweezil 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Question re Political Activism

Hi, could you define "non-public cadre organization" in the paragraph...

In 1979 Newman became one of the founders of the independent New Alliance Party (NAP). The New Alliance Party, whose first chairperson was then New York City Councilman [Gilberto Gerena-Valentin], advocated positions less radical than those of the IWP, which continued to operate as a non-public cadre organization.

pK-- its Good to be the King! At this time you are required to have a license to practice therapy in New York.

Ugh! Can't take this any more. If you would like to begin practicing psychotherapy in NYS you now need to have a license. However, the several THOUSAND (read, not just Fred Newman) individuals practicing psychotherapy without a license prior to the changes in the law have been "grandfathered in," meaning they may legally practice psychotherapy. If you look again at the NYS office of the professions web page you will find this. People who don't know what they're talking about should stop acting as though they do. It makes the process of sorting this page out more difficult. Serously. Please stop it.

Handling controversial groups on Wiki

This is similar to the ongoing battle over Wiki pages related to Lyndon LaRouche. Partisans have totally incompatable views. Folks need to balance praise for the Newmanites with published or aired criticisms. Too often, these pages get sanitized by supporters who object to any criticism. I doubt that a "neutral" summary is possible. What we aspire to on these types of pages is fair, accurate, and balanced.--Cberlet 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Chip--I'm not sure I understand your point. If a neutral summary is "not possible", how do we achieve a page that is "fair, accurate, and balanced"?

You appear to be throwing a pair of red herrings into the soup. I see no instance in the history of THIS entry of where the page was ever "sanitized by supporters who object to any criticism," (which includes no instance of objecting to using any of your work as a source) nor any instance of "praise for the Newmanites" being inserted. Correct me if I am wrong. (The other fish you are throwing is the LaRouche analogy, which has not the slightest relevance to this page, other than there being opposing sides--why pick THAT one, hmmm?). The history here rather seems to show an effort to remove what were some rather extreme non-NPOV editorializing, structuring of the entry, misrepresntations of facts etc, intended simply to portray the entry's subject in the most negative manner as possible. The bias behind those entries is eminently clear when reading those authors comments on this discussion page. So in fact it seems you are using "neutrality" to "sanitize" the actual history of this page. BabyDweezil 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but very little of your convoluted post makes any sense to me, and almost none of it has to do with actually editing the page text to be fair, accurate, and balanced, which is different from "neutral" or "objective," which are almost impossible to achieve with highly polarized contrversial groups and individuals, such as LaRouche, which is why I mentioned LaRouche. If you are unfamiliar with the Wiki struggle over the LaRouche pages, it is very instructive.--Cberlet 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added my study, Clouds Blur the Rainbow, a published report, to this entry.--Cberlet 19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I question the relevance of it’s insertion at all, I am moving Chip Berlet’s last edit to a more appropriate place in the article. The claim being made is sourced by Mr. Berlet to his own article of 20 years ago, published by his long-time employer, Political Research Associates. The claim Mr. Berlet inserted, and his source (himself) represent an extreme minority viewpoint on the practice of social therapy.

An example of a legitimate source(s) would be material published or issued by a legitimate authority on psychological/therapeutic approaches, such as the APA, the NASW, or recognized experts in the field competent to assess this particular therapeutic modality. Mr. Berlet and Political Research Associates, with their publication of the 20-year-old report cited, do not seem to fall into that category. A perusal of this two decade-old reference should make it clear that it is a political tract, making it unfit as an objective source for analyzing Mr. Newman’s politics either. There is not a single interview with Mr. Newman or any of his associates in the article, nor is, at any point, Mr. Newman’s point of view presented.

I will leave this insertion for now in for now pending review by a mediator. I am of the opinion that it is out of place. I would be happy to have Mr. Berlet’s opinion on social therapy in the article if it can be backed by a legitimate source (not his own self-referenced partisan political tract, despite his description of his own work as a “significant published study” ). BabyDweezil 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki arbitration has established that I can (carefully) cite my own published work on certain topics. Please do some homework. This has been a central issue in editing the LaRouche pages, which is why I mentioned them, also in other arbitrations and mediations, where this has been sustained. Please do not delete this material again, based on your lack of information and faulty opinions on this matter.--Cberlet 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, please produce documentation that Wiki arbitration has established that you can (carefully) cite your own published work on this topic. It would seem common sense that decisions on one subject have no bearing on an entirely different one. Until you can establish it does, reverted for the (unaddressed) reasons cited above. Mediation requested. BabyDweezil 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask the MedCab involved in this to please rule promptly on this, and (I would strongly recommend) in Cberlet's favor? He is one of the first names that comes to mind in terms of literature on groups like Newman's; the fact that he is a Wikipedian should not make his work any less citable than if he were not. Would that we had more prominent scholars with solid, published work on topics coming in here and adding citation from their own work. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize my point: Mr. Berlet wishes to insert a claim in the article's lead pargraph that critics have claimed that social therapy "cross[es] standard ethical boundaries." As a source for this claim, Mr. Berlet wishes to use his own 20 year old article. This article is 1) a purely partisan political tract which 2) appeared both in the politically partisan Radical America* and as a publication of the politically partisan Political research Associates (Mr Berlet's employer), 3) contains no systematic, objective, balanced attempt to examone the practice of social therapy, 4) in the subsection where it does discuss social therapy, relies entirely on anecdotal statements from a tiny handful of respondents, all of which are largely political critiques; 5) contains not a single interview, response from, or elaboration of views by either Newman or a representative of the therapy 6) cites only one mental health professional, who never studied the appraoch directly, in a quote from 30 years ago from yet another political tract (in 1977) 7)is written by an author with no qualifications, in 1987 or now, to present an authoritative view on this therapeutic modality 8) has never conducted or commissioned such an authoritative, objective study 9) has not cited or found a single, authoritative study in a professional publication that corroborates his claim, 10) ignores the reality of the collegial relationship social therapy, it practitioners, and theorists have had for quite a number of years within the American Psychological Association, particularly within its humanistic psychology division and 11) is attempting to use a source that is two decades old to back his claim (oh, yes...I said that already. But it bears repeating). BabyDweezil 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In it's introduction to Berlet, Radical America writes "We have become convinced that [various political organizations associated with Newman and the Institute for Social Therapy]..are not just other legitimate groups with whom we must coexist" (emphasis added) and an extended complaint that the New alliance Party is not "a legitimate political organization", that it fails the journal's "basic test" for one, that NAP threatens to "discredit the left" and urges its readers to do what is necessary to dissuade "anyone" who might be attracted to them, noting "we can't be liberal about this one, comrades." Political thuggery perhaps, but hardly the language of a journal undertaking a legitimate analysis of a therapeutic approach. BabyDweezil 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate reference/claim reverted out

A new edit and source were added which seem quite inappropriate. The claim references Lois Holzman, not Fred Newman, and is inappropriately placed and referenced.

The reference cited, "Social Therapy at APA: Not Very Sociable" by Cathleen A. Mann was published only on her own organizations web page, and copied to the ex-iwp web site. The article refers to Dr Holzman's professional colleagues as "various underlings," makes reference to "allegations" about social therapy but provides nor claims to have any first hand knowledge of social therpay or the allegations, quotes from directly an official response to her complaint from an APA official as follows: "She [Dr Holzman] was invited to participate in those sessions after a review of her program proposals by peer committees that deemed the presentation appropriate for an APA convention. Furthermore, Dr. Holzman has participated in APA conventions in the past and we have not received any complaints about the content of those presentations," and then goes into a fairly extended diatribe complaning that Dr Holzman did not address her haranguing questions from the floor in the manner that she desired.

It's disturbing that people continue to keep attempting to insert biased viewpoints into this article, without even the semblance of a legitimate source, in a manner that is bordering on or actually constituting vandalism. I would appreciate it if this is addressed also by mediation. Until then, I am hoping that these disruptive activities cease. BabyDweezil 03:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)==

Dispute over new edits

Hi, I changed the title of this section because characterizing someone elses edits as "orwellian sanitization" is clearly derrogatory, and not permitted by Wiki. pK Good to be the King 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of supporters of polarized political, totalitarian, or cultic groups showing up on Wiki and sanitizing entries to remove criticsm is not new. Pointing this out is hardly disruption, nor is editing out fawning sycophancy and adding criticsm to balance the entry.--Cberlet 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could I suggest we focus on the article content. Addhoc 12:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To babyweasel. You continue using oppressive tactics. You do not like it when it happens to your leader. I thought we lived in a Democratic society. I thought we had freedom of speech. I guess in your collective minds freedom of speech does not exist, so we can continue to remove all sides opinions, or we can let the readers make up their own minds. I will tell you this much ,if you continue to remove information I and others will do the same.

Ok, when I said we should focus on the article content, I meant we should avoid making personal comments. Addhoc 10:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Small edits reverted out/explanation

I’m requesting again that the editors who have come on here from ex-iwp to insert claims to kindly carefully think over and read through the edits they add and the sourcing. The latest edit describes Atlanta based critics who “criticized the theatre projects as an unnecessary extension of their therapy services.” The Atlanta Social therapy website describes its approach as follows: “Social therapy is a practical, non-diagnostic and non-interpretive, short-term method for helping people to re-initiate their emotional development through performance. By using performance, the social therapeutic approach challenges the assumptions of knowledge-based, problem-oriented, anti-developmental psychology including most forms of psychotherapy.”[[7]] Given that description, and to state what I would think would be the obvious—doesn’t a criticism that the therapeutic approach utilizes “theatre projects” seem a bit odd?

The very first descriptive used for Newman in the article is “controversial.” It doesn’t need to be constantly repeated.

The Georgia investigation cut down to an acknowledgement and a source. Wikipedia is not the place for extended tabloid style quotations of allegations, and these continued insertions are getting out of hand. Should this or any investigation reach a conclusion, it should be reported. Presenting allegations without an opportunity for them to be fairly responded to—either by those accused or by an authoritative independent investigator—is simply not NPOV. BabyDweezil 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted deletion of opening paragraph by user Thetruthmatters. Will assume this was accidental and not vandalism. BabyDweezil 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I would like to kindly request that this be mediated. The current Atlanta website has nothing to do with what past and present therapy patients may or may not know. Performance can mean a lot of things but unless social therapists state in their initial informed consent that reading and or acting and or raising money for Newman plays is part of therapy then I don't think that statement means much. Furthermore, according to ethical rules of APA and NASW any solicitations of clients, particularly for a political cause, is considered unethical, so even if every client was told what that meant, it should not be mixed up with the practice of any legitimate psychotherapy and it is clear from Creative Loafing that the Atlanta social therapist (trained by Newman in NY) practices as an LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) and is thus subject to his state and professional rules.I also think the GA investigation which has been on the record for 2003, and about which much has been said in the public domain, deserves to be included in the Wikipedia entry on Fred Newman, especially since in 2005 Tom Robbins very much confirmed that it was "active and on-going." Thank you, THE TRUTH MATTERS

Oh and yes, the deletion of paragraph one was entirely accidental. Thank you for restoring it.

T.T.T.--I'm not sure what your asking to be mediated. If you have more substantive information regarding the Georgia inquiry, please feel free to include it and source it. But please note, your comments above are not substantive information, they are speculative opinions. That's fine, but it's not material that should be included. And it doesn't seem true that "much has been said in the public domain" about this inquiry; I only see 2 brief mentions in the weekly tabloid press in 2003 and 2005, respectively, confirming the existence of the investigation, and providing no details whatsoever. Again, if you have more, fire away. BabyDweezil 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting how BabyDweezil doesn't mind former associate quotes when they say something positve about Newman, even when they are out of context, such as the quote that was removed by N.Harris. Since this is a group for consumers I would think specific comments by ex participants who felt misled, harmed or exploited by social therapy SHOULD be included in any wikipedia section dealing with major figures in this organization, especially Fred Newman. I would like to reinsert quotes from former members and have no problem what section it gets placed in. TheTruthMatters

TheTruthMatters: You are absolutely correct--social therapy is a service for consumers, and that is entirely the point. This is a discussion about a Wikipedia biographical entry, not an unregulated message board for consumer complaints. The various bodies that govern consumer affairs, and professional boards, exist to both protect consumers from fraud and harm, and to protect service providers from fraudulent complaints. I do not see anywhere in the guidelines that a Wikipedia biography is a back-door venue to (re)insert unsupported claims that present a service provider in a negative light.

The Wikipedia biography on Colonel Sanders would not be an appropriate place for me to insert my statement that "I tried their Kentucky Fried Chicken and it made me sick to my stomach," even if I had filed complaints with a dozen agencies and told my story to the tabloids and put them on the ex-kfc.org website. What would be appropriate, and indeed essential, in the entry would be results of investigations that showed that the chicken had made some people sick, or a report from the FDA showing that the Colonel's product had safety problems. These basic guidelines exist to protect against the insertion of false or unsupported claims by someone who may have stock in Burger King, or just doesn't like funny southern gentlemen who call themselves "Colonel." That's my take on it anyway; input from mediators or knowledgeable editors is welcomed. BabyDweezil 18:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: discussion above. Doesn't this create a catch-22 since Newman, the undisputed leader of this approach, lacks professional credentials? Where or to whom would any of his current or former patients complain? What board would regulate Newman's ethics? You mentioned something above indicating he has the right to practice psychotherapy in NY. Does this mean the NY board of education would be the appropriate venue? And as far as a wikipedia entry on Colonel Sanders, hmm, that doesn't mean a commercial from theColonel himself. It means objective information that includes a whole gamut of its experiences, be they good or bad. Since I am a vegetarian I wouldn't know. Wikipedia should not be another commercial or promotion for Newman. Newman has his website for those. It should include arguments from its critics, whether they filed complaints or not. I think it is especially important to recognize critics who are also able to state the pros or positives of their experience along with the concerns or red flags. Why on earth would you want to discourage that? Blue jay 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue jay--No catch-22 at all; there are well established venues for such complaints. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you read the article, you can see that there is quite a fair amount of space devoted to criticisms; in fact the entire last section addresses the issue. This article, as it stands, could hardly be considered a commercial for Newman. I think it's a bit too heavily weighted towards these criticisms, since every single investigation that has reached a conclusion has found assorted claims to be without merit. There has to be a level of credibility to complaints of wrongdoing, beyond the simple statement of the complaint. Would you be comfortable with a prospective employer of yours weighing a false charge against you from an old high school mate who has an grudge against you for some reason or other, or would you expect the employer to demand some corroboration beyond the person's statement? Same principle, I think. BabyDweezil 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

PS to Blue jay--I fixed some formatting alterations you made in my earlier comments in this section, which altered their meaning somewhat. Please be careful when posting; in general, it's not a good idea to be editing within someone else's writing as such things can happen. If you do change anything intentionally, please note it with an explanation. BabyDweezil 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Protest

I would like to protest on record Cberlet's ongoing abusive, arrogant and unprofessional intervention in the latest discussion. The recent history will show that I have worked extensively during this time to provide balance to what was a fragrantly POV article, give structure to an article that had none, other than to provide a framework for the main author's POV, provided references to statements that were made from all points of view, and provided extensive evidence-based explanations for my own edits, including an extended response to Mr Berlet. Yet, Mr Berlet feels it is fine to continue to explain his interventions--despite the admonition of the current mediator--by labeling my edits as "absurd Orwellian sanitation" without a single factual citation. In response to my questioning the applicability and relevance of his own work he had inserted as a source for a specific claim in the article, he simply presented the recursive argument that Wiki arbitration has established that he can cite his work on certain topics. His other reponses to me have been to characterize me as a "supporter of political, totalitarian, or cultic groups" as being a "fawning sycophant" and charging me with--without a word of explanation--"sanitizing entries."

This continued behavior is in abject violation of a basic Wiki guideline--"Don't label or personally attack people or their edits," as well as being a flagrant abuse of his authority on Wikipedia, and mocking his position as a Wikipedian by subsituting bullying for discussion. This comes on the heels of endless rants and tirades posted anonymously above by Dennis King in response to edits on his work (in lieu of his providing factual evidence), and the persistent personal attacks and soap box commentary recently added from visitors from the ex-iwp.org site. This has reached the point of absurdity, and will not be tolerated. If the behavior doesn't cease and energies directed to improving a contentious article, it will be protested throughout the Wiki heirarchy until it does. BabyDweezil 06:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Look who is ranting and raving. There is suffucient evidence that was given in Georgia. That investigation is on going. There is plenty of evidence that has not been filed at this time with law enforcement and the appropriate authorities. That will be filed very soon.

Re: social therapy critics

Removed citation of Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Cathleen Mann, and Chip Berlet as “critics of social therapy.” Objections to Berlet reference have been addressed above and not responded to (other than with a personal attack). Mr Berlet had described the report he authored and wished to enter into this article as a source as a "significant published study of [the] Newmanites]." However, Mr. Berlet's own Wikipedia bio, which he himself regular vets and discusses, does not contain this report among its extensive bibliography of his publications, nor is Mr Berlet described as having any expertise on Newman, social therapy, et al anywhere in the entry. Mr. King’s claims have not been demonstrated to represent a legitimate viewpoint, and his original research has been recommended by mediation as not suitable as a source. Mann’s statement has not been published anywhere, other than on 2 websites hostile to Newman (www.ex-iwp.org, and www.freedomofmind.com, a website she is affiliated with). Her citation includes describing her professional colleague as “underlings” based on views that differ from her own, and she herself quotes an APA official who contradicts her claims (see discussion above). Ortiz hardly seems a credible source to be cited as a “critic.” Perusal of her website reveals her as presenting over 15 years a cornucopia of rather outrageous claims, conspiracy theories, and criminal allegations. Her most recent (09-28-06) entry presents a theory that supporters of the All Stars Project from the corporate world have been lured via sex:[[8]]

Marina

A regular around here

Posted: 2006-09-28 13:44:00

It could also be good old fashioned sex that hooked these Wall Street types. The IWP has historically used intercourse as an organizing tool. Besides, wouldn't anyone be facinated by an ugly fat man with a harem and (and hizzoner) in his side - or is it back - pocket?

Gee, I wonder what [NY State Attorney General] Spitzer thinks about all this?

The New Therapist article cited seems a suitable source. A summary of its presentation of the criticisms and Newman and Holzman's response would be needed, per WP:NPOV. An editor with access to this source can help by providing a brief summary. Per the above objections to the use of Berlet, King, Mann, and Ortiz as sources please note the following from WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. BabyDweezil 16:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Properly cited material should not be deleted. Formal request for official Wiki mediation is next step. --Cberlet 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly that is entirely your decision. The waiting time for mediation is currently about one month and in this context, I would prefer to continue my involvement until formal mediation commences. Addhoc 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome your involvement if it was more than just a comment here and there about manners. This is about a page being turned into an advertisement for a controversial public figure, while reputable published material that is critical, properly cited, gets deleted. --Cberlet 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I haven't been very proactive. Could you give an example of a paragraph currently in the article that you consider biased. Addhoc 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as it happens my comment was posted at the same time BabyDweezil reverted the last edit. I've reverted because I'm unclear about the rationale of removing names and introducing a {who} tag. Also quoting 'NPOV' in the article isn't appropriate. Could we discuss this? Addhoc 20:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc--Yes, thanks for the opportunity to explain. I have been objecting to the inclusion of the names and citations from Cathleen Mann, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Marina Ortiz as critics. I have no objection to the New Therapist article as a reference, as it appears to present both the criticisms and rebuttal, but it needs to be summarized. The overall objection concerns guidelines that do not guarantee the inclusion of criticisms that represent a distinctly minority point of view; in this case, a tiny one. I have not heard arguments that establsih that they do not.

I've run through extensive explanations also for each one of the names; I'll summarize if you dont wish to slog through the above.

Cathleen Mann--as a critic of social therapy's inclusion in the APA (which is what her citation discusses) she represents a distinct minority--of one. Her article contains derogatory unprofessional commentary about her APA colleagues (some described as "underlings"), is only self-published; additionally, there is not a single corroborating statement from anywhere within the APA, and considerable countervailing opinion. She admits in the article to stalking and haraunging a social therapy presenter at the APA.

Chip Berlet--Mr. Berlet wishes to insert his 20 year old political tract, self published by his employer, as a reference. You can see above above for [sorry] an 11-point argument [under "Handling controversial groups on Wiki"] as to why this reference is inappropriate as an includable criticism of social therapy. Additionally: Mr Berlet's organization, Political Research Associates, has at its disposal a vast archive of unvetted, self published "reports" on a variety of targets that are at odds with the organizations political viewpoint. Some aren't bad, the one's relative to Newman are abysmally lacking in objectivity, factual correctness, and provide no venue for rebuttal. Not even a letter to the editor. The material has received support only from those over 2 decades who also consider themselves political opponents of Newman who periodically cite it in a context of a political contest (as has the tabloid print and braodcast media).

There is also a fair amount of political tracts that have been published in Newman-associated preiodicals that make pointed and often pursuasive political criticisms of Mr Berlet. If NPOV is to be followed, is this biography, or Mr Berlet's, a suitable site for presenting that whole debate between both of these viewpoints? There exists equal amounts of published political arguments from both parties.

Dennis King--For brevity, same argument as for Mr Berlet, except Mr King publishes on Newman almost entirely via his own personal website www.dennisking.org. I strongly invite a perusal of that site to assess his objectivity. For three decades, he has failed to find a legitimate publisher for his claims.

Marina Ortiz--Again, refer to her own writings published at her www.ex-iwp.org for the past 15 years, and her recent quote above for just one example of the rather bizarre conspiracy theories and criminal allegations she is prone to expound.

All of the above figured as the main sources in a series of recent inquiries into the claims these individuals have made, probably the only ones that can be considered to have made an objective assessment of the critics charges. In various forms and venues, the NY State Attorney General, a series of NY State Supreme Court justices, and the NY State industrial Development Corporation all found no merit to any of the claims. Additionally, a distinguished panel of researchers at Columbia University's Teachers College[[9]] conducted an in-depth investigation of the organization that figures most prominently in these criticisms, the All Stars Project (founded by Newman), and issued not only a rather glowing report but concluded as well that these criticisms of a supposedly problematic mixture of the program and politics were intead a "tremendous asset" that benefited both the paticipants in the non-profit group and the political process [see p9 of the report and the final section of the current biography].

I've tried to be as brief as I could, obviously not my strong point. Any comments or questions are welcomed. I would be eager to finally hear some arguments in support of the critics' inclusion. BabyDweezil 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BD: with respect to your complaints about the above three critics. Dennis King: the author of some of the earliest expose on Newman group as well as one of the most thorough books on LaRouche. I could see why that would be intimidating for you. Marina Ortiz: is this the same woman Newman speaks so admiringly about in "WOMEN I LIVE WITH"? His patient who he admires for her honesty and no BS attitude? Yes, I can see how her words about the dangers of social therapy would be HIGHLY disturbing for Newman. And Dr. Mann: a licensed psychologist who has studied all kinds of groups for years and moderates the Freedom of Mind list serve, works with people who have been in cultic groups and their families, and is an APA member. What is interesting is that the three come from totally different places. It seems you are trying to control the information by ripping apart anyone who shows the dark side of your group. I hate to use the "cult" word, but face it, that's what cults do! Truth Matters

TM: The points I made are all from the public record. Please refrain from responding yet again with personal attacks, and address the points. BabyDweezil 13:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BD, please learn to use the indent colons when responding, it makes debates much easier to read, and is considered a basic courtesy here. TM, please refrain from personal attacks, it is against Wiki policy and can be enforces by suspension.

Cberlet: As a courtesy, I had reformatted TM's response as it ran directly into my own. To make the discussion a little more accurate, please note I've already started, and have listed extensive points regarding the inclusion of the sources, including the one you list below. I think it would be appropriate for you to respond to these points.

Also, above, in reponse to your claim that the article was "being turned into an advertisement for a controversial public figure", the mediator had asked you explicitly "Could you give an example of a paragraph currently in the article that you consider biased"? Response to this query from the mediator would be helpful, as well as the already stated points made about inclusion of the articles. I would also request that you refrain from using biased and offensive characterizations such as "the Newmanite cult" for the remainder of the discussion. BabyDweezil 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sad Mudslinging by cberlet

There are over 1,200 hits for the terms "NEWMANITES" AND "CULT." I am sorry if you find it "biased and offensive," BabyDweezil, since it is so widely used.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A search for "Newmanite cult" turns up only a handful of hits, the bulk of them linked to Dennis King and Marina Ortiz' websites. More importantly, I've stated that I find the term derogatory and offensive, it's offensive and intimidating to potential contributors here who might not happen to share your minority point of view, and, it is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I would recommend that you tone down the arrogant "I'm Chip Berlet, Wikipedia Big Shot, and I Can Say Whatever I Damn Well Please" attitude a few notches. With its implication that you can employ characterizations that verbally abuse people simply because they dont agree with you, it is obnoxiously authoritarian, and just plain silly. BabyDweezil 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think google results are appropriate sources to verify that claim. pK

Hi, please stop refering to Dr. Newman, his organization or editors here, such as myself as a cultist it isn't appropriate. If you want to critize his therapy practice or politics please do so...in an appropriate, credible fashion. It will make them stronger and, as you cberlet have made such an issue of balance in this article...it seems to me you would want your criticisms to be stronger which in turn would give the article more balance...rather than tabloidish...like they are now. Furthermore, this isn't the 1950's and I am not having your Mccarthyist tactics. I do not and will not tollerate you charactizing me as a cultist simply because I have made edits here.--pKGood to be the King 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change heading titles unless they violate the talk page norms. Also, new comments go to the bottom, not the top. As for the matter at hand, Newman's movement is indeed frequently referrred to as a "cult" or "political cult". It's our job here to assemble the common wisdom, not to fix society. -Will Beback 23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Will, if you read the public record, it's more accurately the case that Newman's movement is frequently referred to as a movement that a handful of people have called a cult. I would invite you to examine the record and see for yourself how this "common wisdom" traces back to a few primordial sources, and if you think that I am mistaken, show that it is so. As encyclopedia editors I think it would a mistake in judgement to confuse the claims of this small group with common wisdom simply because the vast bulk of them have in the past fortnight descended upon this page. With common wisdom, BabyDweezil 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it is perfectly within wiki guidlines to remove this kind of derrogatory language. Please see below. pKPK good to be the King 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

pK Has to School ya

Hi, I just conducted a google search and got 257 hits for "Child Molester Berlet" I got 267 hits for "Pedophile Berlet" These results do not mean it is appropriate to have a headline alluding to cberlet as a child molester or pedophile on this talk page, cberlet's biography nor the talk page of his biography. Further it does not evidence what Will refers to as "common wisdom" that cberlet is a pedophile. And, since Will has raised this issue, it is currently "common wisdom" among white supremacists that all non-white people are subhuman, it is still inappropriate to use racial epithets in Wiki articles and talk pages. Furthermore, it was "common wisdom" the earth was flat, bloodletting was a good thing, witches should be burned at the stake and African Americans =3/4 of a White American. "Common wisdom" is no substitute for critical thinking. THe published evidence simply does not support the cult accusation and wiki guidelines for biographies of living persons do not support any mudslinging whatsoever. I view cberlet's cult baiting of Dr. Newman as as attempt to circumvent critical analysis of the published record. I guess its easier to ambush Dr. Newman with sensationalist language. I must point out that reputable social scientits do not use the term "cult" because of its negative connotations. (WHich, would imply a bias) Please see Olson's peer reviewed study exploring the doubious nature of the term "cult". (Olson, J. Sci.Study of Religion, (2006) 45(1) 97-106.) While I realize it is not an easy job to be a mediator, and you are a volunteer, I strongly urge you to refamiliarize yourself with the above mentioned wiki policies. Please refrain from commenting here until you have done so and are ready to think critically about what is being said. You do yourself a huge disservice and disgrace the organization you are trying to help. Yeah, its PK good to be the King 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cathleen Mann as a source for this article

Hi, I don't think should be included as a critic since she can't be objective. She was once a victim of mind control herself by the Church Universal and Triumphant (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/books/rtb3.htm)----pK

pK--The statement by Mann that was included is also clearly a primary source, and has been removed. BabyDweezil 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Dr. Mann is a appropriate as a crtitic either. First, although she moderates ex-cultist discussion pages I don't consider this significant work in the field of cultic studies. You may consider her an expert on cults but that seems to be your opinion....what are her qualifications as an expert? I can't seem to find any publications she has authored on the subject...can you provide a list...or her CV? Also, the fact that she herself is an ex-cultist is of concern to me.....pK

Cathleen Mann, Ph.D has been qualified as an expert on cults in a court of law in 5 states. The fact that she was a cult member over 15 years ago is a disingenous claim. The observation that she was subject to mind control at one time gives her a better understanding of the dynamics, not a lesser understanding. Dr. Mann's article on Social Therapy's behavior at the APA is observational data. It was not the fact that Dr. Holzman "refused" to answer her questions; it is the fact that Dr. Holzman does not think she needs to be collegial and answer questions about her ethics. Additionally, the observation that Dr. Mann moderates a cult discussion group should be an asset, not a liability.

