Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chip Berlet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:05, 3 August 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm →Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page: typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 23 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,559,739 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-22. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Berlet, Chip|1=
|||||==Archive==
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Journalism}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Chip Berlet|date=6 July 2005|result='''speedy keep'''|page2=Chip Berlet (2nd nomination)|date2=26 July 2008|result2='''Keep per WP:SNOW / WP:IAR'''}}
{{connected contributor
| User1 = Chip.berlet | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes
| User2 = Cberlet| | U2-EH = yes | U2-declared = yes}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2024-11-22|oldid1=1258979093}}
{{Archive box|auto=long|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=365}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 4
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
== "verification failed"? ==


Here's the text from Wilcox that supports the section that somebody deleted:
]


Although mainstream figures are legitimately concerned with the LaRouche organization, a good number of his harshest detractors come from extremist ranks themselves. A writer who has spent considerable time on LaRouche is John Foster "Chip" Berlet, of Political Research Associates (PRA) in Boston. His articles on LaRouche go back into the 1970s. Berlet is also a veteran of the 1960s student left, and currently serves as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) representative to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation. Harvey Klehr confirms:
==Father Stryokowski==
Current text: "Wilcox has also criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Stryokowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest, who was forced to resign after Berlet identified him as having attended an anti-communist meeting at which a former Klan leader spoke. The Rev. Stryokowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was. ."


"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), founded in 1946. Expelled from France in 1949, the IADL is now headquartered in Brussels.Over the years it has supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan.The American Association of Jurists, the regional affiliate of the IADL, is headquartered in Havana.Its president, Ann Fagan Ginger, is a long-time NLG activist." 31
Wilcox says a lot of things about me that are dubious.


In 1987, when Berlet moved with his organization to Boston from Chicago, the Chicago Area Friends of Albania gave him a special sendoff, noting that, "Chip was one of our founding members, and a steadfast friend of Albania through thick and thin." <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Current text: "an anti-communist meeting at which a former Klan leader spoke."


::evidence that the National Lawyers Guild "supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan"? There isn't any, because they didn't.
Actually, while the meeting was indeed antiommunist, it was also run by a group denounced by the Catholic Archdiocese as antisemitic. Their slogan was "Communism is Jewish." Here is how one library describes their newsletter "photocopied newsletter of the Anti-Communist Confederation of the Polish Freedom Fighters in the U.S.A., mainly the product of the anti-Semitic and racist mind of Jozef Mlot-Mroz" .


:This is synthesis. The source does not say that Berlet was doing anything extremist. It says he was a member of a group, then it says that the group was doing certain things. Which does not mean that Berlet was doing those things. ] (]) 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Current text: "The Rev. Stryokowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was."


::No, it isn't, Binksternet. The copy that you've twice deleted summarizes the point that George and Wilcox make, though it should probably be reworded for clarity. Whether or not Berlet was actively ''doing all the things'' that the NLG and CAFA were doing is irrelevant. He was a member of the organizations which is what the deleted copy states.] (]) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is spelled Strykowski, and he attended a speech by Bob Miles at the home of Jozef Mlot-Mroz in Salem, MA. Miles is "Described as former KKK leader from Michigan (Jewish Advocate, Boston, 6-12
Nov. 1992) who spoke at a 1988 white supremecist meeting, also attended by
Rev. Francis Strykowski, who was forced to resign as pastor of Boston's St.
John the Baptist Parish, effective Feb 2, 1993 as a result of his attendence
at the meeting" .


Miles was a former Klan leader, but at the time he was also one of the best know neofascists in the U.S., and a leading figure in the neonazi version of the Christian Identity religion


Strykowski had attended and participated in these meeting before, and been exposed in the local media; and the Catholic Archdiocese had already once accepted his claim that he did not know the group was antisemitic. Strykowski was warned to not attend again. I wrote about the Miles speech in a local weekly ("Inside a Fright-Wing Cell," Boston Phoenix, August 19, 1988), but the part about Strykowski was cut for space.


:::The deleted copy says that Berlet was a member, and then it tries to implicate Berlet with things that the organization did. This gets Berlet's involvement quite wrong. For instance, the Chicago Area Friends of Albania is a group Berlet co-founded so that he could support the Albanian people, who were going through a rough time. He researched the problem of political repression in Albania through his group contacts. Berlet worked against anti-democratic Stalinists through the group, a fairly centrist stance which is exactly opposite of what your text is trying to imply: that he is an extremist. ] (]) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Years later, when a critic of mine made false claims about my attendance at the meeting and my sources of information, there was a public discussion of the 1988 meeting, and when it came out that Strykowski had attended, it again became a media issue, and the Catholic Archdiocese asked him to resign (his parish wa actually in Salem, MA) to avoid having to discipline him formally, which might have resulted in Strykowski losing the equivalent of a pension. I will provide cites for these matters on the PRA website, and then ask for a discussion of the Wilcox criticism. --] 17:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