Hi, Dr. Mann, I think this point is moot since your "research" is considered a primary source. For the record, I do not believe you are qualified as a "cult expert" in 5 state courts. And, I find your behavior --logging in here as an annonymous sockpuppet and, the bizarre scene you describe at the APA conference to seriously compromise your professional credibility. Furthermore, I still do not consider moderating cult discussion boards an acceptable substitute for scientific, peer-reviewed research. Please try to remember we are all contributing to the biography of a living person. I will exercise great care when scrutinizing all sources. Lastly, it is clear to me you are unable to distinguish between garden-variety, tinfoil hat-internet BS and actual research. Maybe this is why your own publication record is so weak. I cannot emphasize enough that good sources in support of your claims are out there I urge you to do the work like everybody else.------------pK

Of course Dr. Mann has been qualified as an expert on cults and mind control in 5 states. This was done in a court of law after extensive questioning and review of the CV. For you to say you don't believe it, makes you the judge of all truth. Why should you be in that position. As far as Dr. Mann's Ph.D goes, it is a matter of public record. Anyway can search and review the dissertation of any Ph.D from UMI, who has stored all Ph.D dissertations since the early 20th century. You didn't bother to check out any of these claims by Dr. Mann; you merely tried to dismiss them as not true without any basis whatsoever to make such a claim. You have become the cult you are defending.

Hi, Dr. Mann....Also, I'll add that your account of how you were exposed to a cult in the first place has some holes...I do not believe your Ph.D. advisor would send you into a cult in order to study it. This is a serious breach of ethics on the part of your advisor and your Ph.D. program. However if this is true, it demonstrates you have an inherent susceptibility to authoritiarian figures. That you followed the direction of your advisor and put yourself in that kind of danger is problematic for me. Second, that you lost your objectivity when "studying" the cult and actually joined it is also of serious concern. I raise this because you say you regularly give your professional opinion to support various claims re cults and as you mention above, "dynamics" of cults. Your ability to give an objective, reasoned opinion is what I question because, 1) if this account is true it demonstrates you are easily swayed and have trouble mainining objectivity, and this compromises your opinion. 2) If this entire account is false, it compromises your believability. Aside from the primary source issues, you are disqualified as a reliable source and would seriously detract from the article should you be included.----------pK

Well, whether you understand it or not, there are people in universities who are cult affiliated. Yes, I had a hard time believing it too. And, as far as the cult recruitment goes, the leader of the cult was merely having a regular "day at the office" when she recruited me. For someone so unknowledgeable about how cults get their followers, you should not be commenting on something you don't know much about.

Hi Ms. Mann....I've also been thinking about your claim that your incident at the APA conference was "observational data". This is quite troublesome since you are clearly attempting to mislead people on this page. As a Ph.D. you would know that data is collected as part of an experiment designed to provide evidence in support of a hypothesis. Further, data should be collected under specific circumstances to ensure its objectivity. Its obvious to me this was not the case, but instead an incident where you lost your selfcontrol and went into an angry tirade. This and other glaring errors in your qulaifications lead me to question that you even have a Ph.D. degree. Again, my observations address your reliability and again I feel your opinion and qualifications are not credible and would seriously damage this article-----pK

First of all, you were not there, and you did not know what I did or didn't do. The information you have is third hand or fourth hand. I attended Holzman's talk, waited patiently until she asked for questions, stood up and asked my questions. I did not stalk her at all. I did not follow her or invade her space in any way. The fact is that she was belligerent and had a clear agenda. Holzman was not there to discuss anything true; but to troll the audience for new, potential membership.

Hi, given this is an attempt to write an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source of knowledge, your first hand claims are obviously irrelevant. Also, in future could you focus your comments on the article content instead of making personal remarks about other editors. Lastly could you sign your comments using four tildes. Thanks, Addhoc 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr Mann--Please be so kind as to sign off on your entries here to help make a busy discussion less confusing. You have been alternating between speaking in the first and third person, which is a bit confusing. In any case, the piece you had authored appears not to qualify as a source for the article, as it hasn't found its way to a publisher that meets Wiki guidelines. I have to say though, from having read it, and from your account here ("I attended Holzman's talk, waited patiently until she asked for questions, stood up and asked my questions") that you were doing a bit of stalking. I would think it would be standard professional courtesy and behavior to attend a colleague's presentation, listen, and discuss the topic, rather than "wait patiently" until they are done so that you can (from your own account[[10]]) go about your own agenda and haraunge your colleague with McCarthyite baiting from the floor. Additionally, as you describe, you chose to insult Holzman's co-panelist, Dr Gordon, "by informing him that he knew nothing of the extent of the lie and the extent of the controversy"--despite the fact that Dr Gordon is a distinguished colleague of yours and lead author of a 124 page, in depth study [[11]] of something your charge he "knew nothing" about. I think you should take it up with the APA if you feel that they are so blinded by Dr Holzman's voodoo as to repeatedly invite her to present at meetings while you are forced by them to holler your "truth" from the floor. You might find more of an audience for your claims of colleagues not following ethical rules if you ever decide to adhere to some of the basic ones yourself. BabyDweezil 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

These claims have no standing in terms of Wiki guidelines. The deletion, however, violates Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually they do, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. You should refresh your memory and re-read that section. My objection (which I thought was quite obvious) was to quality, objectivity and reliability. pK

Would like to ask that pk and BD apply the same standards of etiquette to those they are addressing as they are asking to have applied to them. Personal jabs at Dr. Mann should not be tolerated as ones at you have not been. If you are wanting to stick to the facts please avoid writing unnecessary opinons that have nothing to do with the citation. Thetruthmatters 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments were entirely based on a reading of her piece, which was submitted here as a source, and her defense of it. If you disagree with my reasons for why her piece was inappropriate, please just address that, rather than refer to them as "unnecessary opinions," about which your comment just might...oh, never mind. BabyDweezil 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet as a source for this article

Chip Berlet. 1987. Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party. Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates. ISBN: 0915987031.

Published as printed report. Meets criteria for WP:RS.--Cberlet 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Research Associates is my employer. I do not run it, and never have. Reports published by PRA are not considered to be "self-published," even if I am the author. Dr. Mann is a licensed psychologist, works in the field of cultic studies, and is considered an expert. Both King and Ortiz have published articles about the Newmanite cult. Let's take these sources one at a time, and discuss their inclusion. I'll start.--Cberlet 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think your "report" should be used to support a criticism of social therapy, since you are not qualified to opine about psycho-therapeutic modalities. Instead of addressing the psychology, your "report" is address FNs politics moreover, your POV is fringe-ish at that... (and FYI, I find it offensive the "report" identifies non-white people by their race.) If your "report" presented scholarly assessments of the merits or drawbacks of the modality it might be applicable, but its really just a lefty political rant...On the other hand, FN seems to be politically on the fringe, so maybe you can comment on his political work instead. This seems to be more logical to me because you work for a fringe political think tank. <<SNIP>> (Moved text to appropriate sections --Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC))....pK

I have already delineated extensive objections to this source per per WP:NPOV. I also question its meeting the criteria for WP:RS, specifically a number of the points outlined in the "Evaluating reliability" section. The article is available online[[12]], and I invite an assessment of its fairness, balance in presenting a response to its claims, etc. BabyDweezil 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom has already ruled that reports from PRA, even when by me, are appropriate for citation on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet--I can't tell if you are purposely ignoring my numerous comments on this subject, including directly to you, or not. As I have repeatedly noted, the issue is not whether or not PRA/Berlet articles generically are suitable for inclusion, but whether or not this particular article that you wish to include is acceptable for this particular article. I have argued at length the point of view that I don't think it is, for very specific reasons. If your ultimate response to the issues i have brought up repeatedly is simply to ignore them (as well as ignore a legitimate, pertinant question from the current mediator), please just clearly just say as such, so as to spare me the effort of having to constantly repeat my arguments. BabyDweezil 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Berlet would be a reliable source for some articles but not for others. We do not require that authors used as sources have special qualifications. Our governing guideline is WP:RS. -Will Beback 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to see the ruling, please post or provide a link. I find it hard to believe wikipedia would issue such a blanket ruling. Plus, I've been thinking this over and the sourcing you propose seriously weakens the article by giving it a Jerry Springer-like quality. I'm sure appropriate sourcing is available and you can certainly do better if you just do a little leg work. pK

I'm vaguely aware of the ArbCom vote, which is part of their decision making process and I understand that Chip is allowed to carefully reference his own work. However, my understanding is that BD removed the paragraph, because it relied on http://www.ex-iwp.org which I think is a primary source. Personally, I'm not aware of ArbCom indicating this is a reliable secondary source, however I could be wrong. Also don't worry about my earlier question - we should resolve this first. Thanks, Addhoc 22:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Will/Addhoc--I'm not seeing anything in WP:RS that automatically gives sanction to any author to be provided blanket admissability as an author. In any case, what I am challenging is the '*specific* article being proposed for inclusion. Elsewhere on this page, I have discussed at length my view that this particular article is extremely biased, openly partisan, and does not attempt in the slightest manner to give a consideration of opposing views. In fact, the tone and implicit message of the article is that anyone holding an opposing view or disagreeing with its conclusions is a de facto supporter of "totalitarianism", "cultism" etc. I continue to be eager to have this discussion address these specific points, beyond the administrative matter of whether or not generic articles from this publication are allowable. BabyDweezil 00:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not the role of sources to give consideration of opposing views. Please cite the policy or guideline that supports your you contentions. -Will Beback 01:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<----------Here is the text that was deleted by BabyDweezil (see diff):

Critics argue that Social Therapy merges political activism, therapy, and personal relationships in ways that cross standard ethical boundaries.<ref>Chip Berlet, 1987, ''Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party'' (Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates) [http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html]</ref>

It is properly cited and should be restored.--Cberlet 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is not whether the article is properly cited, but whether it is fit for inclusion at all as a reliable source. BabyDweezil 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The only grounds you have offered so far is that you do not like the information. That is not a factor. Published. Reputable publisher. Reputable author. Properly cited. Should be restored. Everything else is a distraction.--Cberlet 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet--That is a patently and demonstrably false distortion of my discussions. I have offered extended reasons as to why i think the article is inappropriate. Your consistent ignoring of those reasons does not mean they do not exist. I would appreciate it if you would not distort the record of this discussion with such false claims, intended to portray my imput as nothing more than personal bias. BabyDweezil 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for mediators

I have pointed to a number of issues with Mr Berlet's article that point to its apparent unsuitability with respect to WP:RS. At this point, though, I would like to know if the 2 mediators helping out thus far, Addhoc and Will, have read thruogh the article in question. Before I delineate specifics in the article (unless asked not to), that would be helpful to know, so as to be fair to Mr Berlet and not simply leave it to him to have to challenge my reading of the article (quoting out of context, etc.) Thanks. BabyDweezil 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've read the article at http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html the article is being used to indicate that critics of Fred Newman have made certain remarks. In this context, I agree with Will the referenced article doesn't have to comply with NPOV. Addhoc 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Berlet ref added with description. I'll try to locate the New Therapist article cited for a brief response from Newman/Holzman and a summary of the debate as described in that source (if they have one). BabyDweezil 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King as a source for this article

Re King and Ortiz....In addition to the self-publishing issues, I have a concern about their credibility...if I am not mistaken, King said Ortiz had a sexual relationship with Newman (see his comments on "the women I live with" above...) if true disqualifies Ortiz. Ortiz (see ex-iwp.org) denies any sexual relationship...if true disqualifies King as being serially inaccurate. It seems like they cancel each other out....pK

Contested claims are all aired in an NPOV way, not deleted.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I deleted. see above. -- pK

Marina Ortiz as a source for this article

Re King and Ortiz....In addition to the self-publishing issues, I have a concern about their credibility...if I am not mistaken, King said Ortiz had a sexual relationship with Newman (see his comments on "the women I live with" above...) if true disqualifies Ortiz. Ortiz (see ex-iwp.org) denies any sexual relationship...if true disqualifies King as being serially inaccurate. It seems like they cancel each other out....pK

Contested claims are all aired in an NPOV way, not deleted.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I deleted. See above. pK

Dennis King did not accuse Marina Ortiz of sleeping with Fred. You are horrible people. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This is why people question Social Therapy. The bounderies that you overstep, have long range problems for the patients. This is the point, you use that personal information against the patient. I hope people who read this see your attempts to sanitize opposing views. (posted by Fightback)

Other pages that are POV

I note that the page Lenora Fulani has also had critical material expurgated, and the page Social Therapy consists entirely of laudatory matieral. I am adding the "totally disputed flags to all these pages, but will work through the issues on this page before editing the other pages.--Cberlet 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to "Evaluations and Investigations..." section

Edits and refs added to correct unsupported claim by this section's author that the IDA bond review of the All Stars focused only on finances, which is clearly contradicted by cited statement of IDA chairman Joshua J. Sirefman. BabyDweezil 18:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for partial page protection

All comments need to be signed. I respectfully request that the mediator ask for partial page protection for this entry so that all editors in this discussion can be held accountable for their comments, and be able to be checked against potential sock-puppetry.--Cberlet 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, although I admit the IP accounts are confusing me slightly, I'm not sure the situation justifies partial page protection yet. Obviously, if you disagree, then you could request at WP:RFPP. Addhoc 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New material added, some restructuring

I truly believe the Dennis Serrette quote (four paragraphs!) is a bit much (although it's a fine advertisement for Mr berlet's website). Mediators please give it a look. BabyDweezil 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The material added was largely an uncite original research essay about Nancy Ross and other matters not directly related to Newman. If you want to add a few paragraphs related to Fred Newman at a time--like I did--we can discuss them, otherwise all you are doing is burying published criticsm in a pile of unrelated text. --Cberlet 13:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An absolutely false claim. The material is sourced, and almost entirely sourced to Newman's three most prominent critics--yourself/Political Research Associates, Dennis King, and Dennis Serrette. The claim that the previous edit "is burying published criticsm in a pile of unrelated text" might truly constitute, in your own previous comments, "sanitizing." All of the material is from the critics.. If you dispute the accuracy, and have a disagreement with providing the historical framework for what you and a few others is what you feel should be the over-riding perspective of this biography--that Newman runs a "therapy cult", then I insist you discuss you reasons why.

Reverted--and please do not undo in the absence of a review of mediation. If you feel further sourcing is needed, indicate where. And please note that I have provided the bulk of the sources thus far for everyones edits to this biography. BabyDweezil 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New Therapist source

Have located this source; will provide summary and sourcing in placeholder location of the article per earlier discussion. BabyDweezil 14:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now added. BabyDweezil 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Further Intrigues

Hi, I made a few snips here and there and tried to keep it in active voice. I also suggest it can be trimmed a bit more. Personally, I would like to know more about what Dr. Newman has/is doing politically, and/or what political issues he sees as relevant, etc. I think this is more constructive than the mudslinging, bizarre characters and silly vendettas that seem to permeate here. However, these events are part of Dr. Newman's life and are appropriately included. Lets now put them into perspective. I am PK good to be the King 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think all the new stuff added under Fringe politics, etc. really doesn't say too much about Dr. Newman's actual politics. Instead it seems to talk about Dr. Newman's struggles with his political detractors. As I said above, inclusion of this information is appropriate, I would like all of it trimmed down and written in active voice. Also, the focus should be on what his politics are instead of being driven by political attacks and every internet wack-a-do's conspiracy theory against him. If all the "contributors" would just stand back a sec. and let the real stuff come out I think the article would take a turn for the better. Don't get me wrong there is room for every view, however, every view is not entitled to equal weight. I am PK good to be the King 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed derrogatory comments. PK good to be the King 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is currently a disgrace.--Cberlet 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have the number for the complaint department already. They are open. BabyDweezil 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For about the 5th or 6th time, I am protesting not only Berlet's flagrant violation of wiki etiquette by cult-baiting his fellow editors, but his rather astonishing unabashed lying. A look at the history of the past 24 hours will show not a single character of his four paragraph insertion of a 20 year old quote (currently referenced to his organization's website) was touched. rather, what he is objecting to is any effort to provide balance to the POV and largely unsupported smears first Dennis King, and now he have attempted to turn this page into a receptacle for. I would recommend yet again that Berlet cease the authoritarian, and ironically or not, mind-controlling attempts to slander and threaten and bully editors into submission with infantile name-calling simply for not agreeing with his demonstrably biased, self-serving and dishonest portrayal of not only the subject of this biography, but each and every step of this discussion. At long last dude, have you no shame? BabyDweezil 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this, but it's hard to see what's going on, except that BabyDweezil seems to want to add a lot of material that's not about Fred Newman, and the header "Fringe Politics and and [sic] Left-Wing Intrigues on Manhattan’s Upper West Side" is not appropriate — unless it's the name of a book or paper. I saw mention of mediation; has a mediator been assigned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Addhoc has been serving as mediator. If you dare, you can browse through the history to get a sense of what has been going on.

How is the added material not about Fred Newman? it certainly can use a good edit, but its was added to present a historical context for what the article originally was--a wildly POV forum for Fred Newman critics/bashers. Adding the material was the first step towards presenting at least a hint of balance. So, rather than remove it, perhaps it can serve as a basis for how to next proceed. BabyDweezil 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro BD, since taking the case the parties involved and content in dispute have changed somewhat, with several 'new' editors joining such as PK good to be the King / Good to be the King, who signs as "pk" and Thetruthmatters. Also Fightback and GrownUpAndWise have been slightly disruptive making personal remarks. There has been significant discussion between Cberlet (Chip) and BD regarding the use of reliably published work by Chip. Also, yesterday, an IP account indicating they were Dr Mann entered the debate. I would concur this talk page is fairly confusing and I'm not presently convinced about the most recent changes by BD, which have been introduced without being proposed first. Obviously, your input would be very welcome. Addhoc 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, et al--OK, briefly (yeah right) as you know from your time here, a good deal of the discussion has concerned the introduction a veritable deluge of pretty much any critical string of word that can be dredged out of cyberspace being introduced here to add to the article. This came after my first edits to try to clean up at least the most egregious material previously introduced by D King, which he eventually relented on in the face of what I think was convincing evidence (despite his lengthy and unkindly phrased protests). simultaneously, as you know, I had requested mediation; being a part-time psychic, I had a premonition of what was to come. It came, along with vandalism and attacks from the ex-iwp crowd King had summoned here, and we discussed the appropriateness of ex-iwp material, Dr Mann's article, Dennis King's site etc. The one reference we had discussed at length--the material from cberlet's site, was recommended for inclusion by you (I believe). I framed it with an introduction, and left it (with explanation) as a set up for another source proposed, the New Therapist article, which seemed a it might be singularly good source to frame the debate, since it was described on the journals website as potentially providing both a hard hitting summary of the criticismsas well as a response. I took the initiative to track down that article, read it, and summarized it, in the section following the berlet reference.

The lengthier material I added was to provide some sort of provisional balance to the endless barrage of negative, and largely un-Wiki material (both as source material and as presented in the article. I added this after Cberlet added a four paragraph quote from Dennis serrette (which took more space the the subsequnt section cover a decade and a half of the bio). What I presented was a historical chronology of the genesis of the apocryphal "cult" charge. typically this is presented, by both its author King and berlet et al, as having sprung fully formed from Zeus' forehead, as simply a response to the appearance of an evil entity in a little neighborhood in New york. The chronology was (with the exception, I believe of a 5 word quote from a woman who was viciously and sexistly maligned by King in his first cult article) taken entirelyfrom King's own writings and from sources who have written unflatteringly about Newman. I also provided a framework for the monster quote Cberlet had added (without removing a byte), simply because it was out of order in the chronology (by a good dozen years). Hope that helps, if you need additional confusion feel free to ask.... BabyDweezil 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, cberlets derrogatory speculations regarding editors on this page and derrogatory comments regarding Dr. Neman have been removed. cberlet I urge you to properly source your contributions, and refrain from name calling. PK good to be the King 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your continued use of terms such as "cult apologist" in reference to editors who disagree with you. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BabyDweezil 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To claim that it should be a balance between "supporters and critics" is a bit self-serving. It should be a biography. And point to a legitimate source for your claim of there being a cult, other than your own. A single scholarly article in a respected source qualified to make the assessment. And point to a specific problem in the article. Your contribution thus far for a week is to come in and name call, bait, and slander, and insert your own work at will. It's getting a bit questionable.BabyDweezil 04:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't interfere if there's a mediator, except to say that Chip Berlet's work is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia; this been acknowledged by the Arbitration Committee. Baby, please don't leave messages in templates for established editors. It can come across as provocative. It's probably also worth looking to see whether any of the new accounts are connected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin--If you wish to be helpful, I would suggest that rather than worry about template usage that may "come across as provocative", you address my half dozen requests and complaints on this page with respect to Berlet's continued characterization of those who express differing points of view as "cult apologists" "Orwellian sanitizers" and the like. I have brought this up repeatedly, with no response. As a Wikipedian, you may feel template usage is the primary issue. From the perspective of a potential editor in this open source encyclopedia, what they see on this page is consistent bullying and malicious labeling of a legimitate point of view by an editor here that gives every appearance of this behavior having the full sanction of Wikipedia's administrators,and that guidelines prohibiting personal attacks, etc, merely exist in cyberpaper. A visitor to this page knows and can discern nothing about templates, what they do see is what is written here. And as such, it is in consistent violation of Wikipedia's own guidelines. They also see the guidelines being ignored for one particular person, who becomes exempt on the basis of some sort of status. Thus, the impression is that what we have here is nothing more than a good old boy network, rather than an objective encyclopedia project. BabyDweezil 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, SV, you would make yourself less ridiculous if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the wiki policies regarding biographies of living persons. Also, my advice to will beback (see pK Schools ya, above) is also applicable to you...until you are ready to think critically and understand the applicable wiki policies, please refrain from commenting on this page...etc...PK good to be the King 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi PK, up to now you have assumed good faith and made worthwhile comments. However you criticisms of SV and WB are inappropriate, their undertanding of policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV aren't in doubt. Addhoc 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually maybe I was a little harsh, but well within the norm you have established on this page. I have had to remove several derrogatory comments where cberlet called me and other editors here cultists or made derrogatory claims about the subject of this biography without reliably sourcing them. You have been notabley silent on all these occasions....why is that? Re good faith, I do not consider being called a cultist or cult appologist to be in good faith, nor do I consture what I see as selective moderation of this page to be in good faith. Furthermore, as moderators you, SV and WB have your own good faith responsibilities...that is giving good, reasonable opinions on issues arising from article composition. I expect any moderator weighing in on an issue, to be well informed and to think critically...its was actually quite disappointing to read such careless comments. Plus, I think its ok to question, discuss and criticize moderators' interpretaion of policies. I strongly feel they have missed the boat here...Also, I am not sure what you mean by "their understanding of policies....aren't in doubt"...can you please elaborate on why you feel their comments were not doubtful. PK good to be the King 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I meant in the sense they are well known editors who have demonstrated their understanding of policy elsewhere. Addhoc 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry addhoc, your reasoning here just makes me go hmmmmmm. Lets see if I can break it down for ya....SV and WB can ignore wiki policy and critical thinking in this case because they are "well known"....(hmmmmm) Sv and WB can ignore wiki policy and critical thinking in this case because they have "demonstrated their understanding of policy elsewhere".....(hmmmm)....cberlet's opinion of Dr. Newman &Co. is more reliable (and therefore more weighted) than...lets see...the NY State Attorney General, any reputable, well indexed journal in the field of sociology, social psychology, counseling psychology, or the American Psy. Assoc. because on another page and in another unrelated article, you guys said it was ok to source him....(hmmmmmmmm).....And, its really strange that you or cberlet still have not provided the said arbitration findings....Hmmmmmmm addhoc....this just doesn't add up....pKGood to be the King 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm saying that WB and SV have acted in good faith, accordingly I don't approve of critical remarks about their approach. In this context suggesting SV should read WP:NPOV isn't very appropriate, because she has been involved in editing the policy for some time. My suggestion is that you clearly present how you want to improve the article and explain which aspects of their policy interpretation you disagree with. However, I don't remember endorsing Chip's opinion of Dr Newman. The situation is I haven't heard of Dr Newman previously and expect some form of secondary reference to be produced. Regarding sourcing Chip's work, I've also had a look for the ArbCom ruling and couldn't find the decision. Apparently, ArbCom only archive a summary and much of the discussion isn't kept. That said, I accept his arguments about the work not being self-published. Addhoc 17:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, addhoc, thanks for your response. I still find it troubling in that....1) your response to my request for the arb finding, that you can't find the decision so I just should accept your word for it, this is not acceptable. 2) I have to reassert my question, re your selective mediation, 3) I should accept a source with a reliability rating on par with the national enquirer because it is NPOV (appalling). Perhaps the problems is this: I think all of you are in an NPOV loop. For me NPOV is not a magic bullet that overrides our good faith responsibility of critical thinking, verifiability and reliability as well as the GF responsibility to be extremely sensitive and vigilient when editing the biography of living persons. There is no definitive NPOV test for including sources... Instead this decision is an analytical process, wherein many criteria are weighed and assessed. Moreover, re SV's contribution NPOV policy this is fine, she however, has in no way demonstrated she can thoughtfully apply that policy and that is the issue. Finally, you may not have endorsed cberlets opinion but other moderators have done so without informing themselves of the issues particular to this article and critical evaluation his qualifications to render same. Plus, sorry, but I find your response to be a bit cookie cutterish (see..how the article can be improved..etc..above) I construe this to be a smidge evasive and silly. I believe we were discussing why you think SV & WB's comments were not doubtful....I hope we all can make the leap that ironing out differences re policy interpretation will improve the article by weeding out poorly sourced material. lastly, I offer my appologies to both SV and WB, with the caveat that consistent moderation is critical to other editor's perception that all moderators are acting in good faith and that all editors will be in turn treated with good faith. Sadly as you can see, this page has degenerated into a circus of the bizarre. in good faith...I am pK Good to be the King 18:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Ok, I didn't say you should take my word for it. Assume good faith does not translate to trust me I'm a mediator. You should assume SV and WB mean well, unless there is evidence to the contrary. I didn't say you should believe them. Or me for that matter. As it happens you should critically examine sources to see if they are compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. In my understanding the work by Chip was not self published. If you want to explain that I've misunderstood the situation, then go ahead. I wasn't saying the discussion is closed.
• 2) Usually, I only intervene if the discussion has got stuck and become sterile.
• 3) I certainly have never used the argument that to maintain balance we should bend WP:V.

Addhoc 20:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi addhoc, tons of reliable secondary sources have been provided already. See babydweesil's comments under Now we're getting somewhere. Plus, I am getting the queasy feeling we are all getting played by cberlet: so far his sourcing is from a non-peer reviewed, advocacy journalism website. And, the "expert", Dr. Mann he introduced to support his claims about Dr. Newman is a primary source and her credentials are quite dubious at that. His major contribution seems to be name calling and disruption. These observations lead me to believe his input is not in good faith and questionable. Good to be the King 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur we avoid name calling and instead focus on how the article could be improved. Addhoc 20:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To: Thetruthmatters re: adding critical material

Thetruthmatters--I understand that you are very eager to add any and all material that is critical of Newman and which is (of course) from a reputable source. However, in your zest, please take the time to follow some basic, standard guidelines for editing. Your last edit inserted "....a book which was criticized by Benjamin Harris in the APA Journal of Reviews." I took the time to find the proper name of the journal and correct it, format and properly source (as best as possible) the material, and place in context. And I reluctantly left it in although there is no indication what the criticism was. In a biography of George Bush, you wouldnt say "Bush said such and such, which was criticized by the Washington Post." Do you have the critical article? Have you read it? Can you say what the criticisms were? The response? (there was one). I know this can take time, but hey...it's an encyclopedia. BabyDweezil 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, Thank you for those observations, and yes, I will certainly do as you suggest in future. I actually thought this was a noteworthy piece, particularly in lieu of earlier questions about folks at the APA and their stance on social therapy. I think a mainstream perspective helps readers understand how Newman's practice differs from standard psychological practices, something which is not entirely clear, in my humble opinion. Cheers. Thetruthmatters 22:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thetruthmatters--It may well indeed be a noteworthy piece, and it may "help readers understand how Newman's practice differs from standard psychological practices," but I am suggesting that you as an editor need to review the article and present how it demonstrates that difference for it to be included in an encyclopedia article. You should also be aware of nuances involved in reviewing your sources; for example, this article (which is actually a book review) may or may not represent standard psychological practices, and there may not necessarily be such a thing as "standard psychological practices" with respect to certain areas of psychology. And the author of the book review is, like Newman, a Marxist, so it may or may not represent the APA's stance on social therapy. Good hunting! BabyDweezil 02:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere!

Hi TTM, I was really excited that you found a review of one of Dr. Newman's books. Naturally, wanted to read it...but I couldn't find it in the journal you have cited. I must qualify this by saying I only looked at the online version of the journal....Before I make a trek to the library, could you double check your citation...it might save me some time. Also, you gave me an idea....when I looked at that journal you mentioned, I found 2 book reviews of 2 other books by Drs. Newman and Holzman. Maybe we could include a summary of these book reviews and any other book reviews or review articles about Dr. Newman/Holzman's work. To me this is most important. I would really enjoy discussing this with you. pK Good to be the King 16:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

pK--a pretty comprehensive bibiliography of the acdemic publications of Newman, Holzman et al apprears here :http://www.eastsideinstitute.org/researchbib.html#chapters. Two Newman/Holzman books were reviewed in a different peer reviewed publication (Nissen M, Axel E, Bechmann Jensen T. The Abstract Zone of Proximal Conditioning. Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426). This has already been cited in the article. It is available here:http://www.eastsideinstitute.org/booksunsciendknowreview.html. Interestingly, towards the end of the review, it makes reference to the same Berlet material that was under discussion here. Its worth a look to see how an academic journal frames that source relative to a discussion of social therapy. BabyDweezil 17:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Serrette quote: recommendation for removal/Use of partisan sources issue

An extended (four paragraph) quote from Dennis Serrette was recently added to this biography. Aside from the undue weight given by such an extended quotation, I am recommending its removal as it is in clear violation of WP:LIVING with respect to Reliable Sources:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

The Serrette quote is a primary source, published 20 years ago in a highly partisan, politically charged edition of the Marxist journal Radical America available here: http://dl.lib.brown.edu/radicalamerica/. The edition also included partisan political critiques of the then New Alliance Party (NAP) by Chip Berlet and some others. The editorial introduction to the edition--which refers to its readers as "comrades" and was written at the time when NAP's Lenora Fulani was launching a presidential bid that appeared to be encroaching on the "turf" of establsihment leftists--notes that "We have become convinced that the New Alliance Party and its many affiliate groupings...are not just other legitimate groups with whom we must coexist," and that NAP fails the journal's "basic test" for what constitutes a "legitimate left organization." (Ironically, much of the "critiques" given in the journal consist of classic red-baiting of NAP's "democratic centralist" core structure, etc.) It encourages the "comrades" to "dissuade" the unwary from associating with NAP (with the implicit threat that to do so will invite them to be maliciously labeled as "cultists" "neo-fascists" and the like by the self-appointed watchdogs who define "legitimacy." Serrette's personal account in this journal is primarily a document that would fit well in a discussion of left sectarianism, and the use of baiting, etc in attempts to discredit political opponents. as an out of context, huge quote in a biography, it is clearly not a reliable source. It's inclusion would demand an extended framework for the context in which it was written, and an NPOV discussion of all of the issues involved at the time (two decades ago.) The article currently is stored on the Political Research Associates website. The fact that material from that site has been allowed in other, unrelated contexts does not impact the argument of it's being a highly partisan source, and an attempt to insert POV into an article. From its introduction to its Newman, NAP etc on its website

This report attempts to seriously analyze the history, activities and internal dimensions of NAP in the context of its work in the US progressive political community...The slogans of the Newmanite groups seem to reflect a progressive political framework, but the organizing practices and internal structure do not reflect the outward claims of Newman, Fulani and other leaders. When the New Alliance Party was disbanded and the Newmanites merged with the fledgling Patriot Party and began courting Ross Perot and the Reform Party, any former claim to represent a left political formation was abandoned as Newman and Fulani followed the same trail blazed by previous left-wing groups that embraced rightwing populism and joined proto-fascist revolts.

This not only makes clear that Berlet and PRA not only regard NAP as not passing the test for a legitimate "left political formation," but that as well, failing to adhere strictly to Berlet's guidelines for legitimacy will immediately result in your "reclassification" as now being likely to "join proto-fascist revolts." Such is the nature of the extreme partisan of PRA, Serrette et al as sources for this biography. Their inclusion would require an extended framing of this whole side matter that presents the context and character of the various points of view in order to maintain NPOV. As you can see from the necessary framing of Dennis King's "therapy cult" claims, this get rather unwieldy, and turns the biography into a magazine type article addressing peripheral debates rather than objective facts. Suggestions are welcome (name calling and baiting is NOT) BabyDweezil 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, a comment without any responses does not establish a consensus. -Will Beback 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me know

When it becomes obvious that this page is the subject of attempting to obfuscate the actual issue of two different POV's that both deserve to be aired in an NPOV way on Wikipedia, please let me know. In the meantime, this is a total waste of time. --Cberlet 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

hI, derrogatry comments by cberlet to other editors on this page were removed again. Good to be the King 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i removed cberlets derrogatory comments addressed to the other editors on this page....I am pK, and, yeah its...Good to be the King 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not censor my comments.--Cberlet 18:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

SOCIAL THERAPY IN ACTION

Dear Moderators, It seems to me as if you are getting a very realistic, accurate free sampe of what it is like to actually be in Social Therapy (at least the version which was forced upon me for which I paid money to receive). How does it make you feel? Confused? Angry? Degraded? And you are getting it free of charge so you should, of course , be grateful. 69.121.3.55 04:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please tells us how the article can be improved. Your reasoned, reliably referenced, non-primary sourced input is always most welcome. I am pK and its Good to be the King 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor copy edits made

Here and there in the article. Beats complaining. BabyDweezil 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made a small change to the part that goes ...critics have raised issues.....I just qualified them. I would really appreciate someone including a peer reviewed/academic journal type article with an analysis of Dr. Newman's theory, psychological approach. I think including what the academic/psychology community has to say about Dr. Newman is vital to this article. I'm currently looking and would appreciate any help. Thanks, pk Good to be the King 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed trimming

I suggest the following cuts, to get rid of overly emphasized peripheral material and leave room for adding whatever relevant biographical details (there are significant gaps) that might be added:

--In the social and Political Activism Section, remove from "With the NCLC’s abandonment of left wing politics....." through the end of that section.

--In the Into the Mainstream section. remove the extended Dennis Serrette quote; leave the summary of it that appears directly above it, and leave the source for the material as it is. In addition to the summary that would remain, the issue of Newman's Marxist collective is discussed in a pretty good NPOV manner with a presentation of the criticisms and the response in the New Therapist material that appears directly below. With a few minor copy edits for continuity, this should be a more than sufficient presentation of the controversies. Lemme know BabyDweezil 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The entire section "Progressive Politics on Manhattan’s Upper West Side" is little more that propaganda. The section on the All Stars belongs on a new page. At least 50% of this entry should be deleted outright. Substantial additions of material critical of the that have appeared in newspapers and magazines should be added.--Cberlet 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your derrogatory referenes. Please refrain from making these kinds of comments here. Plus, maybe you should source and input this critical material that have appeared in newspapers and magazines instead of calling people names. Good to be the King 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediators--At this point, I have to insist on an intervention with respect to Cberlet's continued response to suggestions with personal attacks, labeing, and abusive derogatory comments. I am not going to respond any more to this issue on this page. BabyDweezil 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that the problem here on this entry is the same one as on other pages [derrogatory reference deleted by pK], that are turning the page into an extension of a POV propaganda campaign. It is impossible to discuss this issue if my comments keep getting deleted. Please do not censor my argument.--Cberlet 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I removed your derrogatory reference to the editors and Dr. Newman. further, you have failed to do the work necessary to credibly establish your argument. Calling editors names, and especially calling the subject of this biography names does not magically turn your poorly rendered, unsourced opinion into a fact, or a credible, verifiable, reliable criticism. As always, there is room all views, however that does not mean they all get equal weight and poorly sourced/unsourced material gets no weight at all. See ya pK Good to be the King 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Orwellian?

It's rather shocking that Chip Berlet is feverishly attempting to suppress sourced information with the claim that it is "cult propaganda." It seems that he is a bit concerned that this material--from the very some author that has been cited as the original source for the "therapy cult" claim, written just right before those claims were made--simply shows the lie behind that claim. In thirty years of smears against the "Newmanites," Berlet has made every effort to keep this basic information suppressed in the course of his unsuccessful three decade campaign to smear his political opponents into submission. The varous ArbCom committee's of wikipedia would do well to self-reflect a bit on Berlet's long term effort to ingratiate himself within the Wiki community, and establish himself as an uncontestable definitive source on particular matters, in light of the smear campaign he has waged on this discussion, and his flagrant and desperate efforts to suppress factual, verifiable information through the use of bullying, personal attacks, and distortions of the public record. I notice as well that Marina Ortiz of www.ex-iwp is as well feverishly deleting articles from her archive that can i any way be used to verify all of this. Kinda silly, her website merely copied that material and stored it on her site. As Mulder would say...the truth is out there... Nuff saidBabyDweezil 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inserting properly sourced material. You are deleting properly sourced material. Orwell indeed.--Cberlet 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked the editor who inserted that source twice to read and summarize it. I cannot find it. A source has to reference something more than just the statement "he criticized the book." You should be instructing editors to aquire, read, verify and summarize sources, rather than supporting their bad habits. Trolling around for material to insert simply because you've heard it was critical is shoddy editing, even by the low standards aleady set by the Newman bashers on this page. BabyDweezil 02:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was really happy to see the material you contributed. Naturally, I ran out to my library and borrowed "On the Edge". Unfortunately, On the edge is not very reliable so I deleted the statement and reference. I hope you understand that NPOV is not a definitive green light to put anything in. The material must be reliable too. I looked at the authors' credentials and they are not psychologists or sociologists or any kind of social scientist. I think Tourish wrote another book about racism in the evangalical movement (or something like that) which is fine, but he also published a somewhat troubling article in 2002, Human Relations 55(2) 147-172, not peer reviewed. Here he argues that corporate structure, organization and leadership is cultist. I find this a bit overzeleaous. However, I will check the literature for popular views on his opinion. Another troubling finding was that the book "On the Edge" was not reviewed by a peer reviewed psychology journal, but instead I did find a cite for a review in a political journal...But, just as I was about to get it...the library caught on fire!!!! (yikes) and I had to leave. Hopefully I can go back soon and get the article. With respect to content, the first chapter of "On the Edge" is well referenced by cultism researchers who have good publication records in peer reviewed journals on cultism. I think that's a plus. My hopes were dashed when I read the chapter on Dr. Newman, though. Unfortunately, the approximately 20 pg chapter devotes less than 2 pages to cultism...the rest is political wierdness. Plus, i noted a strange similarity between your report and this chapter. Further, the content that does discuss this issue, might be construed as a primary source because all the allegations are raised and substantiated by the authors' own speculation. I would be much more comfortable if the authors included an analysis of Dr. Newman's theory and an account of an interview, Marina Ortiz or Loren, written by Michael Langone, MT Singer, Lifton, or any of the peer-published researchers cited in the introduction. Instead, you cberlet seem to be the major reference. There are also some serious red flags here: the authors make misleading, unreferenced claims about time limits of "normal psychotherapy" vs. Dr. Newman's approach that simply are not true. Also, the fact that Marina Ortiz is included is also misleading, since she has established herself as an internet wacko on this page (see her comments above re sexual intercoure as recruitment tool). Sorry but this source is kinda weak on the reliability scale. Please remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing...(something like that). Maybe you can go back to the introduction of "On the Edge" and check for publications concerning Dr. Newman by some of those referenced authors....that would be fantastic....see ya pKGood to be the King 23:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PK wrote, in regards to the authors of "On the Edge, :"I looked at the authors' credentials and they are not psychologists or sociologists." Neither is Fred Newman. Why is it acceptable that Fred Newman, the creator of Social Therapy, be exempt from achieving these academic credentials but the critcs must adhere to them? Seems a bit hypocritical, one way street, etc.GrownUpAndWise 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Grownup--Ummmm..run that by me again? I thought i had gotten the hang of interpreting comments by the ex-iwp visitors here, but ya lost me. Newman is the SUBJECT of this biography--editors don't need to verify his credentials. Sources for this biography of Newman do need to be assessed. BabyDweezil 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Properly cited, reputable, published material. Stop the censorship. This is nonsense.--Cberlet 03:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know who deleted my very appropriate response to the question BabyDweezil asked me last night. I agree and apologize for being inappropriate in my first post here but the one which most recently deleted was not insulting, etc. If it was the moderators, could you please let me know the reason why? If it was BabyDweezil or PK than I think this an example of censorship, sanitization, Orwell and libraries set on fire.GrownUpAndWise 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Here is the post:

BabyDweezil:Let me clarify: the subject of this biography, Fred Newman, is an unlicensed to practice psychotherapy or mental health counseling in New York where he is, indeed, collecting money in exchange for these precise services. Fred Newman not only practices without a license but also trains others to practice his self-invented form of "psychotherapy" and he is not a psychologist, licensed social worker, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, etc. Yet, you and PK are now discrediting the authors' of "On the Edge" due to them not being psychologists (along with a long list of others). By your own reasoning Fred Newman can also be discounted as an expert because he is not a psychologist. But lo and behold Newman is the founder of Social Therapy. I think that someone who invented a form of therapy and is making quite a lot of money via this invention absolutely needs to have his credentials assessed in this forum and everywhere else. There is a long list of people who are unhappy (an understatement) with what and how Fred Newman operates. I know of no other form of therapy where there is such a following of people speaking out against it. Yet, you and PK do not approve of any of anyone who does oppose Fred Newman and Social Therapy and only of ones who do. This is not surprising to me.GrownUpAndWise 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Grownup--You are confusing 2 disfferent issues. Newman is not licensed; the clinics doing social therapy I believe are. The approach is recognized as legitimate in the peer reviewed lit, academic publications and the APA (see bibliographt listed below). 1. There are thus far no critiques of the sort you are making in those venues. Your personal opinion is fine of that issue, the question for an encyclopedia article is that if you want that view represnted, it has to be sourced to material that is appropriate, such as an academic, professional review that outlines the point, an official statement from the APA, a sanction against the clinics from an investigatory/regulatory agency. I have helped--not opposed--incorporate that material here, despite it reading like a list of a series of proofs indicating that the subject doesn't beat his wife. Its in the history, its in the article. I've reviewed and summarized material a number of times (such as the New Therapist article) that was submitted by editors who didnt make the effort to review, summarize and properly source their insertions.

2. The complaints of individuals are not long (I could list the names quite quickly). The issue is undue weight. Any profession, including therapeutic ones, has its individual complainants. Most popular therapeutic approaches have quite a large list, and quite a few therapists have wound up in heated courtroom battles over their treatment of their patients. There is no record of this sort for social therapy. The few individual complainants--whose differences should not be dismissed--have had mention in the popular press. That material, again, has been included. The discussion has been as to undue weight, given that these complaints are closely tied to political issues. The material has NEVER been deleted from the article. And from what I know about social therapists, they probably wouldnt want it to be, other than having it be fair and balanced, since theyre the ones challenging traditional approaches.

It's all there in the article, so what exactly is your complaint relative to the article? THAT is the issue--I dont particularly wish to debate the issue with you on a discussion page (well, I do, but its not appropriate) other than to the extent it concerns the article content. BabyDweezil 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This diff [13] indicates it was 68.237.46.190 (talk · contribs). Addhoc 13:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

BabyDweezil: I am not confusing the issue – this is the issue. Newman is unlicensed and is practicing psychotherapy in these centers. So these centers are allowing an unlicensed person to practice and receive money for practicing psychotherapy on their premises. Newman is the cause for these centers being in existance in the first place. Newman and his self-invented theories is the basis for training Social Therapists. So we have have an unlicensed person practicing and training therapists in these centers (and making money from doing so). Yet, you discredit Newman critics because they are not psychologists. As you said yourself, Newman is challenging the theories of psychology so I would think you, of all people, would be far more open to the opinions of those who are not trained in psychology.

Again, this IS the issue, not confusion of the issues and it is extremely relevant to Newman’s biography even though you wish to delete this.GrownUpAndWise 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page until the issues are sorted out. Please let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And how do you propose to sort them out? BabyDweezil

I can't get involved in the content issues; I'm here as an admin only. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting these tiny minority POV criticisms in the 2nd paragraph is absurd. Social therapy practitioners have published extensively in peer reviewed journals, the academic presses, and present regularly at American Psychological Association conferences.[[14]] The critics havent one SINGLE comparable credit, but rather, an extensive, documented record of politically motivated charges, attacks and the like. You, in league with Berlet, are now bullying enforecement of this flagrant violation of NPOV, suspiciously at a time when the raampant bias of the article as it stood is being challenged. BabyDweezil 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't agree with your criticisms of SV in regard to being in league with Berlet. Also, the debate on this page was over-heatiing and there was a minor edit war over the article. Allowing everything to cool down is a sensible decision. Hopefully we can resolve the disagreement reasonably soon and request the article is unprotected. Addhoc 11:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc--Your disagreement noted. I would be happy to refrain from drawing inferences if mediation can assist in weighing the differences that come up in content issues. Berlet has been intransigent, insulting, and constantly in violation of the code of conduct, and unrestrained. I'd be happy to go forward focused solely on the content if the disagreements on it can be systematically mediated. E.g., if I make--as I have--a proposal regarding content, in the absence of it being addressed, there becomes no option than to unilaterally try it out. If such proposals can be discussed and moderated, we can move forward without the article itself becoming the venue for the differences. BabyDweezil 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is simple. The page needs to be balanced. Critical comments from reputable published sources are appropriate. Supporters of Newman continuously delete properly cited material, and bury the page in personal attacks on Dennis King and other critics; or long rambling material praising Newman. Here is an example of what two pro-Newman editors did just before the page was locked. It was an outlandish violation of Wiki guidelines.

When I tried to start discussions about why there were objections to specific sources of information, this page turned into a sewer flowing with streams of consciousness tirades against critics of Newman, including me. When I point out the obvious fact that the disagreements over this entry involve the ongoing problem on Wikipedia of enforcing boundaries on partisanship relating to groups and inviduals charged with operating in a totalist or cultic manner, my arguments are censored--literally deleted--by partisan defenders of Newman. Pretending this is not a major part of the problem here will not make it go away. Wikipedia has developed policies for dealing with editors who are not capable of editing in an NPOV way on pages related to totalist or cultic groups and individuals. The LaRouche-related pages serve as a model.

Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth are scholars who wrote On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, published by the scholarly publishing house M.E. Sharpe in 2000. What legitimate objection exists to including material from that book in this entry?--Cberlet 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, although tourish and wohlforth may be considered by you to be scholars, this does not make them recognized social scientist or psychologists. Further I am not disputing that their speculations were published--I have the book. My problem with this chapter is that it is riddled with scholarly errors and includes questionable material. They have actually no sources to support their speculations aside from their own word. Since they lack the requsite credentials, which to me would be a Ph.D. or significant peer reviewed publication record in the field, I do not feel their training and expertise is adequate to re-interpret Vygotsky, nor anyone's behavior in such a way. And, this certainly is not enough to permit the inclusion of your proposed contribution. What I would accept is a peer reviewed article published by a reputable researcher with a Ph. D. in psychology or social science, with some expertise in Vygotsky, supporting your contribution. Also, please do not attempt to mislead the readers of this page by insinuating my edit was sanitizing, arbitrary or combative. This page cleary shows I responded to you with a detailed analysis of why your contribution was removed. Further, in the spirit of good faith and cooperation, I went as far as to give you the names of peer published cultism researchers and requested your contribution by asking you to search the literature for articles written by them about Dr. Newman. Again, you have failed to do the work necessary to support your arguments and have opted instead to create phoney diversions circumventing the policies here to promote your own bizarre view.

The advice in WP:RS is "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject." A postgraduate degree is usualy required, a PhD isn't. Addhoc 20:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this on the website for the International Cultic Studies Association. "Dennis Tourish, Ph.D., is a Professor of Communication at Aberdeen Business School, in the Robert Gordon University. He has published widely on group influence and cultism, and is the co-author (with Tim Wohlforth) of On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left. He also researches and teaches interpersonal and organizational communication, has lectured on cults in a number of UK and Australian Universities, and has acted as an expert witness on the subject for the British Medical Association. He is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Cultic Studies Review. For correspondence: Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Kaim House, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE Telephone: 01224-263914 Fax: 01224-263870 E-mail: D.J.Tourish@rgu.ac.uk" I don't know what all the talk is about Dennis Tourish not having a Ph.D. Thetruthmatters 21:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, I would think that most of you would already know that Newman did not start borrowing Vygotsy's ideas until relatively recently.Thetruthmatters 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

More up to date about Tourish is at http://www.rgu.ac.uk/abs/staff/page.cfm?pge=10643 Thetruthmatters 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi TTT, thanks for that. As you may or may not know, my research efforts were cut short yesterday by a fire at my library. I raised the credential issue because when I read the book to find the authors' qualifications, Ph.D. wasn't one of them. Actually Tourish was noted to be a reader in communications, which means lecturer, but it is not the same as a Ph.D. Its great you cleared it up! As you can see his Ph.D. is in communications and he is affiliated with a business school his credential alone does not make him that reliable. However, I did have a chance today to find 3 more articles he published in the Int'l J. of Cultic Studies, which is peer reviewed. However, these articles are not related to Dr. Newman or Vygotsky. This raised my concern because, his book chapter is not a peer reviewed study and contains no peer reviewed studies to support his claims. There is no indication he ever undertook a legitimate scientific study of Dr. Newman or evaluated his (Newman or Holzman) publications. It seems to be no more than his un supported opinion and further, the absence of literature connecting Dr. Newman and cultism indicates Dr. Tourish's opinion is not shared by other legitiate members of the academic community. Plus his publication record in psychology journals is 0, and in clutic studies he's got 3 that I have identified. This is not a very significant record. (most grad students have that before their phd) To me, this and the outright falsehoods and factual errors within the chapter, make it a weak source. On the other hand, if we could find an article by Tourish on Newman or Vygotsky and included it with book chapter we would be in very good shape. How do you rate the chapter? Plus, if you can get any articles by Tourish on Newman or any peer reviewed articles linking Newman and cultism, please put them up here and lets have a look. Thanks again. pK Good to be the King 00:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<-----------Addhoc, pK, truthmatters--Let's assume Tourish has a PhD. Lets assume he has several. Now lets look at his article, which is about Fred Newman. The article has 74 references. Only one (1) of them is from Fred Newman. The reference is from a self-published book written in 1974. Tourish's article was published in 2000. Let me get my calculator....OK, thats 26 years ago. See the link I posted above which will give you a bibliography and count the number of publications, from 1974 through 2000 published by Newman and a number of associates. As Addhoc notes per WP:RS, a reliable source should have "demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing." The field being discussed is Fred Newman and social therapy. Tourish has never published a single article on either, prior to publication of this book chapter. In reseaching this book chapter, Tourish did not conduct a single interview with Newman, a social therapist, or any associates of them. He did not make a single field visit to any activities of a single program associated with Newman. It's not quite clear if he interviewed anyone, even the critics (and he only chose the harshest ones) whose views comprise the entirety of his chapter.