::::Binksternet, your beef apparently has more to do with the George/Wilcox "take" on Berlet in the first place than on the editorial summary of that take (though, on second glance, I don't see where George and Wilcox ''directly'' call the "Friends of Albania" a Communist front). So your contention here is less about ] or ] than it is about the reliability of George/Wilcox. Do you have anything here beyond your own ] with which to impeach George and Wilcox? ] (]) 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:I will corect the spelling of the Rev.'s name, but as far as the rest, I don't think this article needs to go into that level of detail, and if we did we would need to be ''very'' careful not to overemphasize your POV. The situation of you being an editor here, while a positive one, is a potential source of concern and conflict on this article.
:::::The material that was deleted doesn't make any particular allegations about the groups that Berlet belonged to, it simply says he was a member. The source says unambiguously that Berlet "comes from extremist ranks." ] (]) 15:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::Wilcox and George do not describe any activities of Berlet with regard to the groups he has been associated with. They do not say Berlet supported the Soviets (which he did not). They do not say that Berlet was anything but a guy coming from the extreme left: {{quotation|1=Although mainstream figures are legitimately concerned with the LaRouche organization, a good number of his harshest detractors come from extremist ranks themselves. A writer who has spent considerable time on LaRouche is John Foster "Chip" Berlet, of Political Research Associates (PRA) in Boston. His articles on LaRouche go back into the 1970s. Berlet is also a veteran of the 1960s student left, and currently serves as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) representative to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation.}}
::::::After that bit, Wilcox and George write further about the NLG, but without mentioning Berlet: {{quotation|1=Harvey Klehr confirms: "The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), founded in 1946. Expelled from France in 1949, the IADL is now headquartered in Brussels. Over the years it has supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. The American Association of Jurists, the regional affiliate of the IADL, is headquartered in Havana. Its president, Ann Fagan Ginger, is a long-time NLG activist."}}
::::::Wilcox and George quote a party invitation which says that Berlet was "a steadfast friend of Albania through thick and thin", which he was—a friend to the Albanian people, not to the repressive Soviet-controlled Albanian government.
::::::Finally, Wilcox and George wind up with a damning indictment of LaRouche groups, saying that the groups have a "primary evil" in "how they treat their opponents and in the vision they maintain of the civil liberties of all Americans. Here the antidemocratic and anti-civil libertarian nature of LaRouche and his followers is manifest, and it is primarily on these grounds that they should be opposed."
::::::Thus we cannot synthesize a position not taken overtly by Wilcox and George. As well, we cannot misrepresent Wilcox and George as being opposed to Berlet rather than being opposed to the LaRouche organization. ] (]) 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


:::::::The fact that Wilcox and George oppose the Larouche cult can certainly be included in a reworked edit but so, OBVIOUSLY, should Berlet's membership in the ]. That's the primary evidence Wilcox and George present for Berlet being "a guy coming from the extreme left." There's no synthesis here at all. ] (]) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:A similar circumstance has occured on ], wherein Prof. MacDonald has taken issue with various criticisms of his theories. It is important that a similar policy of interaction take place with your opinions being respected, but understood as neccesarilly biased. I hope you can understand that. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 18:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


:::::::Klehr is quoted about how the NLG is "an affiliate" of the IADL, with the only stated connection being Ann Fagan Ginger's activism in both the IADL and NLG. Nothing here says the NLG is extremist. In fact, most observers call the NLG liberal, progressive or leftist—a much milder position. Berlet's involvement in the NLG is as a liaison to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, a group formed to fight McCarthyism. Wilcox and George leave the reader wondering whether it was Berlet's 1960s activism which deserves the label "extremist", or his later NLG membership. We cannot decide ourselves what makes him "extremist" when it is not clear. ] (]) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::I do understand that. I have promised to only engage in discussion on this article. Please look at the text on the page, and then compare it to the article cited, which has more detail.." The text here has been sanitized in a biased way to obscure what really happened, which involved antisemitism, not just anticommunism. Here is what a really NPOV text would look like:
:::::::::My re-write was much closer to the source than Binksternet's. And why am I receiving a warning on my personal talk page about "Edit warring" from the guy who has undone every one of my edits? Is that the pot calling the kettle black? ] (]) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


::::::::::Those warnings are just Binksternet being Binksternet. As for the substance here, the whole reason for George and Wilcox bringing up Berlet's NLG membership is to demonstrate Berlet's own radical, front-organization roots; as you might put it, Gators, "the pot calling the kettle black." ] (]) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::"Wilcox has also criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest.." Strykowski was forced to resign by the Catholic Archdiocese after Berlet identified him as leading a prayer blessing a meeting of white supremacists where a leading national neonazi figure, Robert Miles, gave an antisemitic speech. The Rev. Strykowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was, but the local media pointed out that Strykowski had been previously warned by the Archdiocese not to attend any more meetings of the group, since it was considered antisemitic."


:::the description of the National Lawyers Guild and Berlet's connection with it is entirely scurrilous, repeating shopworn lies first circulated by Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, whom the NLG opposed. While the NLG certainly defended victims of McCarthyism, including communists, to say that it is or was an arm of the Soviet government is false. Moreover, the assertion that they supported the soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is pure fabrication. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I plan to post the published cites for my claims on the PRA website on Monday.--] 18:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


== Secondary sources and BLP problems ==
:::I'm pretty sure Robert Miles isn;t a leading neo-nazi figure, unless your refering to ''this'' ]. ;) He certainly seems to be less famous than you, we have dozens of wiki articles on neo-nazi's great and small. Maybe you might like to write up an article on him, if he is of such a level of signifigance? {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 20:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


This article was substantially cleaned up during the spring, but now it's creeping back to being a mirror site for Berlet's own websites. If Berlet said something worth putting in Misplaced Pages, it will also be covered in secondary sources, so people should stop putting in stuff sourced only to Berlet. This is particularly the case for Berlet's accusations against public figures, even LaRouche: BLP policy says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ] (]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Good idea. I am very sure that the late ] (of Michigan) was a leading white supremacist and antisemite who worked closely with Aryan Nations. He was convicted of conspiring to blow up school buses in Michigan to stop integration of the public schools. We can quibble over the term neonazi. But please tell me if there is some special way to create a page for a name that duplicates another in the Misplaced Pages collection? --] 22:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::FYI, if a subject has the same name as another subject, the alternative is to add a jobtitle, locality, or other npov identifier after their name in parentheses. Thus, an alternative might have been "Robert Miles (pastor)". -] 02:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::When I did a little research I discovered he generally called himself Bob Miles, but his real name was Robert E. Miles. I could change the entry to Bob Miles if you think that is better. I am still trying to learn the intricacies of style here. --] 03:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


:It is easy to find third party sources that describe the LaRouchites as antisemitic and anti-Jewish, and LaRouche himself an antisemite, a neofascist, a neonazi, and even a "small time Hitler". It is also easy to find third party sources that describe in detail LaRouche's conviction for financial and tax crimes. That I have written about these facts is itself a fact that is easy to document. What is the issue here?] (]) 17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
==Three Catholics rob a bank...==
::As ] said, third-party sources are needed to establish the notability of your views. If you wrote that your favorite cookies are chocolate chip - well, Misplaced Pages doesn't really care. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the ''Three Catholics rob a bank'' simile relevant to Berlet specifically? Reading the article it sounds to me as if Wilcox is referring to others besides Berlet, namely commentators on the Oklahoma Bombing and the militias. -] 18:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Or more accurately, since this article is about Chip not LaRouche, to show that his views on LaRouche are significant to this article, which I have now done. ] (]) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