His co-author, Wohlforth, was for many years a member of the Socialist Workers Party, who apparently was expelled 40 years ago. He is now a mystery writer. I don't know if he has a college degree or not. His website doesnt indicate if he does.

I could only find one review in a journal of this book, in the Australain journal of Political Science, from 2001, which was pretty critical of the approach used in the book. From the review:

The most disappointing aspect of the book is the adoption of a social-psychological framework. It is disappointing partly because this approach on group dynamics and manipulation has been ‘done to death’ (of course Milgram’s study of authority is a key reference to emphasise the point that we are all potential cult members, given the right circumstances, hence the world cannot be divided into ‘the normals and the fruitcakes’. Interestingly, Goffman’s work on total institutions and resocialisation does not rate a mention).

There is no specific discussion in the review of Newman, other than of him being one of the subjects of the book.

I'd be happy to look over any other sources anyone has that would actually constitute a reliable source per WP:RS on this subject BabyDweezil 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to share with readers the favorable review of Tourish's book by Professor Janja Lalich which can be read at http://www.culticstudiesreview.org/csr_bkreviews/bkrev_onedgeandtabernaclehate.htm I will also include some information on Janja Lalich's significant scholarly contributions shortly. PK, I would really appreciate it if you would tone down your disdain for researchers who depict a less flattering side of Newman's organization (of which Vygotsky is but a tiny part, and one that did not play into Newman's thinking until relatively recently). Newman's organization was well established long before he began his "performance" stuff. Thetruthmatters 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thetruthmatters--actually, Newman and Holzman have been writing fairly consistently about Vygotsky since 1979, since the publication of their Practice of Method. I think a fair amount of their stuff on Vygotsky over the past 27 years can be read if you follow the links from the bibliography I posted. As for Lalich, I really know nothing about her. However, she isn't under consideration as a source for this article, so i'm not going to review her material at this time.BabyDweezil 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PS to Truth--I did read the review you posted (I don't mean to sound like i'm ignoring info your presenting). It summarizes the book, but isnt exactly an academic style review, which tend to address the book subjects methodology, experimental designs, etc. A review of that sort would find the book wanting. Nor would three consecutive sentences begin with "Did you know that...?", nor would it have sentences like "Some people found this very confusing." What people? Why was it confusing? Where are the survey results of people involved indicating this? That's popular press writing, not a critical review. (Critical in academic contexts doesnt imply pro or con, but exploring the subject in some amount of depth.) the author is also a former member of one of the other groups discussed, and has written her own book about the experience, so is not necessarily objective. BabyDweezil 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Good to be the King. No one on Wikipedia cares what you think of the Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book. Not an iota. It is a clever attempt to make us argue your review of the book, when what matters is that the authors have the credentials to write the book, it was published by a reputable publisher, and it is on topic. Everything else is a diversion. Please stop this nonsense.--Cberlet 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet: Amen

Pk and BabyDweezil: It has now finally occured to me that your one and only definition of "peer reviewed" means review by a Social Therapist or a supporter of Newman. I think your very narrow definition is rather biased and will taint the biography. Other views aside from Newman's and supporters of Social Therapy exist and hold validity whether you like it or not.GrownUpAndWise 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth--I've outlined in a bit of detail my specific criticisms of the Tourish book, and would be eager to hear your response to them. To simply call them "biased" and not to explain why doesn't really consitute a counterargument. In fact, its the very sort of thing I'm critiquing in Tourish. As to peer review, I would most certainly consider (among others) the three reviews of Newman/Holzman that you can easily find in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books as uncontestably fitting the description of a reputable source, since these constitute their most immediate peers (defined not, as you imply, as "supporters," but as those who share the same professional location). Wikipedia advises using the best sources, and peer viewed publications from the field that a biography subject works in would be the best. You can search for them here: http://www.apa.org/journals/cnt/ and review them. I'd be happy to hear your assessment. BabyDweezil 03:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BD, you are entitled to all the criticisms of his work and any others but this is not the place for your personal review, and I have no desire to debate with you whatsoever. Wikipedia has its criteria and Dennis Tourish's book meets it. Bottom line.

Also, I think as a courtesy it would be nice if you would check out people's backgrounds before stating that they lack certain degrees. Furthermore, a "reader" may not mean the same to people in the US or Canada as it does in Britain. Thetruthmatters 11:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth--Actually, a discussion page is is exactly the place for my personal review of a source of an encyclopedia article I'm participating in editing. If you don't wish to discuss the merits of the content of a source, which affects how that source is to be presented in the article (is it a dominant opinion? are the claims backed up by verifiable research? Are there counterclaims which dispute the views? etc) then that is your choice. However, that is what the process of editing consists of. The article currently--at the point at which is what protected--offers the interpretation of Newman's approach by critics before it discusses the approach itself. That stands the concept of NPOV on its head. A number of scholars who have presented contradictory findings to the source your defending are not represented in the article, or are buried deep within the artcile. It is, in fact, the attempt to include these contradictory reports that led to this page becoming embroiled in a heated dispute in the first place, and I believe, the point at which you entered to present your "personal opinions", to which I have been responding. You might want to review wiki guidelines on NPOV to get a sense of what we are discussing. BabyDweezil 13:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<------Actually, BabyDweezil, the claims you make about WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, are transparently false. I request the mediator make a ruling on the Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book. The positions are clear. The facts are clear. I believe a majority of the current editors favor using the book. Further discussion will be a waste of time.--Cberlet 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Psychotherapy Licensing

With respect to the first pargraph assertion "For over 30 years he has had a private psychotherapy practice in New York City, although lacking conventional credentials and licensing in the field," the latter section should be removed, unless Newman has made the claim that he does possess these. See the opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates) given by SlimVirgin in response to attempt to insert into the introduction of another article that a key figure in the article is not an attorney, which had not asserted that he was:

We don't say that he is a lawyer and so there's no need to point out that he isn't, and in addition your positioning of it in the intro was bad writing. I'm not going to carry on arguing. This article has developed over time with input from editors of all political persuasions, has been the subject of one arbiration case, and was examined during a second. Your edits are not acceptable and your talk page comments are verging on trolling. If you really are a new editor, and if you want to stick around, my very strong advice to you is to let this go until you have more experience of dealing with articles you have strong feelings about. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Per this opinion, the analogous mentioning of a "lack" of credentials in the first paragraph of this article is recommended for removal BabyDweezil 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think you should remove this per se, but wouldn't object to weaving it into a different spot. I think its important to talk about his achievements and qualifications. I also think there may be an interesting angle here about how Newman feels his Philosophy training influenced the direction of his work. Crunchy Food!!!!! PK good to be the King 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The articles involved are about me and my workplace. I have never claimed to be an attorney. I do not pretend to act like an attorney. I do not charge money for doing what an attorney does. Etc.--Cberlet 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence that BabyDweezil objects to is actually a sentence that BabyDweezil had earlier put into its present form, so I am puzzled why he/she/them is making such a big thing of it now. I propose that we simply say that Newman has practiced as a psychotherapist "although lacking conventional mental-health credentials" without mentioning licensing. In a paragraph further on in the article the issue of conventional versus unconventional credentials, why Newman's associates believe his unconventional credentials are more than adequate, and recent changes in licensing laws could be dealt with. The licensing issue can be dispensed with in the opening paragraph because licensing of psychotherapists was only required in NY State beginnning in 2006. Since so much of what Newman does nowadays is in the nature of consulting, training, performance coaching and the like, the issue of psychotherapy licensing may be moot. If at a later date he still does not have a license and still describes himself as a social therapist (which implicitly means a type of psychotherapist), this issue could possibly be revisited.--Dking 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about downplaying this. The issue of credentials is very important and should be made clear at the top of the article. It appears that the Newman group does NOT make it clear to the public in their therapy clinics and I feel as editors of this article this should be spelled out. This is what the NY regulatory board of professional psychotherapy licenses says:

Is a license currently required to practice counseling and psychotherapy in New York State? The practice of psychotherapy is restricted to individuals licensed in the professions of psychology, social work, medicine and as a registered professional nurse or a nurse practitioner or individuals in exempt settings. Effective January 1, 2005, an individual licensed as a mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, creative arts therapist, or psychoanalyst may also provide psychotherapy. However, beginning on January 1, 2006, most people who practice psychotherapy will be required to be licensed in one of the professions named above, unless exempt under law.What are the benefits of requiring licensure for individuals practicing psychotherapy?

This law will protect members of the public who seek mental health services by ensuring that mental health practitioners have met entry level standards of education, experience, examination, and good moral character before becoming licensed in a mental health profession. Additionally, professionals whose licenses in another profession have been revoked or surrendered will no longer be able to continue to practice psychotherapy as unlicensed practitioners. Mental Health ProfessionsWhat professions have been established?

Four licensed professions have been established: Mental Health Counseling; Marriage and Family Therapy; Creative Arts Therapy; and Psychoanalysis. Regulations have been adopted that will allow individuals to apply for licensure in these professions. The applications are posted on this web site. Who may practice Mental Health Counseling, Marriage and Family Therapy, Creative Arts Therapy and Psychoanalysis or represent themselves as such?

After January 1, 2006 only New York State licensed psychologists, physicians, physician assistants, social workers, nurses, mental health counselors, marriage and family therapists, creative arts therapists, and psychoanalysts can engage or claim to engage in these practices. None of these professionals, however, may use the protected title of another profession unless they are also licensed in that profession. For example, a physician may practice psychoanalysis, but may only claim to be a "licensed psychoanalyst" if the physician also is licensed as a psychoanalyst.

Who is exempt from becoming licensed in one of the four mental health professions?

Professionals, including psychologists, nurses, social workers, physicians and physician assistants, whose license, certification, or other authorization enables them to engage in the practice of psychotherapy and counseling are exempt under Chapter 676."

Looking around at public information on Newman one definitely gets the impression he is a psychotherapist or psychologist who practices something called "social therapy" most people haven't heard about. This is misleading to the public. If I am mistaken and Neman has been exempted under Chapter 676 please do inform me. A quick call to the NY board to verify ought to clear this up if there is any question. Thetruthmatters 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some alternative wordings for the article are being discussed below. Your suggestions would be welcome. BabyDweezil 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Restructuring

I would propose that the article be restructured along the lines of other Wiki biographies I have reviewed with respect to their similarities in relative notableness and controversiality in comparison with Fred Newman. These include:

Peter Breggin, Ronald David Laing, Thomas Szasz, Andrea Dworkin, Andrew Sullivan, Charles Murray, Israel Shahak, Chip BerletRichard Lewontin, Al Sharpton Roy Innis, Ron Kuby, Angela Davis. Other comparative examples would be welcome.

With some variation, all of these entries present first an extended account of the subject's life and views. Where there is mention of controversy, e.g., in the Murray entry, it is presented from the perspective of the subject. Actual controversies are discussed in clearly delineated sections, with a balanced view of these controversies. None of them have the character of the Newman entry, which reads as a running battle in which each and every event and idea presented is systematically challanged by critics (even with the recent attempts to balance the article, which earlier, was presented entirely from the POV of the critics (refer to the article's history).

Additional examples of relevant comparative wiki biographies would be helpful. BabyDweezil 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think the one on Murray is about him per se. It seems to be an entry about the Bell Curve. It would be a stronger biography is we knew about his life and the life circumstances as well as intellectual influences that lead him to embark on this research. But here is my idea of an outline for this entry: 1. Lead paragraph is a Summary - who is Dr. Newman and what are his accomplishments. Family, gen background. 2. What is his educational background 3. What are his influences? Why psychology? Cross-disciplinary value? 4. Newman Theory a. What it is, why is it--what is the therapeutic value of political activism? b. How it is received/viewed in the academic community c. Impact it has 5. Political Activity a. Political view & goal b. Accomplishments/impact 6. Controversy a. Within the academic community b. Within the political community c. Newman's response to controversy 7. What does Newman think his most impactful achievement is? What would he change/do differently about his work. Goals for the future Bye PK good to be the King 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving away from Toursih, et al.

Hi TTM & BD & mediators: I suggest we drop the Tourish silliness and go forward. TTM, please don't misunderstand me, I am in no way trying to be antagonistic here...I would describe my input as thorough. Yes, I do insist on a reputable, peer reviewed publications supporting your view. I believe there is a whole wiki section on that stuff. I insist on it not because Im trying to block you, but because my search of the psychology literature simply does not support this. And, to reinterpret Vygotsky or Newman/Holzman in such a way would constitute a major shift in the current thinking here. In the end we would all look silly and our article would not be reliable. Here is an example of what Im trying to say, it might be extreme, but I think it illustrates my point:

David Duke [15], [16], has a PhD, and has a publication record. However, his input is absent in the biography of Dr. Martin Luther King. [17] Why do you think that is? Dr. Duke also published an article on the american civil rights movement, what weight would you give his opinion in a wiki article on the civil rights movement? [18] Furthermore, Lawrence Summers [19]also has a Ph.D and is affiliated with Harvard University. Does this mean his opinion about women in science is appropriate to include in a biography of Nobel Laureate Gertrude Elion [20] Should we all stop taking the drugs discovered by Dr. Elion? Look man, even Mein Kampf [[21]]was published. Its sourcing depends on the context of the article we're writing. If the article is about political movements in 1930's Germany, literature by Adolf Hitler, antisemitic doctorines....this would be ok. But, if we change the context of our article to Albert Einstein or Toni Morrison, Mein Kampf becomes ridiculous as a source. I cheerfully urge everyone to think of me as quality control. Im just playing devil's advocate...As always, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please put it up and lets have a look. But, please be thoughtful here. Plus, TTM, of course I wouldn't mind reopening this issue to discuss your evaluation of the Tourish chapter...Bye PK good to be the King 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More nonsense from BabyDweezil and PK good to be the King that is designed to move attention away from the appropriateness of the Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book. They are just walking us in circles. This will go on for days, weeks, or months, before the matter is finally sent to Arbcom, where all such articles that are the subject of groups said to be political cults (and their leaders) end up. Waste of time.--Cberlet 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book

• Accept as reputable source. --Cberlet 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "neutrality and factual accuracy of article disputed." Please indicate what is in dispute

In order to move forward, it would be useful, in fact fairly necessary, for whoever tagged the article as having its neutrality and factual accuracy in dispute to say exactly what is being challenged. The article is currently locked, so I would request that those challenging it outline what--in the current version--is being challenged, both with respect to neutrality and with respect to factual accuracy. Thanks. BabyDweezil 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book

• Accept as reputable source. --Cberlet 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Could I suggest the following compromise...

• The Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth book quote is accepted
• The Serrette quote is trimmed down per BD's last edit
• The "critics, unversed in psychology, social science or Vygotskian theory, largely within the popular media, have raised concens about his therapeutic approach" sentence isn't reintroduced
• Also, the "however, these speculations have not been substantiated by social scientists, social psychologists, or counseling psychologists" isn't reintroduced.

Any takers? Addhoc 14:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I can go with the Serrette's stuff but the other stuff is out of the question. Have you read this chapter? PK good to be the King 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Plus, I wasn't being clear: let me try again, the Toursih ref and supporting statement must be deleted. The more I look into it, the more questionable this chapter becomes. As I have said before, it is our reponsibility to remove negative material and lacks sourcing or is poorly sourced. If this reference is out, I would agree to the NYT article, however, it must be qualified in some way. It is quite important to clarify this criticism is comming from outside the reputable academic community. To do otherwise would mislead the reader to believe that his contribution to psychology & his reputation as a psychologist is widely disregarded and questionable, which in turn would discredit him/his theory unduly. My review of the literature indicates Dr. Newman's work is actually well received and he has a significant publication record. We should inform the reader about the sources and let them make up their minds. Period. Bye PK good to be the King 15:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, PK--My main concern, which I think is the fundamental problem, cocerns your third and fourth points. I would agree that the qualifying language is inappropriate as written. What I find inappropriate and largely unacceptable at this point is an entire second paragraph which begins.." According to the New York Times, critics argue that Newman uses his "psychotherapy centers as recruiting tools for his political activities. And they charge that the reverse is also true...." etc. Not only does an encyclopedia biography thus become instantly transformed into an opinionated POV magazine article, it also strongly violate Undue Weight by presenting a distinctly minority (at best) POV up front. Above, I had listed a selection of roughly comparable biograhy subjects from across a range of perspectives and how they, and the attendant controversies, are handled there (the only ones i didnt include were those in dispute). Compared to those, this present bio becomes an anamoly. Criticisms are given the appropriate weight and appropriate placement in context, and the bio is allowed to delineate a presentation of the subject's views, life, accomplishments etc (it is, after all, a bio of that person, not a forum for their critics--and each of the examples I chose have many). The Newman bio currently is nothing of that sort, but instead, reads as tabloid journalism ("Newman says this...however his critics charge...Newman responds....but the critics claim...this former member told us.... etc")

I accept your suggestions regarding the wording in your 2nd, 3rd and 4th points (I still think the Tourish ref needs to be weighed some more). But I find the structuring of the bio as is, and most definitely the placement of the second paragraph, entirely unacceptable. BabyDweezil 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Accept the Addhoc Compromise.--Cberlet 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PK, you stated above about Newman and your concerns that "his contribution to psychology and his repuations as a psycholosit is widely disregarded and questionable..." I do not understand what part of this you don't understand. Newman is not, nor ever has been a "psychologist," and if you have questions about what "psychologist" means you could look at Wikipedia, at APA, and various other sources, but please do not refer to Fred Newman as a psychologist here; it is wrong and misleading. Thetruthmatters 16:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TTTM, I checked your wiki reference, and found a section called Psychology in the professional world...which part of that paragraph do you think I am misunderstanding? [22] Also what APA guidelines do you think I am misunderstanding? What various other sources are you referring to...I would like to read them and see where we disagree. Bye PK good to be the King 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for your word games PK but to the other readers here not familar with the discipline of psychology, I have checked with state of NY as well as APA and Mr. Newman is not a psychologist. Furthermore, according to APA: "Definition of "psychologist" APA policy on the use of the title "psychologist" is contained in the General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services, which define the term "Professional Psychologist" as follows: "Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." For more info. feel free to contact Gerald Koocher, expert on ethics and current president of the APA. Thetruthmatters 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth--The article doesn't say Newman's a psychologist; it never did, and it was never proposed that it should. Not quite sure why you are arguing about this. BabyDweezil 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, did you know,

Evaluating experiments and studies
There are techniques that scientists use to prevent common errors, and to help others replicate results. Some characteristics to look for are experimental control (such as placebo controls), and double-blind methods for medical studies. Detail about the design and implementation of the experiment should be available, as well as raw data. Reliable studies don't just present conclusions.

[23]

Addhoc, BD & TTTM, if you any of you guys can tell me what page I can find the experimental design, procedure, data collection, data and analysis in this "scholarly" chapter I would really appreciate it. Bye PK good to be the King 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At what point do we take this to Arbcom?

This is so obviously a case of cult apologists walking editors in circles that it really needs to be sent to Arbcom sooner rather than later.--Cberlet 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Critics and their sources: Proposal

I tend to agree with pK, especially after looking over the Tourish article again. It's monumentally shoddy scholarship. But looking at the varous critics sources here, be it Tourish, PRA or whichever, the basic thing that you can say about them is that they all say the same thing, all reference the same material, pretty much all reference each other. So I would propose that the critics here summarize their complaint and choose among these interchangable references the one they think is the most realiable source,and that should solve the problem. We then just have to agree on the appropriate placement in the article for this critique. BabyDweezil 03:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some things only take 2 minutes...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

03:06, 8 October 2006 Cberlet (Talk | contribs) (Revert: nonsense, ridiculous, outlandish)

03:08, 8 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Fred Newman: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) BabyDweezil 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point being? Please don't insinuate what you won't say. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Baby, there's no great mystery. I was asked to look at this article to see whether admin action was needed. I saw a lot of edits by you, a single-issue editor, and edits by red-linked names, and I saw allegations on the talk page of cult edits. I looked at the issues but couldn't tell who was right or wrong. Then I saw Cberlet make a revert with the edit summary that he was reverting nonsense, and so I protected on that version, because Cberlet is a trusted editor. I know nothing about the issues; you could be right for all I know. But I had to decide in the heat of the moment who to trust, and I chose the established editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No eleaboration on insinuations seems necessary, Jmabel, I think SlimVirgin pretty much summed it up quite accurately. I only have one inquiry at this point. I realize that I have been basically spinning my wheels and pursuing the wrong approach by making suggestions and proposals for improving the article, doing literature searches and reading and analyzing sources that I locate or that others add here without doing so, attempting to add balance and tone down glaring instances of POV and the like. Obviously this is the wrong approach. What I would like to know is--how do I become a "trusted editor" too?! That way, I'd be free to pop into a page and safely put the Wikipedia code of Conduct in my Recycle Bin, feel free to bully into the article my own, 20 year old, biased, highly POV material[[24]], and accuse anyone who questions the reliability of my work of being a fascist cult apologist (without worry of rebuke from administrators, even when they admit they "know nothing about the issues"), even as my own official biography states that I have "spent over twenty–five years studying prejudice, demonization, scapegoating, demagoguery", and--and this is the bestest part--I can not only get paid[[25]] for the work I've written, but can get paid for making sure that my opinions gets bullied into an online encyclopedia!

Yes, folks, this sounds great to me. I wanna be a trusted editor too! Please help me arrange a meeting with the Godfather. BabyDweezil 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Baby, you can become a trusted editor by editing within our policies. I suggest you review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV very carefully, and make sure in future that any material you add adheres to them. The policies jointly say that Wikipedia articles must represent the majority and significant-minority published views on the given topic (published by a reliable source), but not the tiny-minority ones. Material must be directly relevant to the subject; it must use good sources for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged; it must not put the sources' material together in a way that creates new ideas or theories; and it must be written in a dry, neutral tone. If you can try to do all of that, your edits should stick.

In the meantime, I suggest you try to reach a reasonable compromise over the disputed material that takes the policies into account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. When I first started editing, the article gave the impression that the subject was a child-molesting, anti-Semitic cultist who advocated patient-client sex and was written from a tiny minority view. So I'm on the rigth track. BabyDweezil 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi SV, how did you conclude that cberlet is a trusted editor? Your statement above says you reverted the article without knowing the issues or considering the validity of my, PK or BD's concerns. Your decision was based solely on allegations of cultism by cberlet. Also, for clarification, BD is not the only editor here, and actually I, PK removed a questionable negative statement sourced to a questionable chapter on Dr. Newman. TTTM is also another editor. Your reasoning is quite troubling because it has negligent and careless overtones that have lead to poorly sourced, negative and life impacting statements being included in the bio of a living person. From your statment above, you indicate you couldn't tell who was right or wrong...however, you fail to say what wiki guidelines, if any, you consulted in your decision. And, this is quite confusing. I will offer I am a new editor, however your answer to my questions would certainly help me understand what happened here, because, as I see it your reasoning and actions fly in the face of the wiki policies on bios of living persons (and no offense, but all rational thought). They also have very troubling connotations. My questions below are serious, and asked in good faith, and in no way should be construed as rhetorical. I request your thoughtful response to them.

Had you familiarized yourself with the situation, you would have seen I am seriously concerned about the Tourish source. It is purported to be a scholarly publication. However, if so, it is fatally flawed and potentially libelous. It violates not only the research ethics policy of Dr. Tourish's institution, but the research ethics policy of the American Sociological Association and the American Psychological Association. As the bio of Dr. Newman stands now, you, SV have frozen it with a negative life impacting statement supported by this seriously flawed source. This article has been frozen for how long? I suggest you should have read detailed arguments made by both myself and BD and thought critically about them. I think you should have consulted all parties before freezing the page.

"I saw allegations on the talk page of cult edits.... I had to decide in the heat of the moment who to trust, and I chose the established editor."

As I understand, you are saying you considered only unproven accusations tantamount to name calling when you made your decision to freeze the page. You did not consider the issues in controversy whatsoever. And, that you took the word of pseudo (my word) authority that the other editors on this page were cultist. Moreover, you assumed the other editors were not acting in good faith based upon cberlet's negative allegations. More chillingly, you suspended editing, & discriminated against myself and BD based....lets see....mudslinging??????

Since you admit you knew nothing about the issues involed did you consult Addhoc before freezing?
Why was cberlet's negative description about the editors the sole factor in your decision?
Were you aware cberlet was repeatedly asked by me to refrain from name calling, and was advised by Addhoc to stop the name calling? Were you aware he beligerantly refused and I had to resort to deleting his negative comments about me on the talk page. Why was no action taken about this? Is it because you and addhoc believed what cberlet said -- that I was in fact a cultist?

Can you please tell me cberlet's credentials and qualifications to diagnose someone as a cultist? Are you saying that I am a cultist, simply because cberlet or anthoer trusted editor says so? And, since I have never met him or you, how was this fact determined?
For argument's sake, say we did have very potent mind control cultist editor on a page and the subject of the bio was an evil cultist with Rasputin-like eyes, who used his potent powers & sexual intercourse to control Wall Street and even the Mayor of New York City, are you saying a trusted editor's burden of proof to demonstrate the reliability of his source is 0, and that anything no matter how outlandish, derrogatory or harmful about either such a subject or such editors will be unquestionably accepted because they are made by a trusted editor?...Are you saying you don't have to apply the wiki policies (especially in determining reliable material and to remove poorly sourced/non-sourced material in bios of living persons) when determining "right" or "wrong" as an administrator in an edit war because one of the editors is labeled a cultist by a trusted editor?
Do you agree the term cultist has a serious negative connotation?
Are you saying you don't have to assume my or BD's edits were done in good faith because we are new editors?
What if cberlet told you I was a terrorist or used a racial epithet to describe me...would you also disregard the good faith assumption when determining who was "right" or "wrong"?
Do you as an administrator feel the word of cberlet overrides the the wiki policies to remove potentially libelous material from biographies of living persons? or to be extremely sensitive when contributing life impacting material?
Do you feel the subject's protections with respect to impactful, negative, poorly sourced material are outweighed by an editor's status as as trusted editor when administering/mediating battling editors?
Do you feel the subject's protections with respect to impactful, negative, poorly sourced material are outweighed by an editor's having been described as something negative by a trusted editor?
Do you think its a good policy to freeze wiki article pages without knowing or considering the issues?
Do you think its a good policy to freeze wiki article pages that may contain life impacting, negative, poorly sourced material about a living person?