:I agree that if someone said something, that we should use secondary or tertiary sources that report it, as was done with the mention of Ralph Nader. However the claims made about LaRouche are mentioned in ''Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook'', pp. 88-89, which is already used as a source in the article. I will therefore restore the text and add this source. ] (]) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
:It seems relevant, if barely. It illustrates the guilt by association fallacy which Berlet appears to make, at least in the accusations against him. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 18:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, the citation you used was not from the source per se. It is from a bio of Berlet which appears in the preface, a bio which was probably provided by Berlet. ] (]) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
:::A ] "is an introduction to a book...written by the work's author." No idea why you not consider prefaces to have the same reliability as the books. Do you have any policies or guidelines? And who cares where sources get their informaton? We expect writers of reliable sources to use judgment, fact-checking, double-sourcing, etc. We ourselves do not do that, but rely on why reliable sources report. ] (]) 21:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::OK, but I'm going to reword the intro to the remark to make it clear that Wilcox is speaking of watchdog groups in general when making that criticism. -] 18:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::I took out "watchdog" for being POV. Can you think of a better term to describe them? (I admit I could not) {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::I used it because it is Wilcox's term: ''But Mr. Wilcox says what most watchdog groups have in common is a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups. "It's kind of like three Catholics hold up a...'' -] 19:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::Sam, I don't think that "''Mr. Wilcox says Political Research Associates and other "watchdog groups" have a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups:''" is a correct characterization of the quote. Wilcox does not mention PRA specifically in that context or regarding the Oklahoma bombings. He is quoted as saying "most watchdog groups", not "PRA and other watchdog groups." If it is a quote, it should be accurate. -] 20:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::OK, I tried to clean it up a bit. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 20:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050106165725/http://www.uua.org/ga/ga99/418.html to http://www.uua.org/ga/ga99/418.html
::::::Thanks. I moved the PRA over to make it a little clearer that the quotations don't refer specifically to it, but to "watchdog" groups in general. -] 20:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
==...also criticized for accusing the ADL...==
I followed the link in the footnote of this sentence:
:Berlet was also criticized for accusing the Anti-Defamation League, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times in 1993, of down-playing the right-wing threat while focusing on left-wing groups.
The only person who seems to be criticizing Berlet for the ADL attack is the piece's author, William Norman Grigg. If so, we should characterize the speaker. The implication otherwise is that Berlet is being criticized by the "left", while Grigg is definitely on the "right" (I believe he is senior editor of the John Birch Society magazine, among other things). Whether the critic is Grigg or not, whomever it is should be identified. -] 19:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
:well, this Chip Berlet seems to get it from al directions. Perhaps we can provide some better understanding (neutral of course) as to why he is so broadly contentious? {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 20:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::Gee, do you think it's a mystery why the John Birch Society would criticize Berlet for criticizing the ADL for not going after right-wing groups? I think the real question would be why there is so much discord between Berlet/Brande/Wilcox/et al. But I doubt we'd be able to answer it. Folks in politics often seem to get into the biggest fights with those who seem to be the most closely allied. In any case, until someone discerns another critic of Berlet vis a vis the ADL, I've added JBS as the critic. -] 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:] (]) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


==Red links== == External links modified ==
I like the changes to this article, particularly the Criticism of the left and Criticism of Berlet separate sections, and the new Resum? section. I added another quote from Wilcox, which explains why there is discord between these researchers. That quote is also in The New American journal, which I added is published by the John Birch Society. And I found a link for the Daniel Brandt quote, which I've added, inline and in the References section. I saw someone had added a lot of red links. I've removed them because it made the text overwikified and hard to read; and it's also unlikely that most of the red-linked groups or people will ever have a Misplaced Pages entry; if they do, we can come back and wikify then. Hope the changes are okay. ] 21:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:I take it you havn't seen my note on your talk page yet? I added, and replaced the red links. These links are very important, they let other wiki's know what articles need created. there is a even a "most wanted" listing for potential articles w the most red links. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 21:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Hi Sam, sorry I haven't seen my note. Misplaced Pages is very slow for me today, and I haven't seen able to get my Talk page to load yet. Please don't keep adding red links. They make the article hard to read. Very few, if any, of the phrases and groups you're linking will ever have an article. Also, over-wikifying (whether red or blue) is generally discouraged. If you look at the Featured Articles, you'll rarely see any red links or too many blue links in those.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715145651/http://www.wpunj.edu:80/newpol/issue29/hawkin29.htm to http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue29/hawkin29.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I saw Chip's comments above about the Rev, and so I have added his rejoinder, as follows: "In response to Wilcox's comments about the Rev. Strykowski, Berlet said that Wilcox had mischaracterized PRA's activities. "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter," Berlet told the Washington Times. "He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."


{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}
You may feel it's not appropriate to have a rejoinder from Chip in the "Criticism of Berlet" section, because otherwise we could have rejoinders of all the criticism, then rejoinders of the rejoinders . . . So feel free to take it out if you'd rather. ] 21:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:I don't have any objection about the rejoinder, nor your other edits, but we deeply disagree about the red links. I feel that removal of red links of ''this'' sort, links which both have bearing on the article and use to the reader, and which I feel quite strongly ''do'' merit articles written, is in direct opposition to both the spirit, and the policy (unspoken or otherwise) of the project. If you saw something written somewhere which you felt encouraged such actions, please alert me to its location so that I can change it forthwith. Don't get me wrong, I perceive your positive intent, but I profoundly disagree with your reasoning on ''this'' matter. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 21:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:good work, BotBrain. ] (]) 21:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
::FWIT, I agree with Sam. I guess it's another category of editors: redlinkers versus bluelinkers. Cheers, -] 23:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