I eagerly await your response. PK good to be the King 15:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

PK, as an admin, I'm not supposed to make a judgment about content and protect the version I prefer (unless there's vandalism or defamation involved). You say there are issues in the protected version that unfairly and negatively affect the reputation of a living person. Could you point me to exactly which sentences you are concerned about in that regard? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My articles on totalitarianism and totalist movements (some use the term cults) have been published by Political Research Associates, but also in magazines, and major newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times and the Des Moines Register. Forthcoming is a chapter in "Political Religions in the Modern Era," a scholarly collection from Routledge Press, in which I discuss totalist cults including the LaRouche network and Moon's Unification Church in the context of the larger framework of American messianism. I am on the editorial board of the peer-review scholarly journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. Hope this helps.--Cberlet 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the edit history for pk is somewhat narrow... Addhoc 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Berlet's Publication history on F Newman?

Other than the 1987 piece self-published by his employer, Political Research Associates, a highly partisan political organization,[[26]] published originally to attempt to influence vote totals in a US presidential election, can we please list what other work Mr Berlet has published on this biography's subject in any publication, peer-reviewed or otherwise? That is what seems relevant. BabyDweezil 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mis-using the term "self-published". In the way you're using it above, you could say that a reporter's article is self-published by his employer, the newspaper. But in the general meaning of the term it'd apply only to articles which were published by an individual, not by a company.-Will Beback 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the hypothesis and the experimental design, methodology, data collection and data analysis as well. Also I am especially interested in cberlet's publication record and would like a list of his peer reviewed articles on psychological diagnosis by internet message board, and classification of annonymous subject as political, totalitarian cultist via internet message board. I would be extremely greatful if cberlet would elaborate on his experimental design and validation methods. Perhaps we can collaborate on a new wikipedia entry! PK good to be the King 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Will--I entirely disagree with you. Political Research Associates is not the least bit analogous to a newspaper. But for argument's sake, if you prefer, you can read the sentence as "the 1987 piece published by his employer, Political Research Associates, a highly partisan political organization,[[27]] published originally to attempt to influence vote totals in a US presidential election." BabyDweezil 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that PRA is a newspaper. But when it publishes the work of an employee, that work is not self-published. It would only be self-published if the employee published it by himself. -Will Beback 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Will--I amended it for you. The question was, Other than the 1987 piece published by his employer, Political Research Associates, a highly partisan political organization,[[28]] published originally to attempt to influence vote totals in a US presidential election, can we please list what other work Mr Berlet has published on this biography's subject in any publication, peer-reviewed or otherwise? That is what seems relevant. BabyDweezil 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter? -Will Beback 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Please do not respond in this section any longer if you don't have an answer to the question. thank you. BabyDweezil 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am serious. Why does it matter what other research an author has published? -Will Beback 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well OK, since your serious. For any other biography, if the only publication a potential source has on the subject in question is 20 years old, appearing in a highly POV publication, wouldnt you think it sensible to inquire what other work has been offered by this author since, and whether or not its accepted as a reliable source for a biography? And, in anticipation of a possible response, I do not accept the argument that Berlet qualifies because he is a "cult" expert. This is pretzel logic. It rests on the a priori assumption that the biography subject has been established as a cultist, thus attempting to legitimize a self proclaimed "cult espert" as a reliable source, when it's the very work that is being offered that is the source that the assumption is based on. BabyDweezil 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Twenty-year old biographies should be sufficient for events that occurred prior to the writing, unless there have been significant revelations. Researching and writing a biography does not require expertise, merely effort. Whether the author wrote addiitonal material on the subject later does not affect his earlier work in any way that I can see. -Will Beback 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Will--Your missing the point, I think. The issue is not that its 20 years old (some fine things were written 20 years ago), the difficulty is that this article froma highly partisan political journal, written in the heat of a presidential campaign, end explicitly written from a partiean POV to oppose a particular candidate, is such an unreliable source that on if left as a source purposting to present factual informatuion for this biography, it would have to be framed in a huge and unwieldy section/context that describes the political issues of the time. It's like using Karl Rove as a source for factual information about Al Gore, without discussing the political lanscape of the past decade. And, aside from that, the documented fact is, there have been "significant revelations" (see last section of the current version of the bio for some of the most recent) which authoritatively refute these claims. I hope this is clear enough. BabyDweezil 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange but true

Hi, Did you know somebody named Chip Berlet is actually listed as being on the editorial advisory board at Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions journal??

And....would you mind clarifying this for me.... Mr. Berlet, in your editorial advisory capacity at Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, would you define the Tourish chapter as a scholarly publication? Would you accept the Tourish chapter for publication in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions?

Mr. Berlet, in your editorial advisory capacity at Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, can you tell us what research ethics guidelines are followed by Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, and/or assumed followed by submitting authors? ie, are the research & publication ethics as set out by the American Sociologist Association or American Political Scientist Association, or any other orgazination recognized by scholars in this field followed, if so please state?

Mr. Berlet can you, in your editorial advisory capacity at Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions can you tell me how authorship credit is assigned to co-authored publications?

Thanks PK good to be the King 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could we focus on the article now? Addhoc 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I remain continually eager to. There have been some proposals and relevant inquiries above by myself, and some good discussion points from pK as well, which have thus far have been met with diversions but no actual responses. BabyDweezil 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a reasonable proposal for how to treat the licensing issue (see Line 756, Oct. 9). Although it is clearly in Newman's interest to accept this proposal, BabyD ignored it because it doesn't fit with his/their ridiculous attempts to demonize me on this page.--Dking 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I had agreed. Agree, dispense with it. Please note that the current wording was my modification to consistent insertions by someone changing the first words of the article to "Fred Newman is an unlicensed therapist...", and that I had not simply inserted the alternate out of thin air, but in response to those silly, semi-vandalous edits. BabyDweezil 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting a light at the end of the tunnel here? Or perhaps I should ask, given L. Holtzman's fondness for Russian thinkers, if we are seeing a Ray of Light in the Realm of Darkness....--Dking 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully. However, to be clear, i am suggesting dispensing with the whole ""although lacking conventional mental-health credentials" bit. Unless this has resulted in anything notable in Newman's biography (sanctions, investigations, public debates) it seems gratuitous. Of course, if tomorrow he gets in some trouble over it, it is notable. As you pointed ot, its a recent change, and there is no indication he and his practice arent fully in compliance with the regulations, and it seems a bit biased to use characterizations of what a subject is "lacking" in a field where they are recognized as a peer reviewed published author, invited presenter to the APA, etc. BabyDweezil 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

<----At what point do we refer this to Arbcom?--Cberlet 01:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BabyD has suddenly done a U-turn back into the Realm of Darkness by suggesting that the phrase "lacking in conventional mental-health credentials" should be taken out. I totally disagree. First, the phrase is not insulting in any way, it is merely a statement of fact. Fred has never directly claimed to have conventional credentials, but calling himself a psychotherapist under such circumstances, although perfectly legal under NY law until this year, is inherently misleading to an average mental health consumer who assumes that a therapist has such credentials. One would think that advocates of social therapy would be PROUD of Fred's lack of conventional credentials, since those with conventional credentials (I mean certains types of mental health degrees, not licenses) have been trained in (and are expected by their professional organizations to abide by) the "reactionary" (in ST's view) procedures and ethical principles that emphasize the importance of maintaining boundaries between patients and therapists. As I pointed out earlier, there would be a place further on in the article to go into some detail about this, giving social therapy's point of view as well as that of its critics. But if you are going to say in the first paragraph of the article that Fred is a psychotherapist, it should be incumbent to point out that his credentials are not of the conventional type that most web surfers will assume when reading that he is a New York psychotherapist in private practice for the past 30 years.--Dking 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I'll propose an alternative, remove "psychotherapist" and compose something to the effect of "who for the past 30 years has been practicing the therapeutic modality he invented called social therapy, which is now in use at clinics in xx states, along with yugoslavia, country Y etc". I'll leave it to your "wordsmith" alter ego to get all the syntax right and we can look it over. BabyDweezil 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack/Rant section

This section is reserved for personal attacks and rants. Please post personal attacks and rants in this section only BabyDweezil 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Since our talk page is getting a little disorganized, I deleted the weakest personal attacks. Don't worry though, they are still in the history and probably more will follow. pK Good to be the King 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

AWARD WINNERS

I agree but will keep at it; for the greater good of humanity and ususpecting vulnerable mental health consumers.GrownUpAndWise 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling makes Wikipe-tan cry, please don't troll.

On the occasion of her 30th entry on this page without a single edit to the actual article, or even a solitary helpful suggestion, the Troll of the Month Award goes to....

GrownUpAndWise

SNIP :Ah, yes, a sampling of group therapy Social Therapy style: pressure, mindf*ck, exhausting you into submission all in front of a group which is just as confused as you! Oh! and there are even the two obligatory Social Therapists co-leading the Group (Baby and PK) -- how realistic! Moderators, I do believe you are now experiencing the frustration which all of us lowly, disgruntled "ex-ers" speak about. Baby and PK: do you recognize at all that what you are doing is counter-produtive to the goal you wish to accomplish? You both repeatedly accuse others of defamation, insults, etc. but what you exhibit is no different. Do you not see that the more you hammer on this the worse you look? You remind me of school yard bullies: when you do not get what you want then you apply force. And I do not believe that I am the only one who sees this. You are proving to all the readers here what you are about: your actions speak for themselves. The more yu write in this tone the less likely you are believable or worthy of earning "trusted editor". In fact, you are digging yourselves in deeper and deeper, my friends.GrownUpAndWise 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BabyDweezil 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pk wannabe King : “Hi, SV, you would make yourself less ridiculous if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the wiki policies regarding biographies of living persons. Also, my advice to will beback (see pK Schools ya, above) is also applicable to you...until you are ready to think critically and understand the applicable wiki policies, please refrain from commenting on this page...etc...PK good to be the King 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

Addhoc the innocent-caught-in-the-crossfire : “Hi PK, up to now you have assumed good faith and made worthwhile comments. However you criticisms of SV and WB are inappropriate, their undertanding of policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV aren't in doubt. Addhoc 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

BabyDweezil: “Obviously this is the wrong approach. What I would like to know is--how do I become a "trusted editor" too?! That way, I'd be free to pop into a page and safely put the Wikipedia code of Conduct in my Recycle Bin, feel free to bully into the article my own, 20 year old, biased, highly POV material, and accuse anyone who questions the reliability of my work of being a fascist cult apologist (without worry of rebuke from administrators, even when they admit they "know nothing about the issues"), even as my own official biography states that I have "spent over twenty–five years studying prejudice, demonization, scapegoating, demagoguery", and--and this is the bestest part--I can not only get paid25 for the work I've written, but can get paid for making sure that my opinions gets bullied into an online encyclopedia!

Yes, folks, this sounds great to me. I wanna be a trusted editor too! Please help me arrange a meeting with the Godfather. BabyDweezil 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)”

<< Hormone issues??>>> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

BabyDweezil: “You can't be serious. Please do not respond in this section any longer if you don't have an answer to the question. thank you. BabyDweezil 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

BabyDweezil wrote: “Calm down, Dennis, your working yourself into a tizzy. "Are all these people just making it up? Are they all just puppets of the evil Dennis King?" Nah, its not that complicated. Just a bunch of people looking for either a quick buck, a quick path to political stardom, a quick journalistic "scoop," or just a plain old axe to grind, all taken in by your fraudulent and dishonest "research." "

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

OH! And let us not forget the "trustworthy editing" BabyDweezil has done to my and other comments about Fred Newman being licensed and other relevant questions (as per the IP address displayed) DELETION. "TRUSTED editors" do not need to censor or delete the comments of others -- "trusted editors" can withstand controversy without subversive tactics.GrownUpAndWise 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

GrownUpAndWise wrote: “BabyDweezil: instead of editing this out, why don't you simply provide the answer as to whether or not Fred Newman has finally obtained a license to practice psychotherapy in New York State and clearly tell us what his chosen profession is: Mental Health Counseling, Social Work, Marriage and Family Counseling, Psychologist, Occupational Theraapy, Accupuncture, etc. Deleting my post will not make a license materialize. So tell us if Fed Newman finally obtained licensed to perform psychotherapy in the State of New York or not: Pure and simple.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

BabyDweezil wrote: “Grownup--Ummmm..run that by me again? I thought i had gotten the hang of interpreting comments by the ex-iwp visitors here,” <<SEE #10 below>>

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

And what a coincidence that PK refers to his library catching on fire while he was on the premises (how unlikely, how circumstantial, how cliche, how bizzare, how idiosyncratic of PK and BabyDweezil) -- book burning akin to the Nazis in World War II, correct? Was that a Freudian slip or a foreshadowing? A threat?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................

LAMEST RANT

So let's stop the infantile nonsense--either discuss the edits like a responsible adult, or stop wasting everyone's time by hoping to get your POV represented via holding your breath until your face turns blue. Sheesh. BabyDweezil 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Like an adult. I am a parent. So as an adult, I say this. You lied about there being a consensus. It was a cheap childish lie. You should apologize...and until you do, I will revert.--Cberlet 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chip, parenting metaphors aside, calling another Wikipedian a liar is a contraventon of WP:CIVIL. Addhoc 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC

BLP

Could anyone who has BLP concerns please list the sentences or paragraphs that you feel violate the policy, and say why (succinctly, please). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters: Paragraph 1: ..."although lacking conventional credentials and licensing in the field." To describe what an accomplished figure is "lacking" is presenting a POV implying the subject has tried and failed to meet a specific goal, and is biased by virtue of creating this negative position before the person's accomplishments are even discussed.

The entire second paragraph represents at best the views of a tiny minority, and should be removed, per both BLP:

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

and per WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Since this is a biography of Newman, and not one about tiny minority claims about Newman, these views should likely not be represented at all, much less presented as the entire second paragraph. The burden of proof required for including this material has not been met, per BLP:

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. BabyDweezil 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the second paragraph be put in the Origins of the “Cult“ Controversy section? Addhoc 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate context for such a paragraph. But per above, I don't think the extreme minority POV re: "cultism" has presented "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" per the above for inclusion at all. It's not an uninteresting story, for fans of partisan political feuding, but not very notable. It might be suitable for a "controversies" side article. BabyDweezil 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the editing here (and I can't because I protected the page), but I'm a bit concerned about protecting a page on a version with possible BLP issues. I agree that saying in the lead that he doesn't have conventional qualifications for psychotherapy is perhaps not appropriate; could be seen as trying to poison the well. I'm also not sure about having the second paragraph in the lead section; it might be fairer to have it somewhere else. I don't see either of those issues as clear violations of BLP, because they're sourced, but because they're in the lead, the question is whether they're inappropriately prominent. I don't know enough about Newman to make that judgment, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is having the word "controversial" in the first sentence (which is essentially a meaningless word); and the bit about having no conventional qualifications for psychotherapy is that there are no conventional qualifications for that, and many people practise with none at all.

Another concern is the third paragraph in the lead, which isn't sourced and yet is negative. That in fact is a clear violation of BLP, unless everyone would agree on it, including Newman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there specific BLP concerns other than in the lead section? If yes, please list them here (succinctly, please). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the page so the BLP issues can be addressed. However, the disputed material that was being added should not be re-added, please, because as I recall it was OR and re-adding it is likely to cause the reverting to start again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

SV--Yes, at least one more that is of immediate BLP concern--the eight paragraphs that begin with "Significant among the authors was 1984 NAP Presidential candidate Serrette..." aside from the glaring undue weight given to critics, and the fact that it primarily concerns Lenora Fulani, there is in this version a clear implication of criminal activity, when in fact none was ever charged, much less found. The ultimate outcome of the FEC case was an order for reimbursement of five percent of the federal matching funds initially awarded, not the least bit unusual, much less criminal, in the course of political campaigns. BabyDweezil 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits made per SV's comments; I still think the issue above still constitutes an serious outstanding BLP issue. BabyDweezil 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional serious BLP issue addressed (and a lesson of sorts)

Serrette quote trimmed down per earlier discussion (it's inclusion at all still disputed).

The section on the FEC examination, and the source quoted, constituted not only an egregious and malicious insinuation of criminal activity which is patently false, but an affirmation of the malicious intent of the person who brought the initial complaint. A former campaign worker, Kellie Gasink, filed multiple complaints charging not only criminal embezzlement by Newman re the fulani campaign, but as well that Newman led a "a military organization" armed with automatic weapons, that members "are regularly intimidated into silence by Newman's "goon squads,"", that the organization is "communist" and has several "former terrorists" within it, etc etc[[29]]. As a result of the complaint the FEC initially assessed an overpayment of about 25% of the over $2 million awarded in matching funds; Fulani and the FEC weent back and forth for years arguing,[[30]] and the ultimate determination was for a small portion to be repaid, effectively ruling that fully 95% of the matching funds awarded passed the audit (an exceptionally high rate for a campaign being audited so intensely).

All this to say that the presentation in the biography was in serious violation of BLP, and the actual facts of the case are well known, presumably by those who added this section in the first place. This also demonstrates some of the serious problems that will occur if "reliability" is defined simply as a source having been published. BabyDweezil 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hi from pK

Hi, I tagged, or tried to tag portions of the article with serious BLP issues.

1. The title Debate in Psychology, is misleading. Recommend rename as Controversies It implies a debate within psychological community/ academic community concerning Vygotsky, Social Therapy, Newman/Holzman. No evidence of this exists/or has been presented by the editor who contributed this Title.

The word critics, implies members of the psychological community/academic community. Critics implies criticisms in the manner of assessing strengths and weakness based on stated criteria. Criticism is not the same as giving an opinion based on a subjective pov. The referenced article actually says "Some on the left criticized Dr. newman, saying that he used talk of revolution to seduce young people into his organizations..." This statement is an opinion about Dr. Newman's political activity and it contains weasel words.

The article also says. "Dr. Newman's social therapy has been criticized-- and praised--for taking and unconvential approach, for focusing on group therapy, and for blurring the boundaries between patients and therapists." Who has praised and criticized? The statement contributed by cberlet misleads the reader into thinking the article says Social Therapy is criticized only in a negative light. This in fact is not the case.

At another point, the article says, "'The social therapy group has been called a cult.' said Rick Ross, who has extensively studied cults." Again I find this weaselish...it is saying Rick knows cults and says someone said Newman is a cultist. There is no criticism here...also if Rick Ross studies cults, did he study this alleged cult and publish his findings? This would make his statement stronger. In the article Rick Ross goes on to say.... "It is a personality driven group, call it what you will, a philosophical sect, the Fred Newman fan club. It centers around, and is driven by, Fred Newman." This is an a priori detraction...not criticism, especially if he has not studied Drs. Newman/Holzman and Vygotskian theories, per se. A real criticism would discuss FN/LH's theories, Vygotskian theory in context with political activism--outlining some kind of critical critera and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

Recommend deletion or serious rewrite that accurately reflects the articles content.

2. Statement that critics have labeled Dr. Newman a cultist. Implies scholarly criticism. Reference supporting this statement is a book chapter on Newman written by Tourish & Wolforth, purported by the authors, publisher and cberlet to be a scholarly publication. This reference 100% unreliable and violates the ethical standards for research of Dr. Tourish's institution as well as the research ethics for american sociological association. cberlet and the aurthors assert this is a scholarly publication, which implies it is conducted under an accepted and ethical research practice. The chapter is a written account of the authors' a priori opinion about Dr. Newman. The authors did not formulate any hypothesis, design or conduct experiemnts, collect data, analyze data, or even read or analyze the Newman/Holzman and/or Vygotskian literature. The authors wrote this chapter with an a priori assumption that Dr. Newmans political activity was in some way an indicator of his cultism and/or that it was unnecessary to use any research methodology whatsoever to support their conclusion because they did not agree with his political activity.

The Ethics Policy and Ethics Governance Policy at the academic to which Dr. Tourish is attached, the Robert Gordon University(RGU) holds:

When publishing research reports all steps must be taken to ensure the the accuracy of the results.

Researchers should be aware and consider the potential misuse and abuse of reasearch data.

The Research Governance at RGU holds:

Research is defined as the search for generalizable answers to questions arrived at through systematic and rigorous methods

Again, the authors had no methodology whatsoever. This is not an academic study and has no probative value. Therefore, the authors conclusions are completely bogus. If necessary you can also look at research ethics guidelines for the American Sociological Association [[31]] This book is the epitomy of academic misconduct. Further, I believe it is the burden of cberlet to demonstrate the credibility of this source. I have asked that he provide the experimental design, methodology and results..etc. He has refused.

Article is superceded by Columbia Teacher College report, which presents totally opposite findings. CTC report is reliable...methodology, etc. clearly delineated.

Recommend deletion of this statement and supporting reference. I am very firm on this one.

3. I cannot get ahold of New Therapist....I could not verify it. Recommend someone verify our get it out of the article.

The following sources have established themselves as doubtful, incredible and misleading: Marina Ortiz see: Re: social therapy critics and Marina Ortiz as a source for this article. Credibility and POV issues.

Cathleen Mann See Cathleen Mann as a source for this article credibility and POV issues.

Articles by Dennis King, see Dennis King as a source for this article Serially inaccurate, good faith/ethics questioned, placed misleading statements in the article that Dr. Newman has sexual relations with his patients, inaccurate interpretation of Vygotsky, accused Dr. Newman of being a cultist knowing information was not reliable information.)

Clouds blur rainbow reference, reliability issues. CBR demonstrates questionable ethics and practices in that it contains no scientific findings whatsoever. Although the PRA/Berlet have been previously approved in arbcom as non-primary sources, I have serious questions about the reliability of this report due to: 1. advocacy journalism, 2. extreme minority POV, 3. Purports to be probative, but does not adhere to any research ethics guidelines for scholarly work, ie, no methodology or analysis of the relevant psychological literature and makes the a priori assumption that Dr. Newman is a cultist.

These are the blp issues I am concerned about. PK good to be the King 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PK, it seems to me what you have "established" is a refusal to look at the serious charges waged against Newman and his group. This became so apparent when you belittled Dr. Dennis Tourish for not having "a Ph.D." and then when you stood corrected you changed your tune and argued that "he didn't have "enough" articles. I find your behavior here disruptive and I think you will go out of your way to try to discredit anyone who has anything to say that does not fit with the positive, glowing spin the Newman groups wants the public to read about. You obviously devote an enormous amount of time doing this which makes me wonder what your real agenda here is. You bully people and insult them with deragotary insults when you disagree.

I am not going to stand by and let the public be misled. I may not have all day and night to correct you, I may not be as experienced with the Wikipedia codes, but I will continue to come back, because unlike Mr. Newman, who has argued about "there being no truth," there is a past and history that the public deserves and needs to know about; and they will. Just this discussion is adding to it. Yours Truly, Thetruthmatters 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi TTTTTM: Sorry you disagree with me. What do you think of the reference? Instead of getting all upset here, why don't you read the chapter yourself and decide if its credible. Please, by all means discuss your opinion of the chapter and whether or not it complies with Blp policy with the editors here. If you don't like my evaluation, that's cool...you are free to submit your own. Bye PK good to be the King 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello thetruthmatters--It seems from your comments you have a different conception of what an encyclopedia is from the one I am attempting to work with. I really dont think its a forum for inserting "what the public deserves and needs to know about" (which you generally define as what you think they need to know). pK has given an extensive, detailed explication of what they feel is problematic with particular sources, using Wikipedia's guidelines as the focus, rather than just popping in and shouting into the article whatever isolated "truth" (as defined by you) the public "needs to know." It would be more helpful if you could respond to pK's (or anyone's) substantive comments rather than psychoanalyze them. An encyclopedia is not Creative Loafing, where you can walk in and tell a tale to a scoop-hungry reporter who can then toss off a tabloid potboiler full of lurid innuendos and unsubstantiated charges that will please the tabloid's advertisers. It would actually be in your interest to present your arguments as they relate to Wiki guidelines for a biography of living person; otherwise, your continual insertions of little negative POV snippets into the article really just comes off as a personal vendetta (or as you accused pK of, a "real agenda here"), rather than a good faith attempt to improve an article. BabyDweezil 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you need from New Therapist? I have ordered a copy. Thetruthmatters 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think it is ethical for me to tell you what I need from this source, instead, I propose you read the BLP policy and sections on reliability, credibility, etc., etc., etc. and decide for yourself if the source is appropriate to demonstrate BD's edit. Please discuss your findings with us. THanks PK good to be the King 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made some of the edits I proposed yesterday. Bye PK good to be the King 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While you were out

<-------------I protest the deletion of the Serrette quotes. There was no serious discussion that reached a consensus. It is from a published source. Serrette was in the the group, and left, can draw his own conclusions. I added them back--Cberlet 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually there was a serious discussion and a consensus was reached, see Dennis Serrette quote: recommendation for removal/Use of partisan sources issue and Let me know....Maybe you don't remember...that was when you decided the article was a waste of time.....PK good to be the King 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Restore.--Cberlet 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the words Psychologist, psychotherapist

I protest the use of the term "psychotherapist" for Fred Newman in the first paragraph. According to NY state he is not based on his qualifications. IF he has been exempted for some reason we should be aware of and holds a license (as explained above) please document. To use the term psycotherapist for a protected profession is wrong. Thetruthmatters

Not to worry, has been adjusted. BabyDweezil 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Still stretching it here. Made some small changes. If you want to mention social therapy in mental health clinics please state where.Thetruthmatters 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. The statements were accurate and referenced. Please stop making blatant and intentionally negative POV edits. BabyDweezil 23:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss edits makes consensus impossible

So let's stop the infantile nonsense--either discuss the edits like a responsible adult, or stop wasting everyone's time by hoping to get your POV represented via holding your breath until your face turns blue. Sheesh. BabyDweezil 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Like an adult. I am a parent. So as an adult, I say this. You lied about there being a consensus. It was a cheap childish lie. You should apologize...and until you do, I will revert.--Cberlet 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chip, parenting metaphors aside, calling another Wikipedian a liar is a contraventon of WP:CIVIL. Addhoc 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, please explain how your mediation here is helpful. You do nothing to hold the Newman apologists accountable. You allow deletions based on obvious falsehoods. You chastise me but fail to note that the claim of consensus was false. How come? Please respond. I find you mediation not helpful, and biased. How was it not a lie? What definition do you use for the word "lie?"--Cberlet 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't say the comment by BabyDweezil was entirely correct. However, according to WP:CIVIL "calling someone a liar" regardless of whether the statement in question is true or false is a contravention of policy. While, indicating that someone is obviously confused or mistaken is entirely acceptable. Personally, I would suggest that BabyDweezil's logic given below is possibly disingenuous, given that he didn't accept the proposed compromise. Given your reputation, I would suggest that your comments are slightly disappointing, not least because I fully agree with SlimVirgin regarding her rationale in deciding what version of the page should be protected. Addhoc 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to apologize for lying if I indeed had. What I said above in trimming the quote was "Serrette quote trimmed down per earlier discussion (it's inclusion at all still disputed)." The issue of the quote had been raised as a serious subject for discussion, and you refused to discuss it. Addhoc had included in his proposal a recommendation for trimming it. Although I never actually said "consensus", the fact is if the editor inserting material refuses to discuss it, and essentially abstains, a consensus can only be reached among the actual discussants. For an editor claim there was no consensus after refusing to discuss their own edit is what I am identifying as being less than adult behavior.

Your apology accepted, BabyDweezil 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again: Dennis Serrette quote: needs to be removed as a clear violation of BLP

An extended (four paragraph) quote from Dennis Serrette was recently added to this biography. Aside from the undue weight given by such an extended quotation, I am urging its immediate removal as it is in clear violation of WP:LIVING with respect to Reliable Sources:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

The Serrette quote is a primary source, published 20 years ago in a highly partisan, politically charged edition of the Marxist journal Radical America available here: http://dl.lib.brown.edu/radicalamerica/. The edition also included partisan political critiques of the then New Alliance Party (NAP) by Chip Berlet and some others, and the derogatory content was published with the explicit aim at influencing vote totals in a national election. The editorial introduction to the edition--which refers to its readers as "comrades" and was written at the time when NAP's Lenora Fulani was launching a presidential bid that appeared to be encroaching on the "turf" of establishment leftists--notes that "We have become convinced that the New Alliance Party and its many affiliate groupings...are not just other legitimate groups with whom we must coexist," and that NAP fails the journal's "basic test" for what constitutes a "legitimate left organization." It encourages the "comrades" to "dissuade" the unwary from associating with NAP (with the implicit threat that to do so will invite them to be maliciously labeled as "cultists" "neo-fascists" and the like by the self-appointed watchdogs who define "legitimacy." This is clearly a partisan source with derogatory, unproven politically motivated claims and per BLP should be removed immediately. The article currently is stored on the Political Research Associates website. From its introduction to its Newman, NAP etc on its website:

This report attempts to seriously analyze the history, activities and internal dimensions of NAP in the context of its work in the US progressive political community...The slogans of the Newmanite groups seem to reflect a progressive political framework, but the organizing practices and internal structure do not reflect the outward claims of Newman, Fulani and other leaders. When the New Alliance Party was disbanded and the Newmanites merged with the fledgling Patriot Party and began courting Ross Perot and the Reform Party, any former claim to represent a left political formation was abandoned as Newman and Fulani followed the same trail blazed by previous left-wing groups that embraced rightwing populism and joined proto-fascist revolts.

This not only makes clear that Berlet and PRA not only regard NAP as not passing the test for a legitimate "left political formation," but that as well, failing to adhere strictly to Berlet's guidelines for legitimacy will immediately result in your "reclassification" as now being likely to "join proto-fascist revolts." This makes explicitly clear the partisan character of both Serrette's piece and the site that currently carries it, PRA, fitting exactly the definition Information available solely on partisan websites." The derogatory content is clear enough, and thus, per the clear guidelines of WP:LIVING, "should not be used at all." BabyDweezil 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the Serrette quote. I will cheerfuly agree to revert if cberlet can demonstrate credibility, reliability, significant minority view, etc. bye PK good to be the King 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I restored the the Serrette quote. I will cheerfuly agree to discuss this, but the claims by BabyDweezil fail to state an adequate case for deletion. I call on the mediator to rule on this, or withdraw so this can move to arbitration.--Cberlet 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:LIVING" Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. This is from a partisan source and derogatory, and should not be used at all. It was. Please stop reinserting it, as that is in clear violation of BLP. Full explanation above. BabyDweezil 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I understand that WP:BLP is focused on negative statements about people, but where positives can only be cited from something as obscure as Heights and Valleys News, it seems disingenuous to demand major mainstream press sources for the negatives. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Heights and Valleys News was the source for the original "cult" claims, and sort of the creation myth for the whole claim. The 30 year old "positives" cited from that paper were cited to contrast with the subsequent barrage of negatives that appeared right afterward by the same author. There are actually quite a number of "positives" that have appeared over the years in the mainstream which I have not included because to simply add them to counter the "negatives" would not address the immediate WP:BLP issues, which is the inclusion of those negative statements which violate WP:BLP at all. BabyDweezil 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So...

I went in just now with the hope of checking and cleaning online citations, since one cannot tell much from just a blind URL. In just the first few, I found a few issues.

• http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm: I couldn't access this. The problem may be mine, or temporary; can someone else please try? ThanksFixed.
• http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/1/5.pdf#search=%22holzman%20vygotskian%20schools%22, Theory & Psychology Online. This is the URL of a subscription only web site, could someone with access please write out the citation? A blind URL to a subscription site is effectively no citation at all for anyone but subscribers.
• http://www.radpsynet.org/newsletters/radpsynl2.html: this was given as a citation for the statement "Newman had argued that 'psychology as well as terms like "addiction" are a myth,' sparking a debate in 1993 in the pages of the journal Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books following a critical review by Benjamin Harris in February of that year. I searched the linked page for the phrase "are a myth" and didn't find it, so can someone please cite more clearly?

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel--The Vygotsky cit has been carried on the marxists.org for many years--it might be that the site is down (was up when I put the ref in). If it doesnt return anytime soon, I'll put in a book citation. I filled in the Holzman info. On the last one, I havent been able to find that--the journal is currently available online only, and doesnt carry that article in its back archive (its a book review, and probably was minor). I had asked the editor who added that source to provide that article a while ago. BabyDweezil 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Site is working for Vygotsky ref now. BabyDweezil 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Working for me now, too. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused...but who contributed the "Newman had argued that 'psychology as well as terms like "addiction" are a myth,' sparking a debate in 1993 in the pages of the journal Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books following a critical review by Benjamin Harris in February of that year," ref? I just looked at that journal and could not find the review at all. Could be the cite is transposed or something. Newman & Holzman, Lev Vygotsky Revolutionary Scientist., was reviewed by Michael Tomasello in 1993...it seems like the contributing editor is sourcing Myth of Psychology...which was written 1991. We'd have to go to the stacks and verify hard copy...I'll as the contributing editor to do this. pK Good to be the King 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another problematic citation. I've cleaned the physical citation, but I don't see how it cites for the paragraph it claims to cite for. The paragraph is "Newman’s IWP briefly attempted to maintain fraternal ties to LaRouche’s NCLC…an attempt to create a range of community organizations under the direction of a Marxist-Leninist party, much in the manner… [of] …the 1930s … [Communist Party U.S.A.]…" The citation given is http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2002/yates/1933.htm. As far as I can tell, this does not even mention Newman or IWP. - Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clean. I removed it, since its peripheral. It could be cited to quite old material from Newman regarding Marxist organizing tactics and the like, in combination with the included reference on 1930s Communist organizing, but it's not essential. BabyDweezil 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey man

Hi, when can we start writing again? pK itsGood to be the King 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed volunteer mediation

I ask that Addhoc withdraw as the purported volunteer mediator of this page for lack of constructive participation in the process, and for bias. I have repeatedly asked that the issue of the Dennis Serrette quote be addressed. This is ignored. I have repeatedly asked that there be a vote on what sources are reliable and appropriate. This is ignored. This is a failed volunteer mediation. I have never had much faith in volunteer mediations, but I was willing to give it a try. This discussion is the perfect example of why this process does not work on highly contested pages. At this point this page is a discussion on how to sanitize criticsm off the page. BabyDweezil continues to delete critical material, justifying it on the flimsiest of claims. Yet my attempts to ascertain what sources should be considered reliable and appropriate are brushed aside. The result is that all criticsm is relentlessly being snipped away by BabyDweezil. There is no point in continuing this charade. I propose seeking formal Wiki mediation with an experienced mediator who will actively participate, or moving this directly into arbitration.--Cberlet 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I would comment the compromise I proposed was acceptable to you and not to BabyDweezil, which could possibly indicate that I'm not biased. However, on the basis you aren't interested in another mediator from MedCab, I'll close this case. Addhoc 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi adhoc, why are you closing the case without consulting with the other three editors here? bye pK, its Good to be the King 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi pK, I'm not convinced that mediaton without Cberlet would be a worthwile excersise. Addhoc 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi adhoc, that's fine, however I think it would be a good idea to include everyone or at least address your reasoning to all of us. What if someone else here liked you? What if the other editors thought the process was going ok and wanted the mediation? Plus, your input isn't binding anyways so even if you made a ton of rulings in cberlet's favor....as I understand it, only arbitrarion is binding and no one has to follow them....Plus this is the second time he has whined and threatened to withdraw because things weren't going his way. And, he came back. No one is preventing him from participating except him. All he has to do is follow the BLP policies. pK Good to be the King 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, also I fully agree that MedCab mediators don't give rulings, merely attempt to find a compromise. Addhoc 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is failure to follow Wiki policies concerning properly sourced published material. The bias I refer to is not the result of mediator action, but inaction. By failing to hold BabyDweezil and Good to be the King accountable for their deletions of properly sourced material, the mediation become biased in favor of those doing the deleting of the critical material about Newman. In some cases, the justification for these deletions is simply false. I have been admonished for using the word "lie" to describe these justifications, but I challenge editors here to look at the justification for a recent deletion by BabyDweezil justified with: "The insertion isn't even backed by the source given. Purely speculative, cited to the editor's own article." This is false. The material deleted is taken directly from the source cited. Here is the diff for the material added, and here is the webpage from which the material was selected. Compare the text, and then post the word or phrase that best describes BabyDweezil's justification. Accurate? I think not that word. What other words come to mind? How is a compromise possible when outlandish deletions like this one are not challenged? Silence is consent--even with mediators.--Cberlet 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim inserted by cberlet--"None of this indicates a casual, naive or short-lived relationship" is not only POV, it is not in the least backed by the source (which happenes to be his own POV article of 20 years ago.) Another case of "it's true cuz i says so" BabyDweezil 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"None of this indicates a casual, naive or short-lived relationship" is a direct quote from the cited webpage. Another outlandish misrepresentation. --Cberlet 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we have entered Bizarro World, dear editors. Cberlet is insisting that his POV insertion into this article is true because it's an exact quote of his POV of 20 years ago. And I thought we already had the "Orwellian" discussion... BabyDweezil 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is false--once again--there is no place on this entire page where this issue was actually resolved. It was pointed out by other editors that my published material in the past had been accepted (even in arbitrations) as proper to cite on Wilipedia in cautious ways when on topic. BabyDweezil once agin makes false statements to cloud the record.--Cberlet 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again. An argument from authority simply isn't valid for inserting a POV in a BLP. And you systematic weeks long characterizations of my statements as "false" "fallacious" etc based on your twisting of my statements are tantamount to yelling liar. Knock it off and defend a claim for once. BabyDweezil 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

<-------------Addhoc--As you know, and as the record shows, I had originally requested mediation due to the rather horrendous (imo) amounts of negative POV that permeated this article. It was when these problems began to be discussed and addressed that cberlet showed up. He has throughout refused to discuss the merits of a single point of disagreement, other than to argue "reliable (usually his own) source" as a substitute for discussion. refusal to participate isnt a neutral act; it would seem to indicate in fact the absence of any arguments to counter the many that have been made for the inappropriateness and contravention of BLP of his sources other than an authoritarian argument of, roughly, "cuz I says so." Refusal to participate, as commonly understand, is a form of participation, and I think in the case it speaks for itself. BabyDweezil 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Baloney. I have repeatedly tried to get discussions going about specific sources of information. Instead, two editors pile mountains of largely falacious claims into this page, while systematicaly deleting critical material. Let's be clear: I am looking forward to an official Wiki mediation, and, if needed, an official Wiki arbitration. Note that there is no requirement on Wiki to participate in volunteer mediations such as this one. That is why I asked Addhoc to step aside. I do not doubt that Addhoc is sincere, and that in other instances Addhoc will provide useful mediation. But this is a case where two editors routinely delete material in direct violation of Wiki guidelines, and need to be held accountable for their actions. This has not happened. That is why moving to an official mediation is needed.--Cberlet 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already recommended that CBR and the PRA website be removed as a source. I have clearly stated my reasons above. If you want to discuss this, please address the issues raised, it is your burden, per BLP to demonstrate their appropriateness. Simply restating that they are reliable and reverting, as you can see is not fruitful. pKGood to be the King 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculative, POV insertion removed

The insertion isn't even backed by the source given. Purely speculative, cited to the editor's own article. As to the removed "gossip", it is fact. removing it is analogous to removing mention that OJ and Nicole Simpson were married in an OJ Simpson article. In this case, "the glove fits..." BabyDweezil 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On “negative material being removed”

The repeated claim that critical material is being removed seems to rest on a incorrect (and disingenuous) assumption of what constitutes proper “critical material” for a BLP. Critical material, as I understand it, that would be unwarranted to remove would be such things as a documented criminal history (e.g., removing mention of the convictions of Haldeman and Erlichman), removing mention of controversial views that have caused a debate in academic circles (eg, removing mention of the Bell Curve controversy in an entry on Charles Murray) , removing mention of self-admitted behaviors (Rush Limbaugh’s drug use) etc. What categorically is NOT guaranteed inclusion are the various (and arguably malicious) attempts to insert selected snippets from sources that pertain to larger issues that are chosen with the intention of simply presenting the biography’s subject in the most negative (POV) light possible. Just some examples thus far have been

--The insertion of six harsh words from a judge in an election financing case intended to portray the subject as having engaged in criminal activity, when the FACTS (known to the editor) of that case were that this five year long court battle ended with not only a complete refutation of the charges, but an explicit exoneration of the parties of any wrongdoing

--The continual attempts to insert material from a source [[32]] which as explained above repeatedly is not only a tiny minority, politically partisan POV article from (two decades ago) but as well as a study is entirely biased in its research, and whose claims (“totalitarian cult”) relies on an author’s butchering of the work of Hannah Arendt (which is why this author’s work on the subject has been roundly ignored by the academic community, when it is not baing snickered at)

--Attempts to insert as a source for the claim of “cult” a study that conducted not a single interview with the subject or his associates, cited nothing from the subject more recent than 26 years old, and was written by a mystery writer[[33]], not a researcher, and which has received no support in the academic community in the 6 years since its publication

--Attempts to insert FOUR PARAGRAPHS of a quote from the same politically partisan source that again represents a solidly tiny minority POV (the author of those quotes has not appeared again in print on the matter in the subsequent 20 years)

--the continual attempts to insert well-poisoning POV language into the text (“controversial”, “unlicensed” “alternative” etc)

These POV’s represent a demonstrably tiny minority, partisan POV (evidenced by the simple fact that the entirety of these critics have descended upon this page). This material is clearly proscribed per BLP and will continue to be reverted out. BabyDweezil 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving to formal mediation

Who else is willing to accept formal Wiki mediation?

Indicate response here

• Accept. --Cberlet 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I reject this proposal as illegitimate. Signing is meaningless. BabyDweezil 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Accept.
• Reject.
• Accept.

Comments and Responses

Comment: uhhhh, I requested mediation a month ago. What a novel idea. BabyDweezil 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: This is a request for formal Wiki mediation. Please do not add personal attacks in this section.--Cberlet 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Hi, you will still have to prove up your edits at arbitration. Why don't you address the BLP issues we have raised. pK Good to be the King 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No good faith demonstrated--Rejected

Both pKGood to be the King and myself have written thousands of words in recent weeks detailing various objections per BLP to material that has been attempted to have included in here.Cberlet has systematically ignored these points (including today, above) and has refused to discuss them other than with an appeal to his own (undemonstrated) authority and with systematic slanders and personal attacks against the editors who have raised the objections. In the absence of Cberlet demonstrating even a modicum of good faith in discussing the issues in the current mediated forum, requests to move elsewhere and expect more of the same are definitively rejected. BabyDweezil 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT edit my entries or sign SIGN MY USER NAME without my permission. BabyDweezil 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No good faith demonstrated--authority to propose not accepted as legitimate

In the absence of demonstrated good faith discussion, the proposal is illegitimate. Signing is meaningless. BabyDweezil 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey man...it ain't no thang

Look you guys before you get all huffy puffy here..you better r e a d the mediation/arbitration policy. cberlet- what makes you think you will magically get an arbitration? --especially when you have refused to discuss your disagreements with us first and/or try other avenues to resolve your problem. Do you really think dismissing addhoc and signing people's names on your arbitration list will solve anything? At this point, arbitration is premature and these issues can be addressed by following the BLP policy and following the wiki dispute resolution guidelines. Silliness, really.....pKGood to be the King 20:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is no longer being mediated by the unoffical mediation volunteer. The next step is to pursue formal Wiki mediation. It is a common technique here to see if editors agree to mediation before filing for a formal mediation, if there is a belief that several editors involved in a dispute will refuse mediation. In that case, sometimes arbitration can be applied for directly, since all other attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted. If two of the principles involved in this dispute refuse formal mediation, I will simply move directly into an application for formal arbitration. The process is straitfoward, and I am familiar with it.--Cberlet 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Record is clear--cberlet rejected mediation

See entirety of above discussion for record of cberlets pompous disdain for and refusal to participate in the establsihed mediated discussion. Proposal for official mediation is simply a silly, comically transparent manuever barely worthy of Rufus T Firefly. Hail Fredonia!BabyDweezil 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP issue reverted out, incorrect info removed

A negative opinion sourced to a partisan political website reverted out again. Inaccurate claim removed. "Power and Authority" was written at time of aligning with NCLC. Inserted info made to look as if written after break with NCLC and to intimate continued support of NCLC. Please do not insert inaccurate information, and certainly not to support a clear POV. Contantly monitoring these deliberate inaccuracies is tedious. BabyDweezil 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I propose we move forward with the article. I have some stuff I would like to contribute and will do so later on today. Also, I suggest we post the actual articles we use as sources on our individual talk pages to give better access to them and promote discussion.

As for cberlet, I hereby declare you unwelcome.

This article and talk page are currently a simple mess because of the following behaviors you insist on demonstrating:

1. Adding false information.

2. Bullying and personal attacks.

3. Misrepresenting content of sources.

4. Misprepresenting reliability of sources.

5. Attempting to hold the article hostage by unilaterally dismissing our medcab mediator.

6. Causing our article to be frozen with damaging, negative information, by misrepresenting our legitimate edits based on BLP as "Cult" edits.

7. Refusing to address our questions and BLP concerns about the reliability of your sources.

8. Probably the most disturbing, editing BD's talk page comment, adding something he didn't say to it after he signed off, which had the effect of misleading the other editors.

9. Getting on my last good nerve.

You have twice threatened to withdraw, saying this article is a waste of time, only to return and again withidraw when things weren't going your way. I will take you at your word that you now feel editing here is a waste of time and that you insist on arbitration. I take this to mean you will make no further edits until this matter has been arbitrated. Moreover, since you refuse to discuss your edits with the rest of us, any further contributions added by you without discussion will be reverted. I see that your behavior has spiraled downward from "trusted" to disruptive. Perhaps you need to cool down for a day and return with a clear head. If and when you can be positive and act in good faith, you will again be welcome.

As for GAUW--we have a section for personal attacks and rants. Please post your personal attacks there. In the future, I will delete them if they appear outside that section...something I would rather not do because they are really funny!

Bye --- pK out, its Good to be the King 13:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Accept. BabyDweezil 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for formal mediation has been filed

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Fred_Newman --Cberlet 15:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Good to be the King: I can't place a notice on your user page, since none exists. This is the best I can do in terms of notifying you. Sorry.--Cberlet 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request completely misrepresents this discussion

I had been hoping for a show of good faith by Cberlet in his anticipated request for formal mediation. Unfortunately, his request consists of a complete misrepresentation of the history of discussion on this page, and as such cannnot be accepted as proposed. Explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Fred_Newman -- BabyDweezil 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As per Wiki guidelines, I attempted to put the issues on the mediation request page in as neutral a way as possible. I invite other editors to visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Fred_Newman and see for themselves. BabyDweezil seems not to understand the difference between an informal and a formal mediation. I urge BabyDweezil to reconsider, and perhaps suggest alternative wording for the request for mediation.--Cberlet 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

GrownUpAndWise--stop vandalizing the talk page

Last warning. And please note, it is a violation of Wiki policy to remove warnings from your talk page.

It's a bird, it's a plane it's BabyDweezil 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Baby,

You and PK have deleted my and others' posts which have not been personal attacks or rants but legitimate questions. You have continually posted personal attacks and rants against me and others while whining about this being done to you. I hardly consider you an authority on the topic of ethics in regards to personal attacks and criteria for deleting others. If your method is to simply delete my legitimate posts and continue to post personal attacks against me and others than you are breaking your *own rules*. If you want to behave civil than do so yourself; or maybe you think you are above any rules. GrownUpAndWise 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a message board. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines regarding what a talk page is for and return when you are ready to participate. until then, any further postings from you will be deleted. BabyDweezil 06:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

GrownUpAndWise, you have been warned about personal attacks and for example in your first edit you called BabyDweezil infantile. Also, of the comments removed from this page, I would suggest there were very few meaningful additions to the debate. Regarding the image, I would comment this has been used in similar circumstances elsewhere and was deemed not to constitute an infingement of policy. Addhoc 11:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adhoc, I certainly was warned about personal attacks by you based on my first post which I absolutely agree was wrong and have apologized. Your warning is still there. On the other hand, BabyDweezil and PK have written hundreds of words about many other people here besides me which clear fall into the categories of "personal attacks", "rants" and far off the topic at hand about the article. They have deleted legitimate questions like asking directly if Fred Newman is licensed or exempt. This question surely is relevant. All I ask is that they follow the rules like everyone else. Adhoc, you have warned PK good to be the King on more than one occasion about personal attacks yet there is no formal warning to him on his page. The same goes for BabyDweezil. Ever since Cberlet has requested formal mediation I have written nothing here at all and had intended to keep it that way. The subsection about "lamest rants" under "Personal Attacks and Rants" with the image also in that section suddenly appeared on this page immediately after a link to the Wikipage about the "Lamest Edits Ever" was posted on a discussion forum completely separate from Wikipedia and not based on something written by me here whatsoever. I hardly think that anything they have written in the "Personal Attacks and Rants" sections adds any meaningful to the article concerning Fred Newman and also shows that their current personal attacks upon me have nothing to do with what I written here. PK and BabyDweezil are confusing websites, personal grudges and bringing non-related issues onto this talk page. I still regard you as a fair mediator expect as a mediator you would be able to recognize this and be consistent with everyone.GrownUpAndWise 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This relates to the element of structural bias that I have mentioned before, Addhoc. As an informal mediator you consistently pointed out issues by me and GrownUpAndWise, but allowed BabyDweezil to make personal attacks on the discussion page and in the entry. Since the request for formal mediation was made, BabyDweezil has piled mountains of POV material into the page. Not a word from you, Addhoc. You are no longer a mediator on this page. As an editor, I suggest you step back and look at the larger picture, with the idea of determining what this entry needs to conform it to Wikipedia guidelines. If you wish to continue editing here, I hope that you will sign in and "Accept" at the mediation page.--Cberlet 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fully agree that I'm no longer a mediator on this page. Regarding formal mediation, I would advise that if BabyDweezil has declined, the application is going to be rejected. Addhoc 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we move to arbitration bewteen me and BabyDweezil.--Cberlet 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As I clearly indicated, I declined to participate in a mediation request that completely misreprented the prior discussions, included within the mediation pages I have not edited and which have their own editors and would thus exclude them from the process, and which set parameters for the mediation which again fully misrepresnted the previous attempt and which clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines. In that context, I will regard and note the statement "If you wish to continue editing here..." as a bullying threat. BabyDweezil 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

cberlet, you have been declared unwelcome and you also said this article is a waste of time...you are free to request whatever kind of dispute resolution you deem appropriate. Please pursue those avenues and stop disrupting this page, it is certainly not the appropriate venue to argue your case. see ya, pK--its Good to be the King 18:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)!

I will put my faith in the formal procedures established by Wikipedia. Declared unwelcome by whom?--Cberlet 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see at all how the talk page is an inappropriate place for Cberlet to argue his case. Nor do I see that there is anything like consensus here. The fact that the people on one side of the argument are, for the most part, not working on other Wikipedia articles means that they have more time for this one, but it does not mean that those of us who are only coming by here now and then are in agreement with them. See WP:OWN. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel--If you could point to one issue that had been raised by those one "one side" (whom you assume have nothing but leisure to edit this article) actually being addressed by those with disagreements other than to yell "POV" "cult apologist" and "Orwellian sanitizing", please point me to it. If you have the time to stop in and disagree, then state and discuss the disagreement. BabyDweezil 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PS--the Robert Wilson link was correct, thanks.

My time has been limitted and I have not had a chance to participate this week, however, I don't know how BD or anyone can "declare" Chip or another person here unwelcome as if they are speaking for everyone. Until formal mediation takes place there is no use trying to engage when BD, PK and Good to be King, are here ready to pounce on anyone who has anything at all to say that they don't agree with. Thetruthmatters 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice for ALL parties here: "If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if you have any, will take care of itself" (W.Farrell) Thetruthmatters 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, super. now we're going to have to add a fortune cookie section. BabyDweezil 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TTTMS, did you get a chance to look at that article from NEw Therapist? pK, its Good to be the King 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Naahhh, BD, let's leave the fortune cookies for quack counselors and charlatans! And Good King, please do hold your horsies . No need to rush although New Therapist certainly is an appropriate reference from what I can gather. Thetruthmatters 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no need to rush at all; the sourced material from New Therapist has been in the article for quite a while now, so I'm glad we have agreed on something. BabyDweezil 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Research Associates

The article currently refers to "Chip Berlet’s Political Research Associates". This seems entirely inappropriate. He is neither the founder nor has he ever been the head of the organization: according to our article on him, he is an employee as its senior analyst. He is also (as most people reading this know) an active contributor to the present article.