==Update Request==
:::Okay, I'll hunt down some pages about red links. It may not be today however, as one of the LaRouche activists is busy reverting and Misplaced Pages is very slow for me. But as soon as I've found something, I'll put it here. There may be something in the Featured Article standards. Part of my objection is that these are very obscure organizations. If one of you wants to go and write the articles, then the links wouldn't be red anymore, which would be a solution, but my guess is you wouldn't want to because some of them, at least, are so obscure and may not exist anymore. Also, I wonder about the point of wikifying words like "photojournalist," because everyone knows what that is. Also, wikifying FBI twice in successive sentences is unnecessary. Anyway, I will look for pages about this and we can discuss further. ] 23:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Admitted self-serving request warning:

https://www.crcpress.com/Trumping-Democracy-From-Reagan-to-the-Alt-Right/Berlet/p/book/9781138212497
==What's the critisism bit for?==
I have a new edited collection that was just published. :-)
Berlet is journalist. Journalists
In penance I will go update a few pages that have no connection to me.
tend to critisize people It's their job.
--] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
People critisized will defend themselves saying the critisism is unfair. That's obvious. Why is it interesting?
:{{re|Chip.berlet}} seems to be my week to update bibliographies. I'ved added it to your bibliography article. ] ] 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikki so maybe there is something I'm missing. ] 22:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::] 🌹 ] (]) 21:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

::] Thanks ] (]) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:Criticism provides balance. Why even have an article at all, if its going to be onesided? {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 22:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:That reads to me like you are saying that ballance requires that anything positiv be balance with something negativ. I suspect that's not what your mean but then what? But my real question was why are these details of impotant? A journalist critisizes a public figure. Public figure answers back. Both one and the other are behaving exactly as one might expect.] 23:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, this article was developed after a protracted discussion about how it could be presented in a fair way. The previous version was very biased against Chip Berlet, because it was written by some of the people he has criticized during his career as a journalist. For that reason, it was rewritten to make it more neutral. However, that doesn't mean that all criticism can be deleted. Misplaced Pages policy is NPOV, which means a number of different points of view should be represented: not all (e.g. very minority views need not be mentioned), but all majority and significant minority views have a place. See ]. Best, ] 23:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

: Okay I think I understad the score a bit better. I'm here because of the Request for Comment so forgive me if I'll need a little time to get ajusted. I will read up the orginal versions but I'm still skeptical as to whether this sort of thing will be of interest beyond the people Berlet has critisized.] 00:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, see for the version before the clean-up started. ] 01:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

== high times placement ==

An anon. moved Berlet's stint at ''High Times'' out of the investigating-government-abuse section, which Wally reverted. I have retained Wally's revert on the reasoning that, most likely, Berlet's work in Washington for ''High Times'' included a fair amount of investigation into government abuse, so it seems like fine placement to me.

:Hi Dan, an IP address only one digit away from that one has been used before by a LaRouche editor. Could be a cooincidence, of course. I saw you wrote something on your edit summary indicating maybe you had trouble saving, though I can't get in to check because the page won't load. Just so you know: there is a software or server problem causing some saves not to "take" and sometimes only partially to take, which is weird, but several users have reported it. It's slow as treacle for me today. I think I may have to give up shortly. Best, ] 21:18, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

::The edit by 198.81.26.73 was not mine, but it looks legit to me (see also below under "Neologism".) Let's face it -- Chip was not just writing stories for ''High Times'', he was bureau chief. And ''High Times'' is a magazine for dopers -- I mean, it is a magazine that caters to proponents of recreational drug use. You don't lump it in as a apple attempting to blend in with the oranges. If ''Soldier of Fortune'' publishes a recipe, it doesn't become ''Better Homes and Gardens.'' ] 02:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Yup. ''High Times'' caters to recreational drug users and, best I know, Berlet was bureau chief. Generally speaking, recreational drug users are particularly concerned with civil liberties and abuses by law enforcement, as these are issues which affect them directly. If anything, the fact that it was ''High Times'' and not the ''Podunk Review'' reinforces its grouping in that paragraph. Why shouldn't it be there? ] 00:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

==Neologism?==

Of course, the fact is, LaRouche is simply wrong. Neither Dennis King nor I invented the word "conspiracism," which has been used in scholarly writing for decades.

:Regardless of whether you agree with LaRouche, that is the only quote I have ever seen where he specifically mentions Chip Berlet in print. If LaRouche is to be mentioned in this article, a quote would be appropriate.

:It seems odd to me that Berlet wants to downplay his role as a LaRouche critic in this article, and meanwhile constantly inserts his name in all the LaRouche articles, presenting himself as the fearless leader of the crusade against LaRouche. ] 02:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Gee, I have this thing about facts. LaRouche has mentioned me in print repeatedly, and his publications have attacked me dozens of times. This particular quote just happened to appear to be based on the faulty notion that the term conspiracism is new, or that King or I invented it.--] 03:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The LaRouche quote was "LaRouche has commented on 'a fruity neologism, ''conspiracism'', now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet.'" He doesn't say that you invented it; he says you adopted it. And, the Merriam-Webster definition of "neologism" is

#a new word, usage, or expression
#a meaningless word coined by a psychotic

--] 15:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:According to Mintz, "conspiracism" denotes "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history" (1985: 4). "Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere; it identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology" (1985: 199).

::Mintz, Frank P. 1985. ''The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture''. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
:--] 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: HK, that attempt at an insult was uncalled for.

:: I did notice a couple of things about the article, which might bear fixing. Firstly, there's no note in the background or resume whether Berlet ever received a degree, or what he studied during college (in addition to what he received a degree in if he did so). Also, I'm not sure "trade unionist" is an appropriate word to have in the article &mdash; I've never heard it used in an American context before. Although I may well be wrong.

:: One final thing: do we really need so many links and citations and etc.? Part of me wonders if you can't be ''too'' thorough.