What is the basis for this odd characterization of PRA? - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Adjusted accordingly, although not an odd characterization at all; CB has been with PRA for 24 of its 25 years and is the most prominent spokesperson. BabyDweezil 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A poor citation

The blind URL provided as a citation after the passage that begins "As Tourish and Wohlforth describe it in their unsympathetic account of Newman’s controversial history…" links to a publisher's page advertising a book by Tourish and Wohlforth. Nothing on that page bears out the statement here, nor does it bear out any of what follows. My guess is that someone's intention was to cite a passage in the book. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP

This article currently gets at least close to WP:BLP issues with reference to Dennis King:

• "CIA-founded League for Industrial Democracy" is ridiculous: LID pre-dates the CIA by over 40 years. LID was the group that founded the SDS. Was it CIA-infiltrated? Absolutely. And by the 1970s, the Shachtmanites were pretty much in control of it, and it had moved to the right-social-democrat politics that eventually, in many cases, evolved into neo-conservatism. But that is not at all what the article says.
• "currently working closely alongside the leader of the violent, anti-Newman Jewish Defense Organization's leader Mordecai Levy": quite a remark to make with no citation. "Closely alongside" is what most needs a citation here. Also, "violent, anti-Newman" suggests that violence has been directed against Newman or his followers; if not, then this is poor wording, and in any case it deserves a citation.
• Also, while I don't doubt the story about ... the romantic relationship ..., it should be cited. WP:BLP is pretty clear on that.

- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed that entire section because of the above concern. All material in this article that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced to a reliable published source. All contentious material about living persons must be particularly carefully sourced. I unprotected this article recently to allow BLP concerns to be dealt with, but that didn't mean that even more BLP problems should be added. Also, make sure that material about third parties is not only sourced but is directly relevant to the subject matter; it shouldn't be added gratuitously. Please review WP:V, WP:NOR, and particularly, WP:BLP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. The material is directly relavent and reliably sourced. Try reading the article. Also dennis king is not the subject of this biography. Good to be the King 20:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to the King, I'm not here to argue about this. I'm here as an admin, not as an editor, responding to a BLP issue, as I did before. WP:BLP is policy and states that unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed from any article or other page on this website, and that anyone restoring it may be blocked. Please find sources for the material, if and only if it is relevant to this article. If it is not relevant and/or if it is not well-sourced, it must be left out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Material has been sourced per Jmabel's points; please indicate any outstanding BLP issues there might be. BabyDweezil 20:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problematic material was not sourced, so I've removed it and protected the page. Please discuss with other editors (a) which parts of this material are directly relevant to the article and aren't just gratuitous attacks; and then (b) find reliable published sources for every one of the claims about living persons that you decide to include. Please let me know when you're ready to start editing again or file a request on WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit hard to do unless someone specifically indicates what they find probelematic and it can be discussed. Taking the ball and going home with it every time someone tries to get a game going is hardly conducive to sporting brehaviour. BabyDweezil 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to source every claim made about a living person in that section to a reliable published source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate what you feel needs sourcing. the process of editing involves an editor having the opportunity to address a concern. In every instance in this article where there has been a concern, I have addressed it. But i can only address those that are brought to my attention. BabyDweezil 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baby, you see the section that I removed? All the claims in that section about living persons need to be reliably and carefully sourced; all the editorializing needs to be sourced. This is me bringing the concern to your attention. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is bristling with references, a fair amount to the person who the supposed BLP issues concern; as such I would need to know what specifically is problematic. For example. "sentence x needs a reference." "sentence x is referenced to y but needs a better reference." This is how the editing process is done. BabyDweezil 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here only as an admin and I don't want to get involved in the editing details. You could start by supplying sources for every sentence of the first paragraph of the section I removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since your second sentence entirely contradicts your first one, i suppose we'll just have to let this project sit frozen until you or someone proposes an actually feasible process for editing to continue. BabyDweezil 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think ex-mediators are constrained from discussing editing details, so here goes...

• 'Romantic relationship ...' paragraph - no citation.

• 'Tumultuous split' paragraph - the reference doesn't say "reporting took a 180 degree turn" or "scathing broadsides", this is a journalistic inference and therefore could be regarded as original research.

• 'Alluded to their breakup' paragraph - again no reference and possible original research.

• ' Vigorous support' paragraph - same problem, this represents a previously unpublished analysis of events.

• 'Midst of another bitter fight' paragraph - again, same problem.

Additionally, there are WP:BLP concerns to be resolved. Addhoc 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baby, the article won't stay frozen for long. What needs to happen is for sources to be supplied or that material to be left out, and anything else identified as a BLP concern to be dealt with similarly. I chose to protect the page rather than blocking people, but as you rightly point out, the page can't stay protected forever. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. When the page is unfrozen, any issues will as always be addressed, as Jmabel's were, and starting with Addhoc's, who I thank for pointing out particular concerns. BabyDweezil 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, if you feel there are other obvious BLP issues on the version I protected, feel free to remove them; or let me know and I will. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

slim--could you list the BLP issues that need to be addressed in the deleted material? BabyDweezil 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No games, Baby, please. Addhoc has listed some concerns, and I've advised you to find sources for every sentence of the first paragraph I removed. That's enough to be going on with. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating process, I must say. Not an admin in sight or a concern for WP:BLP when Dennis King was cut and pasting huge chunks of his personal website and original researchinto this article, or a concern for "sources for every sentence when he was slipping in doozies like ... [material removed] referenced only to his personal website. When I attempted to correct this and (as the history shows, countless distortions and flagrant WP:BLP violations, largely from Mr King, including with my own requests for peer review and mediation, now the admins-who-dont-get-involved-in-editing show up. Interesting process. BabyDweezil 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're being a conspiracy theorist again, Baby. All that happened is that Jmabel, a highly respected editor, made an edit to this page with "BLP" in the header, so it caught my eye. Please do the same in future, or contact me on my talk page, if you have a BLP concern. Also, please don't post BLP issues to the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you, SV, I'm relieved that you agree that the material I challenged was indeed a WP:BLP issue that should be removed. At the time, I was accused of being a supporter of a polarized political, totalitarian, or cultic group engaged in "Orwellian sanitazation. You could imagine the crisis of confidence this could induce in an unsuspecting newbie editor attempting to help make an article comply with Wikipedia guidelines! BabyDweezil 02:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to keep this article pointlessly protected, but the BLP issues can't be restored without a reliable source for each point, and I do mean reliable. Can I have an assurance on that point please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. BabyDweezil 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. The whole article should be checked for any further BLP issues, and some of the language perhaps needs to be toned down e.g. saying a group "lashed out" at someone, rather than just saying they criticized that person. Anyway, I'll unprotect now and we'll see how it goes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I only expect to introduce a bit of the deleted sections in abbreviated form with sources, in neutral language, and to address Addhoc's points. I will be happy to address anything else anyone notices; but please note I did not write the initial article, and my more recent edits have been placed on the version heavily edited by DKing, which was structured simply as a vehicle for his extremely negative POV, so there are some awkward transitions here and there. BabyDweezil 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you add that again without a reliable source, you will be blocked from editing. By "reliable," I don't mean a self-published newsletter. It is also not at all clear what the relevance of it is, but that's beside the point for now. First, you need a good source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the Friedman article say exactly that backs up the second sentence of "Political Adversaries Attack Social Therapy," and what is the relevance of it to King's writing about Newman, according to the source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[text removed] BabyDweezil 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It doesn't support the edit you made, it's not at all clear what the relevance of it is to this bio, and it's also not clear that that's a reliable source. Please review WP:V and WP:BLP carefully. I'm going to remove that material once again, and I am now asking you very seriously not to restore it. Find a mainstream source that contains the material and that explains its relevance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What kind of source is the Heights & Valleys News? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is all extremely peripheral arcana (which was basically my feeling all along but there was an outcry to include "critical" material) I've simply removed the whole section. BabyDweezil 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the article seems to consist of gossip published in tiny publications. I can't form an opinion because I don't know the subject matter, but anything critical of a living person needs to be reliably sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Establishment Responds

I have deleted this entire section since it is false, defamatory (by suggesting an author and non-profit were "bought" by a donor for political purposes); and consisted entirely of propaganda from the Newmanite cult.--Cberlet 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The section was probably an infringement of WP:OR and to some extent WP:BLP. Addhoc 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Restored a small section which consists of quote from cult-baiting propagandist Berlet. BabyDweezil 19:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

NCLC

I notice that the following was cut: "NCLC was one of a number of left-wing organizations heatedly, and occasionally violently, vying for control of the remnants of post-1960s campus radicalism. LaRouche's NCLC had launched a series of violent attacks against other leftist groups in 1973." I suppose it needs citation before it is restored, but that should not be hard to find. They were active at the school I was attending at the time, and I knew people whose meetings were violently busted up as part of the NCLC's "Operation Mop-Up". - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly for "With the NCLC’s abandonment of left wing politics and its descent into the murky world of the right-wing conspiratorial fringe". - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I had removed all that to trim it down; the amount of material in the article now on the NCLC seems more than sufficient for this biography. BabyDweezil 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for this right now, but some useful sources (besides Chip Berlet and Dennis King — I frankly don't see the objection to Berlet's work; Chip, is there any chance that you can re-build this here in Wikipedia out of the same primary sources you presumably have used in writing about this in the past?) would be this 1985 article from the Washington Post and possibly Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che by Max Elbaum, which I believe covers the NCLC. Also, there is a late 1970s pamphlet "NCLC, National Caucus of Labor Committees; brownshirts of the seventies" by something called Terrorist Information Project. Noticed this online as I was searching, I remember reading it circa 1980. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Our own article on the NCLC is, by the way, stubby and way undercited. - Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My position on this issue is clear. My published report on the Newmanites is a proper source. I will gladly re-insert material cited to "Clouds Blur the Rainbow."--Cberlet 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Evaluations and investigations of the All Stars Project

This was an OR essay by Dennis King. Removed. BabyDweezil 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to what was removed. I so far have no opinion either way on whether it belongs in the article but how was it OR? Looked quite decently cited to me. - Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In its original unsourced version as inserted by Dennis King, it was an OR essay that liberally twisted facts to paint the All Stars programs in the most negative light possible. I corrected the distortions and supplied all the references, but since this is a bio of Newman, not an assessment of of the programs he's associated with, it seems unnecessary. BabyDweezil 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We say in the article "Castillo and its parent charity, the All Stars Project, Inc., incorporate Newman's therapeutic approach in their work, which includes a number of supplementary education programs for youth, including the All Stars Talent Show Network and the Joseph A. Forgione Development School for Youth." We don't appear to have a separate article on either Castillo or All Stars Project, Inc. Much of this seems like it belongs somewhere. Perhaps a separate article on All Stars Project, Inc.? I'm usually more a "lumper" than a "splitter". - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted per BLP--extreme minority negative POV not justified

Cberlet's rewrite contains extended amounts of his own biased rantings, representing an extremely minor POV. Just one example--an extended quotation from a commentator who never studied the Newman group, Frank Touchet, who in his own writings elsewhere considers the gay lifestyle to be a cult. Please do not reinsert these flagrant BLP violations without discussion.BabyDweezil 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Properly cited material should not just be reverted. I have restored the edits. Pick a paragraph and rewrite, and then we can talk.--Cberlet 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single qualified professional cited in the Clouds blur the Rainbow report to justify these claims. the report contains huge sections of anonymous allegations, political complaints from former associates and not a single iota of balance afforded an opposing point of view, and is 20 years old. This material will continue to be reverted per BLP. BabyDweezil 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this claim to be without any merit whatsoever. What do other editors think?--Cberlet 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chip instead of writing "Critics of Newman claim that Social Therapy in practice is merged with political organizing controlled by Newman in a way that rasies ethical issues and suggests cultic aspects of emotional control," can you please name the critics? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple Test

Name a single qualified professional researcher who has conducted a study of any organizations assocaited with Fred Newman, within Clouds blur the Rainbow or elsewhere, that can be used to reference this claim within the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:RS:

Critics of Newman claim that Social Therapy in practice is merged with political organizing controlled by Newman in a way that rasies ethical issues and suggests cultic aspects of emotional control.

Plus, the phrasing of this claim and its weasal language, "raises" "suggests" is itself in violation of BLP. BabyDweezil 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That sentence does need a source. Everything in this article that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation, per WP:V. Because this is a BLP, that has to be taken very seriously, even if it means making the article considerably shorter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything I added is cited to Chip Berlet, 1987, Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party, Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, online.--Cberlet 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That link isn't working for me. Can others see it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's better to say who is saying something that to use the word "critics." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. This is not a venue for chip berlet to insert his gossipy speculations from his organizations website. This "report" has serious BLP issues, as outlined above hald a dozen times. It is a partisan, extreme minority viewpoint, full of political complaints, often by anonymous sources. BabyDweezil 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BD, does the link work for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Link works, but it has serious BLP issues. [v03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued censorship of published criticism makes Wikipedia editors here party to the creation and defense of a highly POV, distorted, whitewash of this controversial therapist with no credentials or training. Why? Why is this being allowed? What is the justification for allowing BabyDweezil to unilaterally determine what material is allowed to be cited? Where is this tactic justified by Wiki policy? This has been going on for months. This is cowardice. Shameful. --Cberlet 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chip, it's not that Baby or anyone else is being allowed to censor anything. It's that it must conform to BLP, and therefore anything that's challenged must be carefully written and sourced. For example, you need to name the critics, and not just say "critics." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is just false. A cursory review of the edits and this discussion page clearly reveals that BabyDweezil has been walking editors in circles for months. I cited every claim I recently added to Clouds Blur the Rainbow. I added one summary sentence in the lead that was not cited. This is a common practice, and it was detailed and cited below. After it all was deleted by BabyDweezil I added the cite to the summary sentence. Deleted. I have repeatedly asked why cites to Clouds Blur the Rainbow are not aceptable. Why? I ask again. Why? Because BabyDweezil bullies everyone here. That's why. It is wrong. It is shameful. It is a disgrace that this page is allowed to exist in this highly biased form on Wikipedia. It is 90% unchallenged propaganda from the Newmanite group. And every time I ask why Clouds Blur the Rainbow should not be considered a legitimate cite, BabyDweezil leads everyone here on a wild goose chase. Sit back and watch it happen again. And ask yourself why this is acceptable?--Cberlet 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could get the link to work, but I keep getting an error message. Chip, as well as adding a citation, you must give names, and not just say "critics." The BLP issues are taken very seriously nowadays. I'll look later at the rest of the edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if you are still having trouble with the link, I can email you a copy of the page. Let me know. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cult claims

I have added the following section with proper cites:

Berlet, however, in 1987 wrote a study re-asserting the claim of cultic practices by the Newmanites, Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party:

It is difficult to resolve the issue of psychological manipulation because there are undoubtedly NAP supporters who are sincere and genuine in their beliefs and have no connection to the Newmanites, the IWP nor the Social Therapy Institutes. Still, most of the functional core leadership of NAP has a connection to the Therapy Institutes and the Newmanite political philosophy. Ultimately the question of psychological manipulation, cultism and cult of personality can only be resolved by each person who comes into contact with NAP on the basis of the individual practice and process observed, and within the framework of one's own sensitivity to and wariness about cultism.

As early as 1977, journalist Dennis King was writing of the cult-like nature of the Newmanites, and interviewed Frank Touchet, a New York professional psychotherapist who studies therapy cults such as the Reichians and the Sullivanians.

After studying the therapy group which forms the core of Newman's followers, Touchet concluded:

"What you are dealing with is people who have been criminally tampered with in the deepest fibers of their being, and who have descended into a strange childlike world of dependency, in which the rational functions of the ego are relinquished completely to Fred Newman--who regulates their lives on the most intimate level."

This is properly cited to a published report.--Cberlet 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "BLP issue" Cberlet is not understanding.

All the first quote does is make an assertion with no evidence. Cited to a partisan, tiny minority POV online publication, offers no attempt at a serious study/analysis. It is merely a gratuitous complaint that violates BLP. The author--who doesnt even have a college degree--hasn't the slightest quialification to analyze a therpeutic modality, and especially one he never studied firsthand. Reverted.

The quote by this Touchet person is a) 30 odd years old, b) made by someone who never studied the Newman organization and is basically "talking out of his hat" c) Touchet himself is a homophobe who in his own writing describes the gay lifestyle as "a cult." Again, gratuitous, and ancient nonsense that violates BLP now matter how many times Cberlet says "properly cited". Reverted. BabyDweezil 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BD, Chip Berlet is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. There's a wide consensus about this, and the ArbCom has upheld it more than once. You can ask for material to be written so that it closely follows what the source says, but you can't remove material that's sourced to Chip just because you don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SV--Could you show me where Wikipedia has concluded that Berlet is a reliable source to make a claim regarding "cultism" in Fred Newman's social therapeutic practice without Berlet citing any credible research to back this claim up? I can't possibly imagine that Wikipedia bestows blanket status upon an author to comment on whatever they like anywhere in Wikipedia and cite their own organizations's obscure website for a two decade old source to back up such claims. In any case, as i stated above, it's not a matter of whether I like it or not, but whether it is suitable per BLP. These quotes and the two decade old "report" from a highly partisan political organization written with the intent of influencing voters in the 1988 presidential election--which cites no credible research and is not taken the leasedt bit seriously within the psychological establishment and social science community (to the extent is considered at all)--seems not to be at all. BabyDweezil 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clouds Blur the Rainbow as an Unreliable Source

Chip Berlet first submitted this report as a source for this article on 9/28/06 claiming it was a "significant published study of Newmanites." However, a google search for this "significant published study" returns only results for Berlet's employer Political Research Associates (which as his employer is basically funding Berlet's round the clock attempts to insert their "reports" into Wikipedia), Dennis King's website, and a single mention in a Nation article by Doug Ireland who uses the report merely as a vehicle for bashing Ralph Naderthrough the back door.

A search of ERIC, Periodicals Contents Index Full Text, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Lexisnexis, ProQuest turn up nothing for this report. The only mention to be found anywhere in the scholarly literature is in a review of a Newman book (Nissen M et al Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426 (1999) where the Berlet report is mentioned and dismissed.

This biography already gives a fair amount of attention to this report, as it figured in a federal lawsuit against the FBI filed by Newman and associates, and is therefore noteworthy of inclusion as a part of the subject's biographical history. But as a quotable source of analysis and commentary on Newman, it seems far from realiable, much less worthy of extensive quotation as Berlet would like to include, and certainly not anything that comes close to his characterization as a "significant report." BabyDweezil 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit against the FBI is a red herring. Bogus claims tossed out by the judge. The FBI was wrong to conduct surveillance, but that does not make the claims by the Newmanites factual. Clouds Blur the Rainbow is a published study, and is cited by several other authors in their work. --Cberlet 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

More overblown and patently false hype about the "significance" of this report. It was "published" because Berlet's Democratic Party donor-funded employer, Political Research Associates, paid Berlet to write it to try and sabotage Lenora Fulani's 1988 presidential campaign and smear her in the progressive community with the fake "cult" claim. The only author citing the book is Tim Wohlforth in his chapter in "On the edge: Political Cults Left and right." By his own account, Wohlforth started from the presumption that there was a cult, and proceeded to use only those sources that would verify his a priori supposition (hence, citing mostly Berlet and Dennis King). Like Clouds Blur the Rainbow", the Wohlforth book hasnt an iota of credibility in the social science community (feel free to make your own inquiries), and like Berlet, Wohlforth did not attempt a single interview with anyone presenting a view that would contradict his own claim. The only value the Berlet report has had in the past 20 years was for the FBI, which used it as the basis for their assertion that Newman's New Alliance Party was a "psycho-political cult." Sad that Berlet, Wohlforth and the FBI seem to have this shared approach to "research." BabyDweezil 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BLP. This "report" is a shallow, politically motivated (and funded) fatuous and vacuous hatchet job that hasn't the slightest bit of demonstrated credibility in the social science community. Doubly absurd is the author continually trolling through wikipedia articles attempting to overbklow the importance of his work to bulldoze his biased POV into articles. This is grossly in violation of [WP:BLP] and really needs to stop. BabyDweezil 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of BabyDweezil hijacking this page and censoring any serious criticism ****DELETED NAME CALLING, DERROGATORY COMMENT*****.--Cberlet 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Baby, I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. You write above that Newman gets an unfair press from Wohlforth, Berlet, and King, and that their views were used by the FBI, who say that Newman's Alliance Party was a psycho-political cult. You feel this is unfair and is based on one-sided research.

I'm not in a position to know whether you're right. Regardless, all we do as Wikipedians is write down what reliable sources have said about the subject, even if we personally believe that it's all wrong. Chip Berlet is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia, and indeed, for the FBI, as you say yourself. Therefore, our job (and that includes your job when you're editing Wikipedia) is simply to write down what Berlet has said. You should then add any opposing views published by reliable sources in order to find a balance. If there are no reliable opposing views, then none can be added, no matter how frustrating that is.

Every day, I see sources write about issues in a way I disagree with, but I still have to include what they say; I've written entire articles based on source material I disagree with. If you could separate your personal views from your role as a Wikipedian, you'd find editing this article less stressful and the talk page discussions would go easier too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

SV--I continue to strongly challenge Chip Berlet as a reliable source for a biography on Fred Newman. His writing, as evidenced by "Clouds Blur the Rainbow" fully constitutes "biased and malicious" writing which is clearly proscribed by Wikipedia. It's not a matter of my agreeing or disagreeing with them. Berlet is making a claim that there is a totalitarian cult" and there isn't a shred of acceptable evidence in the source he is using to back this claim except for his own opinion and Dennis King's opinion, neither of whom are qualified to make a judgement of that sort. To the extent that this claim wound up in FBI files, its noteworthy for mention, as a stand alone claim, I will continue to challenge it.

Regarding your suggestion to include his view and "then add any opposing views published by reliable sources in order to find a balance," I completely disagree. Should we include every claim that someone beats their wife that can be dug up on the internet, and then require that editors find an article stating the subject doesnt beat their wife? That approach is entirely proscribed per WP:RS and WP:BLP.

I also would like to see any rulings that indicate Berlet "is regarded as a reliable source" for a biography of Fred Newman. I cannot really accept that he has simply been accepted as a reliable source elsewhere, and can't believe that Wikipedia grants obscure authors blanekt right to include anything they have ever written anywhere on Wikipedia.

I would strongly urge you to read this "report" he is using here, and let me know if you would consider a source composed primarily of two long quotes--one anonymous and one a letter to an editor from 1989--to fit in the category of reliable source for making a claim of "toatalitarian cultism". The framing of the quote by "Frank Touchet" is patently false and misleading. Berlet writes "After studying the therapy group which forms the core of Newman's followers, Touchet concluded..." Touchet never studied "the therapy group." Ever. In the orginal source for this quote (1977!) Dennis King writes

"We spoke with Frank Touchet, a professional psychotherapist who is a leading expert on therapy cults, having closely studied both the Reichians and the "West Side Sullivainians"--forerunners of the Newmanites." King fed Touchet information and Touchet (unless King completely fabricated it) commented. The claim from Berlet ""After studying the therapy group..." is entirely false and should not be allowed per WP:RS and WP:BLP

This entire source simply has not been demonstrated to conform guidelines for a reliable source, and simply stating its "published" and that Berlet has been considered a reliable source in entirely other contexts seems wholly insufficient. BabyDweezil 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Published, reliable, cited by others, I stand behind it. BabyDweezil has no legitimate grounds to protest "Clouds Blur the Rainbow," being used as a source here on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've stated countless legitimate grounds for challenging this source. The fact that berlet refuses to address any of these points, and has never addressed a single one in 2 months of discussion, pretty much demonstrates the legitimacy of the grounds. BabyDweezil 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Circular argument. Wikipedia guidelines are clear. That BabyDweezil has a personal objection to the material has no weight. There are many publications from the (BLP issue deleted) that have criticized "Clouds Blur the Rainbow." An NPOV entry will include criticisms from "Clouds Blur the Rainbow," and then criticisms of the criticism in "Clouds" from the various (BLP issue deleted) publications. The rest is just obfuscation.--Cberlet 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Clouds Blur the Rainbow" as a source is disputed per WP:RS and WP:BLP. BabyDweezil 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Baby, you keep saying it's just Berlet's opinion that it is, or was, a cult, and that he's not in a position to make that judgment. But he is. He specializes in this area, and has done for decades. His work has appeared in a wide variety of publications, including peer-reviewed ones. He is a recognized expert in precisely this area. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Clouds Blur the Rainbow added (again)

Publication of this source noted and sourced in the article, minus all the extended quotes, which merely cover information that is amply coverered in the rest of the article (see New Therapist interview in Progressive Politics on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. This seems to more than adequately cover the criticisms and include a response. BabyDweezil 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not sufficient to balance the majority of the page which is unverified propaganda from the (deleted BLP issue).--Cberlet 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Please indicate which sections are "unverified propaganda". And please refrain from using the deleted language above, whcih is a WP:BLP issue. BabyDweezil 03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete the fact that most leaders on the political left call it the "(deleted)."

Please indicate which sections are "unverified propaganda". BabyDweezil 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of the page -- I am following Wiki policy by balancing material from the deleted with published criticism.--Cberlet 04:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite specific passages and stop palying games. BabyDweezil 04:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am posting text from properly cited published material. Please stop reverting this appropriate text that is need to balance the entry which is overwhelmingly biased and rpesented from the POV of supporters of the (BLP issue deleted). Please stop deleting my references to the (BLP issue deleted). There are numerous published references to the Newmanite cult. Erasing the words cannot erase the fact of the criticism.--Cberlet 04:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, its a biography about Newman, not Berlet, and there would by necessity references about Newman. So please cite a specific issue in what is in the biography, or you're "balance" is unnecessary and will be reverted. BabyDweezil 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Berlet--cite a problem in the article that needs "balance"

Or you will continue to be reverted BabyDweezil 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Properly cited text and 3RR

I have just tried to insert three different blocks of text from three different sections of the report "Clouds Blur the Rainbow." None of them were acceptable to BabyDweezil, who has now obviously violated the 3 Revert Rule, as part of a campaign to censor criticism from a published source.--Cberlet 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP issues. Discuss what you feel is problematic in the article first or you will continue to be reverted. BabyDweezil 04:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is arbitration really necessary?

3RR applies when reversion and deletion are improperly used to sanitize published criticism of a controversial figure widely regarded as the leader of a political cult. Unless administrators take action to stop this charade, arbitration is the only option left. Mediation has been refused. Attempts to find wording that BabyDweezil will constructively edit rather than delete has once again failed. Requests for administrator intervention go unheeded. What other options are left?--Cberlet 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't "constructively edit" large chunks of an obscure, poorly researched, politically motivated, 20 year old screed that hasn't an iota of recognition in the social scientific community (Newman's peers) and which thus--as simply a personal/political hatchet job that is simply the authors (and his employer's) extreme minority POV, is in violation WP:BLP. Reference to this article has been included and framed; Belet's name appears eight times at last count. Yet he continues to want to insert arbitrary chunks of his obscure, shoddy opinions based on fraudulent "research" in the article.

Arbitration? Go for it. BabyDweezil 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think arbitration is the only option left, especially because when mediation was proposed BabyDweezil refused to participate.

Chip, you say "Unless administrators take action to stop this charade," but without arbitration, I don't see what action we can take. You are both editors in good standing. This is a content dispute. I find BabyDweezil's arguments largely specious, but that is my view as an editor, not as an administrator. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel--I'm agreeing to rather absurdly long chunk from Clouds Blur the Rainbow since, although I stand by the assertion that its an extreme minority point of view. In any case, if you have opinions as an editor, It would be appreciated if you wuold simply state them rather than use derogatory characterizations such as "specious" without explanation. I have no problem with oppossing points of view, but the endless labelings such as "cult propaganda," "specious" and the like as a substitute for argumnt are getting annoying. BabyDweezil 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I've got this. You can say "obscure, poorly researched, politically motivated… screed" but I can't say "specious"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. I've written endlessly above why Berlet's screed is not Wiki-worthy. the response I get--"it exists, therefore its OK." BabyDweezil 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP

I see no blp concern. The article was written and says what it says. We take no risk in reporting all sides of a dispute. JBKramer 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Currently, both the accuracy and neutrality of this article are disputed. There seems little near-term chance of solving the POV dispute: clearly contributors come to this matter with very different perspectives, and I doubt we will soon sort it out. But factuality ought to be another thing. What in the article is currently disputed as to its accuracy? Remember, if someone is quoted accurately saying something you disagree with, that is not an accuracy problem with the article. - Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Berlet (who tagged this article) a number of times to state what was innaccurate to no avail. His only complaint seems to be is that the Fred Newman entry doesnt consist entirely of a reprint of his obscure, POV, two decade old, politically motivated and funded cult-baiting "study'. BabyDweezil 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Baloney. I respond, I edit, and it gets reverted or dismissed. Here are some of the many issues that are unresolved. The section on Vygotsky consists of bogus hyperbole derived from the Newmanite cult. Several experts on Vygotsky have noted that the Newmanites have developed an idiosyncratic view of Vygotsky and that their claims are absurd. The mentions of the Anti Defamation League are carefully written to dismiss the legitimate claims by ADL of antisemitism within the Newmanite cult, while highlighting biased reporting of various events. The section on the lawsuit against the FBI fails to mention that the lawsuit was found to be without merit. The section on the FBI is written to slyly imply that I (Chip Berlet) was somehow complicit in the spying or that I supplied the report to the FBI, which is false. The material on the alliance between Newman and LaRouche downplays and misrepresents the situation. And that is just the short list.--Cberlet 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have begun to rewrite some of this biased and POV sections.--Cberlet 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One of Newman's supporters removed the links at the bottom of the article to two web sites that are strongly critical of Newman. I restored the links. Both of these sites present an important point of view backed up by massive documentation and citations. That these links should be denied to Wiki readers is yet another example of the Newman movement's attempts to totally control all information about their leader. If the Newman group removes these links again, I suggest that others then remove all the links to Newman's own web sites (and that of Ms. Holzman) as well.--Dking 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Also added link to PRA site which has extensive materials on Newman.--Dking 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Quine?

The bio of Newman states that his early philosophy writings were influenced by the logical positivist Carl Gustav Hempel. But I seem to recall Newman describing himself in the 1970s as a former follower of W.V. Quine (an analytic philosopher strongly critical of logical positivism), and I also recollect that Newman's mid-1960s book Explanation by Description was influenced by Quine. But Quine is not mentioned in the bio. Perhaps someone with easy access to Newman's early writings could rework the sentence in question to clarify this.--Dking 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dennis and PRA

BabyDweezel cites Lenora Fulani (unpublished letter) and another Newman follower (in the National Alliance, Newman's defunct pseudo-communist weekly that was so wacky, sectarian and scurrilous that few outside the Newman cult ever took it seriously) for the assertion that Political Research Associates, the publisher of Chip Berlet's influential study of the Newmanites, received funding from one Richard Dennis, who was said to be a "large donor to the Democratic Party" and that this funding motivated PRA's accusations of cultism and its "attack on the [1988] Fulani campaign." BabyDweezel cites no reputable source for Mr. Dennis giving funding to the PRA, but even if Mr. Dennis did do so, Baby Dweezel would next have to establish: (a) that Mr. Dennis in fact gave large sums to the Democrats; (b) that his relationship to the Democratic Party was such that he would be used as a conduit for resources to a third organization to further a specific Democratic Party campaign goal; (c) that the Democratic Party cared enough about Lenora Fulani (who received less than 200,000 votes nationwide that year) to want to fund a campaign to discredit her; (d) that Mr. Dennis gave the money to PRA specifically for the purpose of publishing material about Fulani when PRA was engaged at the time in many other research projects on a variety of topics totally unrelated to Newman or Fulani. BabyDweezel's assertions are unfounded and illogical, which is not surprising considering that the people cited were at the time staunchly supporting Moammar Gadhafi and Louis Farrakhan and telling their readers that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." I am deleting BabyDweezel's ridiculous paragraph yet again.--Dking 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

By Dennis King's logic, all "therapy cult" claims by fringe writers such as himself and Chip Berlet would have to be removed since they are most certainly not "proved" to be true, they are simply stated. Wikipedia does not require the response of Newman and his associates to these fringe criticisms to be true to be included, they DO need to be included because they are the response of Newman and his associates to these unproved claims. If the response of the subject of the article to specific claims cannot be included, then those claims must be removed as well. If not, then I will restore them per [WP:BLP]. Just because Dennis King's website or Chip Berlet employer's websites arent required to provide balance doesnt mean the same holds true for Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 03:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

More puffery. There's a big difference between the National Alliance allegations about PRA, on the one hand, and the work of Berlet and myself, on the other. First, whether we are right or wrong in describing Newman as a cult leader, we have both laid out careful step by step factual arguments backed by in-depth research rather than slinging conspiracy theories without substantiation. Second, our work was and still is being confirmed by major journalistic outlets and by widely respected scholars and research organizations. My original series was totally confirmed by the Village Voice in the article "Psychopolitics" in the early 1980s--an article co-authored by Joe Conason (now a nationally syndicated columnist) and Wayne Barrett (the dean of New York investigative reporting). Berlet's writings and mine were also confirmed more recently by cover articles in The Nation and the New Republic and by a host of articles in city weeklies across the country; by Wohlforth and Tourish's book on political cults; by two ADL reports (the latter of which, issued in 1996, was entitled "A Cult by Any Other Name"); by the International Cultic Studies Association (where both Berlet and myself have given presentations); and by numerous confessional articles by ex-Newmanites such as Ms. Redwood quoted in this Wiki article. Once again our findings were confirmed (and deepened) by the work of cable TV journalist Rita Nissan, who won the New York Press Association's golden gloves award for investigative journalism for her 2005 "Psychopolitics" series. If BabyDweezel wants to claim that PRA was paid by the Democratic Party to attack Fulani, it is incumbent on BabyDweezel to cite an article from a reputable publication that lays out credible step by step evidence of such a conspiracy.--Dking 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See the section "BLP" above regarding the rationale for including Berlet's claims:

I see no blp concern. The article was written and says what it says. We take no risk in reporting all sides of a dispute. JBKramer 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC

Response to berlet restored--Wikipedia needs to present all sides of a dispute, not evaluate them. BabyDweezil 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Newman 'Goes Mainstream' in 1979? Hogwash!

I changed the heading that claimed Newman went "mainstream" in 1979. In fact, Newman was building up an underground pseudo-communist party (see the 1999 cover article in the New Republic) that would soon make alliances with the likes of Gadhafi and Farrakhan. There is no basis for calling this an example of "going mainstream" even if Newman did make brief alliances (through his NAP front organization) with mob politicians like State Senator Galiber.--Dking 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely comical listening to someone who runs around with a convicted felon, violent psycho terrorist punk and child abuser like Mordecai Levy pass judgement on anyone elses associations. BabyDweezil 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tut tut! Please avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly!! BabyDweezil 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No BabyD, it is NOT a "personal attack" to point out that Newman was involved with Gadhafi and Farrakhan during the period you said he'd gone mainstream. It's a matter of setting the record straight. You have no answer for these facts so, as usual, you try to change the subject through irrelevant attacks on those who point out the facts. And for the record, BabyD, it was not "mainstream politics" when Newman in 1989 called for unconditional support for Libya after Gadhafi downed the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing over 200 innocent Americans.--Dking 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

berlet is adding extensive unsourced original research

Cberlet is adding extensive orginal research and wildly POV assertions regarding his 20 year old claims that simply are not borne out by the references. All assertions to the effect that "Berlet subsequently found out the evil cultists were lying" that are not references are simply self serving original research and are being removed unless berlet can find a reference to support the claim. As well, the angry POV tone of Berlet's edits are being removed, and I suggest cberlet not use an encyclopedia entry as a vehicle for angry OR POV statements.

As to the response from Newman's organization to "Clouds Blur the Rainbow, Berlet himself in the discussion above says: There are many publications from the (BLP issue deleted [ie, "Newmanites"]) that have criticized "Clouds Blur the Rainbow." An NPOV entry will include criticisms from "Clouds Blur the Rainbow," and then criticisms of the criticism in "Clouds" from the various (BLP issue deleted [ie, "Newmanites"]) publications. But when the response was added, he and King keep deleting it, claiming it is "gossip", while adding three paragrpah from a gossipy letter to the editor from 20 years ago, which is considered "research"!!. Come on now fellas. BabyDweezil 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The text I added was properly cited to the Radical America articles and Clouds Blur the Rainbow. In both Radical America and Clouds"" the issue of the Newmanite cult lying about the disbanding of the IWP is covered. I am restoring the text since it is properly cited. There are other published cites to the Newmanites lying about the IWP being disbanded, and I will be happy to add them...extensively if needed to demonstrate they are cited and factual.--Cberlet 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research issues

The following bits are being removed since they are original research claims by Berlet. Please include a reference and show how the reference supports the claim (and use NPOV language, not POV wording such as “showed that the organizers around Newman had lied”):

1. “…because an extensive investigation by Berlet and others involved in the Public Eye network showed that the organizers around Newman had lied when they denied their continued participation in a secret cadre organziation operating under the prinples of Leninist "democratic centralism." This claim is not supported with a reference

2. “Serrette later joined in denouncing Newman, Fulani, and the NAP for lying about the continued existence of the secret Leninist cadre organization run by Newman under the name International Workers Party which was the secret control group running the New Alliance Party.” Not supported by reference BabyDweezil 19:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Newman's reply to cultism charge

I have no objection to the new material added following the Redwood quote; it is properly sourced and accurately reflects views Newman has long professed regarding the cultism charge. However, the National Alliance article charging that Richard Dennis gave money to PRA on behalf of the Democrats to attack NAP is a different cup of tea--this is an allegation of fact, not just a portrayal of Newman's views on the wrongheadedness of his critics; it is not properly sourced; and it constitutes original research (also it is totally unsubstantiated by the improper source cited). I have deleted the sentence yet again.--Dking 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following Dennis' logic here. The reference entirely supports the information in the National alliance article (and by the way, that newspaper is at least a worthy enough source as the defunct obscure newspaper where Redwood's letter to the editor appeared that is quoted at length. This is what the Friedman article says:

He also suggested consulting with Political Research Associates (PRA), a left-liberal investigative outfit with deep roots in the counterintelligence movement. Among its top researchers is former Public Eye editor Chip Berlet. PRA has been funded, in large part, by Richard Denis-a multi-millionaire Chicago commodities trader who was also one of the largest individual contributors to the Democratic Party in 1993. Bragging that he and researchers had worked with PRA "for many years," King said: "They have the best files in the country on political cults."

.........

Berlet, like King, has suspiciously changed his public views on NAP over the years. In 1984, when he first took over as editor of Public Eye, Berlet told Newman in a phone interview set up at Berlet's request to set the record straight regarding the Public Eye's 1977 accusation that Newman was a cultist and a LaRouchite, "I'm the new kid on the block at Public Eye. I'm the new editor as opposed to the old editor, and if there was some way I could avoid having to write articles about this ongoing topic [NAP], I would. Our analysis of your group has changed over the past few years, drastically with my assumption to editor." The next issue of Public Eye contained the following editor's note: "As you will learn from a forthcoming article on Fred Newman and the IWP [International Workers Party, a group that Newman had headed up in the mid seventies], the Public Eye no longer feels it is accurate to call Newman's political network a cult."

That "forthcoming" article, however, never appeared. Instead, three years later, right after Democratic Party high roller Denis contributed $75,000 to PRA, Berlet's Clouds Blur the Rainbow did.

The article clearly cites this in a NPOV manner as a claim that was made in a Newman publication, not as fact, just like the claims of Redwood and every other critic and self-styled "expert" whose opinions permeate this article to a ridiculous extent already. BabyDweezil 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the National Alliance article does not provide the slightest proof for the allegation of fact asserted in Wikipedia's Fred Newman bio. Even if Mr. Denis did contribute money to PRA, where is the evidence that he did so to benefit the Democrats by attacking Fulani? The National Alliance was always notorious for failing to connect the dots, and this is yet another example. BabyD should not be allowed to sling about unproven allegations under the guise of quotations from a defunct pseudo-communist newspaper which told its readers that "Jews are stormtroopers of capitalism against people of color," that Calypso Lou Farrakhan is a great American leader, and that Pan Am bombing mastermind Gadhafi is a hero of the world revolution. BabyD notes that the Redwood quote re NAP cultism originally appeared in a small newspaper and then asserts that the National Alliance should be recognized as a legitimate source since it too was a small newspaper. This is childish reasoning. First, Redwood's work was not published in a cult paper with a vested interest in concealing facts and giving a total ideological spin to reality. Second, Redwood was recounting personal experiences (which mirror those of dozens of former Newmanites), not spinning unfounded conspiracy theories about vague Democratic Party machinations. I am reverting again and I am calling for arbitration on this and the numerous other unfounded statements and absurd exaggerations that BabyD and other Newman followers have placed in this article.--Dking 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dennis King seems to have a misunderstanding of the role of an editor in Wiki. Newman's newspaper responded to Berlet, and if King doesnt like the response that has nothing to do with whether or not a biography should include it. Berlet's own Wikipedia page has a string of accusations from his critics, for which you could make the same argument, yet they are included. And Dennis King should try and stick to discussing particulars, rather than take every opportunity to spew his irrational hatred for Newman all over this discussion. The fact that he hasnt been able to find a publisher for any of his writings on Newman for close to 30 years is no excuse for him to clog up this discussion page with his fulminations. Source reverted. BabyDweezil 04:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheap shot by a psychotherapy cult against one of its former clients

Hey, BabyDweezil, I wonder if you yourself are a social therapist. Because Marina Ortiz is a former social therapy client, and members of a mental health team should NEVER make public comments (and especially not sarcastic ones) about the psychological status of a former client EVEN IF THE CLIENT HERSELF HAS MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS. I am removing your statement about Ortiz's alleged bipolar disorder not only because it is POV but because it is irrelevant to judging the usefulness of the ex-iwp website. Ninety-nine percent of the site is composed of press articles from the mainstream press, public record documents, reprints of IWP documents, and confessionals by former members and associates of the IWP other than Ortiz herself. Thus the quip inserted in the description of the ex-iwp site is totally irrelevant as well as POV, and I am deleting it. If you choose to restore it perhaps we could let the New York State Psychological Association (or its sister organization for social workers) resolve the issue.--Dking 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what Ortiz wrote, taken from the www.ex-iwp.org site:

Social therapy does absolutely nothing to cure (or properly treat) people with mental illness. I've since been diagnosed as bipolar on the lower spectrum, which means that my mood swings rarely include the "fun" (euphoric) aspects of manic depression. Another former patient once said that social therapy encourages, if not engenders, such mania (and obsessive impulses), and I agree. I certainly felt rapture during therapy sessions and in the presence of Fred Newman-for a while.

If you have a problem with what Ortiz posts on her site, maybe you shouldnt include it as a link. BabyDweezil 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What in the world was Fred Newman--a man with no medical training, no therapy license, and no credentials--doing treating people with bipolar disorder in the first place? As usual, BabyD's own words betray the sleazy nature of the Newmanite enterprise.--Dking 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dennis, stop using the discussion page for your diatribes against Newman. BabyDweezil 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

BabyD, stop using the article AND the discussion page to mock your former therapy patients.--Dking 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DKing and Cberlet,

In terms of the www.ex-iwp.org link and critics of Social Therapy how about something more general, yet accurate, such as something similar to: “Many former patients of Social Therapy have found that Social Therapy ‘treatment’ to be not only ineffective and unhelpful, but also state that Social Therapy was clearly detrimental and resulted in deterioration of their psychological health rather than improvement. Additionally, former patients of Social Therapy also state that Social Therapy fails to offer the consumer an accurate representation of the 'therapy' which they are to receive and claim that their right to informed consent was denied.” A statement that other licensed, professional mental health professionals have had to assist former Social Therapy patients in order to recover form their “treatment” in Social Therapy would also be both truthful and accurate: Social Therapy became an additional unexpected trauma from which they needed to heal in addition to the issues to which the clients wished to receive assitance with before entering Social Therapy.

On that note, I notice that the Wiki page for Social Therapy does not include any other views than that of Newman and company. I think a well-rounded article which includes differing views is more accurate. Hey, even Freud’s page includes criticisms and opposition of his work and theories. No where on any Social Therapy Group webpage does it state that this is a politically motivated therapy and that the patients are expected to work for Newmanite groups as a part of their therapy. No where on the Social Therapy (or the East Side Institute) webpages does it state that they do not believe/outright oppose in the APA Code of Ethics; that they disagree with universally accepted professional boundaries between client and therapist (sexual relations, social events, business ventures), etc. I also think that the www.ex-iwp.org link belongs on the Social Therapy page for the same reason it belongs on Fred Newman’s page. Former patients'/clients' opinions and factual experiences with Social Therapy is just as (if not more so) important than that of other "professionals". GrownUpAndWise 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Probe magazine

Unless I'm missing something here, Probe magazine appears to be very closely tied to Newman himself, and thus isn't a reliable source for anything remotely controversial or questionable in this article. I've removed the disputed sentence that used Probe as a source on these grounds. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external links per WP:EL

Per [WP:EL], Dennis King’s personal website and the ex-iwp website have been removed from the external links, WP:EL advises against using personal websites except in the case of acknowledged experts (King’s last published articles on Newman are close to three decades old, and appeared in community newspapers). Discussion forums such as ex-iwp.org. are also advised against. BabyDweezil 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My website is perfectly okay to list as a resource. I am recognized nationally as an expert on political cults, which includes your group AND, especially, the group that your leader, Fred Newman, once belonged to and from which he learned most of his tricks (LaRouche's NCLC). I published articles on your group in the 1980s as well as the 1970s. I have been quoted as an expert on your group by numerous news outlets over the years. My work has been confirmed again and again by writers for major journalistic outlets. My "Report to the City" (2005, on my website which you don't want people to know about) was so accurate that the All Stars Project dropped its bid for a NYC youth after-school contract rather than answer questions about the charges I raised. As to Marina Ortiz' site, it is not primarily a "discussion forum"; it is a vast archive of news clips, public records documents, internal IWP documents and confessionals by former members and associates of the IWP. It is used by journalists and cult experts as the first resource in research on the history of the Newmanites. Please stop your totalitarian editorial games, BabyDweezil. Your deletion of the links to these sites is pure and simple vandalism.-- Dking 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dennis, please desist in the personal attacks. In any case, an admin has agreed with my edits per [[WP:EL] so I am reverting. Please discuss changes rather than name calling and cult-baiting and assuming bad faith simply because you disagree with an editor. for example, provide documentation showing that you are "recognized nationally as an expert" on the subject of this biography. Additionally, both ex-iwp and your personal website have been ruled by a moderator to be not appropriate sources for this article. I believe that should apply per WP:EL as well. The ex-iwp site's main activity seems to be its gossipy message board,which includes personal attacks on wikipedia editors. and endless conspiracy theories. BabyDweezil 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again. You are simply trying to block links to information critical of Newman, including the hundreds of news articles and public records archived on Marina's site. This is pure vandalism and it's high time for you and your sock puppets to be blocked from editing on this article and the Social Therapy article, where you have also blocked links to sites critical of your quack therapy racket (as Doug Ireland called it).-- Dking 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again dennis, please cease the personal attacks and failure to assume good faith and discuss facts. reverted once again for reasons cited above, including admin's opinion cited. BabyDweezil 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the material was properly cited, and the deletion by BabyDweezil was not proper.--Cberlet 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the admin opinion cited above. Links removed per that opinion wrt WP:EL. BabyDweezil 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't see why an admin should have any more ability to judge the relevance of links than other regular contributors. For what it is worth, I'm an admin and see no problem with these links. By the way, having a "gossipy message board" on a site is utterly irrelevant to whether articles hosted on that site are reliable sources. Many newspapers, for example, have painfully stupid discussion boards on their sites: it doesn't mean that there articles are any less citable. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the articles stored on www.ex-iwp.org are "hosted" without permission, the articles themselves include a fair amount of interspersed "commentary" by the site editor, thus filling them with slanted and unreliable POV's from the site editor. BabyDweezil 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychologists

Since Fred Newman is not a psychologist (no debate on this one), I do not believe that the Wiki page on Newman should be listed under "Categories: American psychologists" and that Fred Newman's name should be removed from the Wiki page listing of "American psychologists" GrownUpAndWise 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "Psychotherapists" BabyDweezil 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of links

The critical links are proper. If they continue to be deleted, the matter will move into mediation.--Cberlet 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial websites removed from external links

The freedomofmind and Rick Ross commercial websites have been removed from EL. These sites exist largely to sell the "services" of these self proclaimed experts and are simply commercial competitors of social therapy. They have no position on social therapy and have never studied it and have published nothing about Fred Newman. Whatever archive material they have is duplicated on the other sites. They use "scare" tactics and cult baiting to lure customers. Per WP:EL removed. BabyDweezil 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV but most criticism now de-emphasized

I realize that a lot of work went into the recent rewrite, but one outcome is that most of the criticism has been de-emphasized and framed as marginal. There is not mention of the criticism anywhere in the first part of the article. With such a controversial figure, this new language may appear NPOV, but the article is now highly biased in structure and emphasis.--Cberlet 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Chip :) Please understand that the re-write is a work-in-progress--there's still a LOT of work to do. It's not at all my intention to de-emphasize the criticisms--okay, maybe that's not entirely accurate: it is my intent to de-emphasize the criticisms, but also the glowing praise, apologetics, and defenses... hopefully resulting in an overall balanced, more concise article. If you review the edits and the comments attached (see the history page) at each step, hopefully they'll reflect this. For instance, I've removed all the instances I've found so far (there were three or four) of Fulani's 1988 presidential race being called "historic", "ground-breaking", et al. When the matter is first mentioned, it gets the parenthetical note that she made the ballot in all 50 states, first woman and African American to accomplish this, etc. Period. In the same vein, there was a great deal of emphasis on the ADL reports that were part of the FBI file on the NAP (can I get another three letter abbr. in there, ya think?), which appeared to allege some kind of persecution of Newman by the ADL. This was removed, as well, in part because it's irrelevant to the section (about the FBI--unless someone can provide a source which proves there was some kind of ADL/FBI conspiracy... and then it would need to be more clearly stated). The other reason for its removal was that my vision of a balanced article is one in which the subject is presented as neither victimized, demonic, nor heroic--unless they were, by verifiable (and cited) fact, a victim, hero or demon. I've been source-checking as I've been working on this article, and so I've read more than a little of what's "out there"--there are strong criticisms and passionate endorsements aplenty. I think both should be touched on but not explored in-depth, here. I believe such in-depth analysis is outside the scope of a "biographical" Wikipedia article--i.e., if it's someone's ardent and earnest desire that those issues be fully addressed on Wikipedia, they certainly provide more than enough content for a whole article unto themselves, independent of the biography.

A biography in an encyclopedia should endeavor, I think, to be a collection of facts and an overview of the "big picture"--can you imagine how many volumes, say, Britannica would be if every point, counterpoint, criticism and rebuttal about a person were contained therein? It could be argued that if every criticism and rebuttal is presented fully, this results in NPOV by a kind of evidentiary thermodynamics, but I don't think this is the case. It just winds up being a long, convoluted article /fraught/ with POV--just both kinds--embroiled in perpetual edit war and ultimately of use to no one, least of all the layperson who comes to Wikipedia looking for an introduction to the subject and finds an aspiring WikiBook.

Another reason to keep things concise and narrow-of-scope is that sometimes with Wiki articles the more editors put in, the less a reader/end-user gets out of the article. That isn't to say the controversies and issues shouldn't be mentioned, but I found myself (as a person new to this subject) hard-pressed to understand WHAT was going on, what was meant by some of the editors' contributions, etc. Oftentimes, parties very close to the subject they're editing (as many of you on the talk page seem to be, whether for or against), they can assume foreknowledge that the reader doesn't have, whether about the subject itself or about things supporting explaining the subject. Without oversimplifying things, I believe anyone of reasonable intelligence and literacy should be able to either look up or stumble across (as I did) this article and understand What Is Going On in fairly short order.

Again, please understand that this is a work in progress and will remain so for a little while yet. I'm about to the (still too long) bit on the Castillo (I think? If I remember correctly? Ah, late night editing...) and have a ways to go--since I'm trying to work through things in order, that's why I haven't gotten to the very long and in-depth "Newman and supporters" section yet, nor the "Recent controversies" etc, which may very well be part of your concern over POV. If I don't appear to be working through in a linear fashion, that might be because I'm moving sections around--there is a lot to sift through and the reorganization is proving challenging.

I hope that, when this is finally finished, you'll be able to revise your feeling about the article's current (unintended by this editor) bias. Doubtless such bias still exists, but it's my hope it can be minimized or eliminated. Once things are reorganized and more manageable, I hope you (and others) will be willing to provide input as to where I've gone awry (for I doubtless will--I find myself struggling with some convoluted sentence structure here and there, left to take my best guess what is/was meant by the contributing editor).

Best Regards,

Wysdom 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)