::Otherwise, I would like to add my opinion that the article is a ton better after ] and ] reworking than it was before. I will pitch in where I can as soon as I am able to clear my computer of a rather nasty bug that inserts hyperlinks to vendors for certain keywords whenever I try to edit an article (which I first discovered attempting to fix a typo in this article two days ago, which Willmcw thankfully reverted. If anyone knows of such a phenomena and knows of a way to clear it, such knowledge would be appreciated. My anti-spyware and anti-virus programs have been ineffective. In sum, a bang up job. ] 22:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::I can't take credit for either the editing (Slim) or the revert (Dankeshet). But I agree that it's a better article now, and would be even better with more basic biographical info. Cheers, -] 23:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally, thanks for the kind words. I wondered what that odd hyperlink was that Dan reverted. It seemed to be an ad for something to do with Amazon. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix such things.

I agree that more biographical info would improve it, and I also wondered about the degree subject or studies, but couldn't find anything online, and we're not supposed to take information directly from Cberlet unless it's published somewhere (original research). By all means, ask him if you want to, because there might be something published he can refer you to. I wasn't sure what you meant by the list of links and citations. If you mean References, these were all used in the creation of the article and so are supposed to be listed in a References section according to Misplaced Pages policy. I used more than I normally would have in case the contents were challenged. If you mean the Further reading list, I agree that these links are unnecessary. They were in the previous version and I didn't want to be accused of removing them for no reason. I think I may have removed one or two of the dodgier ones, but felt I should leave most of them. I would not object if you were to delete them.

The word "trade unionist" I took from a published source about Berlet. I have no problem if you change it to what you feel is the more common expression in America. Best, ] 00:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

== Good work ==

I restored a number of important wikilinks that had been removed, and read the article. It has much improved since my last reading. I think it provides not only more well rounded information, but also a greater degree of balance on the subject of controversies surrounding this man. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 01:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for that, Sam. It's been a useful collaborative effort. We feel there should be a bit more biographical info, but hopefully we'll find it soon. I did find the policy page about red links by the way. It's ] and the policy is below for future reference. ] 02:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

:Do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true (with the exception of dates, which should always be linked):
::10% of the words are contained in links
::it has more links than lines
::a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps) of text that appears in paragraphs.
::more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist.

Geez, how much more biographical information do you need? I confess. I was an Eagle Scout and Order of the Arrow Lodge Chief. I have a small pond with Shubunkin goldfish. My wife and I go fishing for bass and I go fly fishing for trout. I build my own computers from parts. And for those waiting for this tidbit, I have no academic degree, but began writing scholarly articles in the late 1990s at the invitation of sociologists studying neofascist and fundamentalist movements. Oh, and an article I wrote about LaRouche won a journalism award. --] 03:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I'd like to say what you studied, which article won the journalism award, and which award it was. I think we can probably leave out the Eagle Scout and goldfish . . . :-) ] 04:18, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

:: Actually, we could put in the thing about Eagle Scouting. It is a major American pasttime for kids. ] 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::And a ] gold fish pond? Thats clearly noteworthy ;) {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 00:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Studied sociology with a journalism minor. Award:
:::The Free Press Association, Mencken Awards, For outstanding journalism in support of liberty, Chip Berlet, 1982 Mencken Awards Finalist in the Best News Story Category, "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," High Times.
::Transcribed from the framed award on my wall.--] 23:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. I've added that information, and also removed the word "trade unionist" which someone felt was not a commonly used expression, so it now just says "shop steward". Anyone who wants to should feel free to change it back again. ] 00:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

:Trade unionist is way better than shop steward IMO, but its not something I am motivated to tangle about. Who thought trade unionist was uncommon? {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 00:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Wally felt it wasn't a common expression in America. I have no problem with either term. ] 00:45, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

==LaRouche quote==

Since LaRouche is listed as critic, there should be a quote from him. If someone would like to propose a representative quote from him as an alternative to the "neologism" quote, fine. Otherwise, the "neologism" quote should be used. ] 01:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do we need another Larouche attack on me here? Just link to one of the many attacks on the LaRouche pages. (p.s. National Lawyers Guild internal link requires removal of the apostrophe).--] 02:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that another quote isn't entirely needed. Which one did you have in mind tho, just to be fair? {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Er, I had in mind the "neologism" quote, because it is the only quote I have ever seen where LaRouche personally mentions Berlet. Maybe there is another that I am not aware of.

::Now, I just looked at the "LaRouche" articles to find all those attacks on Berlet that Berlet says we could link to, and I don't find any. There is a mention of Berlet's participation in one of the John Train meetings, but nothing that could be considered an "attack." Is Berlet referring to the LaRouche pages on Misplaced Pages, or more generally those on the web? ] 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==need to add a cite & link==
I think the mention that Bellant, King and I issued a statement about the LaRouche organization belongs here, but it very much needs to be cited to balance the LaRouche cite/link in the lines below it. This would provide balance and evidence of a source. Could someone consider adding it please? I swore I would not touch the page itself.--] 17:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Bellant_Berlet_King.html

:Chip, I'm pondering the wisdom of that. It's relevant and it's cited, so it can be added, but the more you add about LaRouche, the stronger the argument the LaRouche editors will have that they should be allowed to rebut. As this page has settled down, I'm wondering if it's worth disrupting it. Let me know what you think.

:On another note, Wally was saying that the Eagle Scouts could be added to your article (I think he meant it as a joke) because they're a big thing for kids in the States. I just noticed, in fact, that there's been a call for page protection for ] because of an edit war. . Misplaced Pages never ceases to amaze . . . :-) ] 19:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

::Well, on the LaRouche stuff, out of fairness, if Wiki is going to say the three of us accused the LaRouche people of something, it should be be cited so people can see what we said. Then, after the line:

:::The political movement headed by controversial American fringe politician Lyndon LaRouche has also published material critical of Berlet.

::A critical quote from LaRouche would be fair, but try to find one that does not contain easily refuted claims such as the neologism quote. Mintz apparently coined the term "conspiracism", not me. Otherwise, just edit out the reference to the group statement, and say I am a critic.--] 19:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I count 5 individual attacks attributed to Berlet on the two main LaRouche pages, and most of them were put there by editor CBerlet (i.e. Berlet). He accuses LaRouche of being a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a neofascist. Compared to that, LaRouche calling Berlet a "crony of Dennis King" and a "denizen of the internet's left bank" is pretty tame. And as Herschel already observed, LaRouche's quote does not say you coined the term; it says you adopted it. Here's the quote again:

:LaRouche has commented on "a fruity neologism, ''conspiracism'', now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet."

] 21:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're looking at the current versions of these articles. Go back into the histories and read the versions, including ] and ], that you and Herschel wrote, if you want to see unverifiable attacks. Then go back into the archives and check out all the insults produced by you and Herschel on the Talk pages, and I mean all of them, going back months before Cberlet became an editor. These are cached by Google and therefore "published". There are personal attacks aplenty there, on Cberlet, on King, and on other editors. ] 00:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

==This is not a "closely related" article==
:From what I can see, the consensus is that a LaRouche quote is appropriate. Weed put the quote in this morning, and Slim reverted it, citing "the reasons already discussed at length." I am restoring Weed's edit, and I welcome further discussion. --] 22:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Cberlet asked someone to add a sentence about his LaRouche statement . I advised that if we did that, the LaRouche editors would want to add a LaRouche quote, and we'd be back to square one with unverifiable nonsense. The first quote has not been added (at least not by me, and I believe not at all), so there is no need for a LaRouche quote. As this is not a "closely related' article, please abide by the ArbCom ruling and stop trying to add LaRouche material. ] 23:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

:In this case I must agree with HK that some rebuttal quote from LaRouche is appropriate. Clearly, journalist Chip Berlet has written on LaRouche a great deal and even if LaRouche responded by saying Berlet is "full of BS" then it would be appropriate to at least allude to that response (without repeating a libel). I would think that Berlet would take an attack from LaRouche as a sign of respect. The quote from LaRouche that HK wants to put in is really minor, which indicates LaRouche's either disinterest or inability to find a more serious criticism. I recommend that the "fruity neologism" quote stays. If someone finds a source to show that it isn't a neologism at all, then that can be appended as an aside. I will rewrite the sentence. Reading the original, it appears that the neologist in question is Pipes, not Berlet. -] 09:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, why have you re-added the LaRouche quote? LaRouche publications are not supposed to be added as sources to articles unless the articles are "closely related" to LaRouche. This is not a closely related article. Any editor may remove them on sight, which is why I did. Even the fact that the Larouche movement criticized him was a concession to Hersechel, because many other organizations that Berlet has criticized as a journalist have probably criticized him back, but they have not all been mentioned. ] 10:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

:I suppose you are right. It seems reasonable to me to allow the subject to respond, but I suppose the ArbCom decision trumps my view. I'll remove my dis-allowed addition. -] 10:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::The pararaph you see about LaRouche was already the concession to Herschel and Weed. Had it not been for the incessant complaints, I would likely not have mentioned LaRouche at all in this article, because LaRouche is a very small part of Berlet's work. It is appearing to loom large at the moment because of the work Cberlet is going on the LaRouche pages here, but when you look at his bibliography (and I only posted a portion of it), LaRouche is not a dominant subject. ] 11:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

::I appreciate the concerns, but I think that for an encyclopedia entry, a critical quote from the LaRouche folks is appropriate. I just thought the "neologism" quote was not typical and slightly askew. So, although I said I would not edit this page during this discussion, I figured it was OK if I posted a negative quote from the LaRouchians. :-) This is a far more representative quote. --] 14:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==MK Ultra?!==

Wow, ] is trying to legalize drugs, and this berlet guy is a govt. operative working for them? Thats amazing! {{Vip|user=Sam Spade}} 01:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:If Cberlet and Herschelkrustofsky are going to edit this article, and try to turn it into a pro-LaRouche or anti-LaRouche platform, I'm taking it off my watchlist. ] 01:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry, I was just trying to resolve a controversy in the face of numerous others we are contending with. If folks want to invite others to the discussion for input, that's fine with me. I thought I was making life easier. I wasn't trying to be difficult. :-( --] 03:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chip, you're not being difficult, and it's not a question of that. It's just that I don't like to extend the LaRouche's platform in the Misplaced Pages any more than the arbcom has explicitly allowed, because there are already far more references to them in Misplaced Pages than their influence in the "real world" can justify. But no matter: I don't own this article, so anyone can edit it. I just don't want to be mopping up again, that's all. You should also bear in mind that a lot of this stuff gets cached by Google; it can take weeks for it to turn up, but it often does. Although it's nonsense to link your name to that operation, anyone stumbling on this Talk page as a result of a Google search will read about that link, but without knowing the context. ] 05:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

: There is always the possibility of applying for page protection, should unwanted, slanderous or misleading edits continue. ] 20:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip evidently prefers the MKULTRA quote to the Neologism quote. I won't object, although I prefer the Neologism quote, and what Weed is saying is correct: I don't recall ever seeing LaRouche personally mention Berlet in print with the exception of that quote. The MKULTRA quote comes from Barbara Boyd, who I think has worked as paralegal on some LaRouche legal cases. She may have had some sort of personal contact with Berlet. --] 16:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


==Request for Comment==
As an outsider to this article, I offer my comments:

In general I think the current version is better than . On the other hand, the current article needs to include some more of the removed Larouche material. Also, the Laird Wilcox extended critique (which includes the Fr. Strykowski bit) needs to be compressed to one quote. One critic shouldn't get an entire paragraphy. ] 14:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Check-up ==

Hello hello all, just wanted to check back in and see the article. Looks great overall; good information and plenty of fair coverage of the LaRouche business. Heard HK left &mdash; fun while it lasted. One thing though; isn't the picture a bit campy? ] 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I am a bit campy. As for the photo, according to our organizational bureaucrats, I needed to add a linked copyright notice with permission for use on Misplaced Pages. Same with chart. Otherwise I am resisting editing. :-)

== Why is this Web site here???? ==

This whole article just seems to be a vanity page. IMHO, Mr. Chip Berlet is a extremely minor figure in the extremely minor area of fringe journalism. No great accomplishments, etc. Just a self-promotion site.-----] 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Hi Keetowah, it's no vanity page. Berlet is well known among investigative journalists, and as the article states, he's appeared on ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today show, CBS' This Morning, Oprah, and CNN, and has written for the ''New York Times'', ''Boston Globe'', and the ''Columbia Journalism Review''. Those are all reason enough for him to have a Misplaced Pages entry. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::Just for the record, I did not create the page, and have agreed not to directly edit it. I do sometimes ask editors to review my complaints about innacuracies, and I only did this after some LaRouche fans filled the page with false claims and defamatory statements. I did adjust a copyright notice for the photo. Nice to know that Keetoowah thinks so highly of me....and clearly his views have no relation to our disagreements on the ] page. :-) --] 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==LaRouche is NOT "fringe"==
He in fact advises the second most senior member of the U.S. House, John Coyners. And you don't have to read about it on webpages affiliated with the LaRouche movement. You can read about it on Conyers' own webpage. ] 2 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

:Please read your talk page. Editors are not allowed to act in a way that appears to promote Lyndon LaRouche. You're likely to be banned from editing if you continue inserting LaRouche propaganda into pages not directly related to LaRouche. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 05:42 (UTC)
::I am not promoting LaRouche. I am promoting the TRUTH, and encyclopedias are supposed to be accurate, aren't they? The truth is that LaRouche's movement is not fringe, regardless of your personal feelings, and that my edits make the article more factual. ] 2 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
:::Further, I am not using LaRouche sources. I am using Conyers sources. I am allowed to cite John Conyers, right? Or do you have "arbitration cases" blackballing Conyers too? ] 2 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

::::If you can produce an authoritative source that says LaRouche is not a fringe politician, then we'll have something to discuss. In the meantime, stop inserting LaRouche propaganda into articles, unless you have credible, third-party sources to back up what you write. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 06:07 (UTC)
:::::Check out Milan Nikolić: "Russia and the IMF: Pseudo Lending for Pseudo Reforms," an academic article citing LaRouche. Sorry, you lose. The claim that LaRouche is fringe is not universally accpted, and thus POV and a violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV. ] 2 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
::::::LOL! Good source. Look, I can't spend any more time arguing with you. If you're editing in good faith, you'll abide by the arbcom rulings. If you're not, there's no point in debating with you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 06:16 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, University College London and the UK University of Surrey ARE good sources. LaRouche is not fringe. ] 2 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
::::::::Well, can you retort that? I'm still waiting 'cause this looks like the kinda admin abuse I was suffrin' from. ] 2 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

::::::::The best route is for Cognition to seek out ] from the Arbitration Committee, and build up a case in favour of ''un-fringing'' LaRouche with them, since they have for the moment overided the debate in their decision. ] 2 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
:::::::::Not needed. I am not citing LaRouche. I am citing Congressman Conyers. Or is he also blackballed on Misplaced Pages? ] 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)
::::::::::You should direct this question to the Arbitration Committee. ] 2 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't need to. NPOV applies to all articles. ] 2 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
::::::::::::The Conyers reference is to a Comment post from a "LaRouche Democrat" reader on the Conyers blog. This has been totally misrepresented here.--] 2 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
:::::::::::::How about the Misplaced Pages article on ] as another source? Do you deny the fact that Conyers spoke at at LaRouche PAC event, in front of a podium that said "LaRouche PAC?" ] 2 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I just reverted for a fourth time inadvertently, so I reverted myself. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Offical response from Conyers' office regarding LaRouche:
:::::::::::::::"we went to your suggested links and pulled up the LaRouche quotes that were, to say the least, antisemitic and racist. We brought them to Mr. Conyers attention. He was shocked and surprised. On his behalf: he unequivocally condemns these statements, and he will not speak before any group he knows to be associated with LaRouche unless they renounce these views. If he knew about these sickening quotes, he would not have spoken before the group. That is intended to be categorical. If you feel there is an wiggle room in it, I would welcome the opportunity to make it more clear."
::::::::::::::::I have no evidence that you didn't just make that quotation up. Rep. Conyers spoke before LaRouche PAC and that is a fact that you cannot deny. ] 2 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Other than the link he provided. Please read ]. ] 2 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, it is clear that Conyers' is being misrepresented by ].--] 2 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

==Vfd==
This page is also a candidate for VfD, since it's clearly a non-notable neologism. ] 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

:A person is not a neologism. -] July 2, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
:Cognition, ]. &mdash; ] ] 2 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
::The writers of this article were the ones to ] by including an entry on some non-notable yellow journalist just to slander LaRouche. ] 2 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

On 6 Jul 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See ] for a record of the discussion. &mdash;] ] 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

May I also just note that describing someone as a "yellow journalist" seems like a ] on that individual. &mdash;] ] 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Leftist Lie Factory? ==

Is this the right place for this? Chip, is this you they are talking about? Please refuse these charges! ] 05:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:No it's not the right page, and I do "refuse" the charges, thanks. See: --] 00:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==Volkov & Wagner==
Cberlet: Using ] research methodolgy, should Soviet spy ] likewise be placed in ], ], and ], based upon evidence presented the geneological chart , i.e. Volkov was a ]. Evidence suggests he picked up his musical interests from ], as well as an interest in amateur photography and maintaining a darkroom in his basement. ] 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:What does this have to do with ]? This question seems more appropriate on the Volkov talk page. -] 18:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

::The copyright Geneological chart specifially lists ] as some sort of clue to anti-Semitic, white supremacist & fascist leanings, and point to Hitler, Mein Kampf, etc. ]'s obit states how he loved Wagner's pagan teutonic hero-myth piece ]; historically this presents a problem. Volkov, according to the various sources now, was both a Communist and perhaps a Neo-Nazi. Somewhere, I suggest, there may be a flaw in the reasoning. ] 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:::So your point is not about Volkov at all, but questioning the rationale of the "genealogy" chart? -] 19:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

::The problem may be the association of persons who appreciate the works of ] as being anti-Semitic, white supremacist, fascists. This association has a long, and controversial history. My instinctive sense is, that the holder of the copyright material, or its original creator, could not cite one (1) single line of Wagnerian text from ]'s to support such a broad based allussion to Wagner's work, or the many Wagner enthusiasts over the past 160+ years, not without having to dig some alluded to source text, which he himself is not familiar with. ] 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:We should perhaps add ] to the list of anti-Semitic, white supremacist & fascists, seeing he, like Hitler, also loves Wagner. I could make a genuine, extensive list, if the ] & ] research methodology is the standard. ] 20:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::Looking at the chart, it links the concept of Nordic hero warriors, to Wagner, to Mein Kampf. That is a clear and uncontroversial connection, I would think. The chart does not directly connect Wagner to anti-Semitism, though others have discussed such a connection. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make about this article. -] 20:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

:::The chart draws a link from "Myth of Aryan Race" to "Wagner Ring Cycle"; it was ] who coined the term ] which was applied to ] as a model of the "Aryan Superman" after Wagner's death. Yet there is no Nietszche-Hitler link (Nietszche, the most downloaded author from the ]). To illustrate the mindless brainwashing derived from perpetuating poorly researched items like this, the BOT in MSN chatrooms will eject you for typing in the word ], a mythical god, the same way you get booted for saying "fuck". It will not do so for ], or ], were researched sources claim some ideological Nazified connection. Yet as I have illustrated, here and below, this is wholely counterfactual, and all in the name of fighting neo-fascism. It would help to begin with (1) understanding the problem (2) having some facts. ] 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::::The chart, labelled "Genealogy of White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", specifically points to "]". As a longtime student of the subject, I can specifically state the controversy has always been in Wagner's Prose works , although Robert Gutman made a case for ] in his book written in the 1950s. From ''Der Ring'', best your gonna find is in Act II of ], ''"No fish ever had a toad for a father"'', which evidently inspired Hitler to commit genocide. This on its face shows sloppy research. So if the conclusion is, that we are to hold playwrites responsible for the words spoken by fictional characters, what's the big bitch about the ] then. ] 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::How does all of this affect the article? If you can find a critic discussing the chart then we can post the criticism. Whether the chart is right or wrong is not for us, as encyclopedia editors, to decide. -] 21:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

:::::You're wrong about that, Will. If a chart conveys factually innacurate information we - as editors - have the responsibility to seek a better source. Similarly, if a chart conveys a strong partisan political POV we - as editors - have the responsibility to seek one that is more neutral and to properly contextualize that chart as strictly the viewpoint of its author. See ]. ] 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::Don't "contextualize" with original research. If there are critics then cite them. This is the same as any piece of work by a subject, whether art, fiction, or research. We don't critique, we report. An arrow pointing in the direction of a box labelled "Mein Kampf" from a box labelled "wagnerian Opera" is hardly a "fact" that we can say is accurate or inaccurate. -] 22:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

From ] - "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Misplaced Pages except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." Chip Berlet is a partisan political writer with extreme beliefs on the far political left. His material is accordingly subject to this stipulation and should be explicitly identified as a matter of his personal opinion. Anybody can draw a chart, post it on the internet, and grant copyright permission for its use. That doesn't mean the chart is of encyclopedic value though, or that we have to accept it into an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing Mr. Berlet's chart and finding several faults both in its POV and content I am of the belief that it does not rise to a level of quality that justifies its inclusion on Misplaced Pages as anything more than an assertion of Chip Berlet's personal opinions on the Chip Berlet article alone. ] 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Everyone is free to their own opinions. However this chart is not here as a source, so WP:RS dosn't apply. It is here as an illustration of Berlet's work, just like a photo of a painting would illustrate a paitner's bio or quote would illustrate an author's bio. And just like those, we wouldn't critique it by saying, "Those colors don't go together", or "that arrow shouldn't point there." If you want to discuss it as a source for ] then we should discuss it at that page. -] 23:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

:::Nobs - I believe that the chart contains a severe POV as well as extensive innuendo about the groups it links, making it largely unencyclopedic. It is also very unscientific and appears to be constructed for political rather than sociological reasons. There are many simple errors in Mr. Berlet's associations, among them timeline faults and a complete disregard of the socialist influences on the nazis from the political left. For example - Berlet's chart places Oswald Spengler AFTER, and seemingly as a product of, Hitler and ''Mein Kampf'' to facilitate his grouping with Francis Yockey's 1940's book ''Imperium'' (which was influenced by Spengler's ''Decline of the West''). Yet Spengler actually published ''Decline of the West'' in 1918 - well before ''Mein Kampf'' - and died in 1936 when Hitler's regime was still in its infancy. It also tends to neglect, perhaps intentionally given the author's political persuasions, the many leftist influences on nazis antisemitism such as the overtly ] Werner Sombart's ''Haendler und Helden'' and ''Die Zukunft der Juden.'' Considering that this chart also comes from an extremely partisan political source on the far left wing of the spectrum (see ]), it should probably only be included - if at all - as an explicit representation of Chip Berlet's personal opinions. ] 21:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::Without comment on the accuracy of the chart, I thought that presenting it as Berlet's work (or at least PRA's) was precisely the point of having it on this page. The arguments would be very different if we were to include the page on ], etc. ] 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

:It may even be original research. ] 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::DanKeshet - the chart is currently used at the ] article, and I consider its placement there problematic since it is a very partisan source and this partisanship appears to be present, as noted above, in the chart itself. As such it probably should be removed from the other article. Keeping it here on the Chip Berlet article seems fine by me as long as it is clearly identified as a work of Berlet and a representation of his opinion, rather than anything authoritative. Thanks ]

:::Well, perhaps this conversation should be taken to that page then. This is not a user page, it is a discussion toward improving the article ]. I don't think anybody has a problem with the chart being here, right? ] 02:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:::The Chart is published on the PRA website. The Spengler reference is part of a larger list that shows how Spengler was repackaged AFTER WWII by Yockey in Imperium. The Wagner reference was supposed to be a bit cute (its in a ring, get it, but refers to the larger issue of romantiziced Nordic myths, not anything else. I note that Rangerdude has now pasted a BLOB of highly personal attacks on me on my Wiki entry. This concerted effort to attack me and my work is disgusting. --] 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Yah but you're not making the connection between ], or the ], or the ], the foundational works, to "Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", the charge to which anyone who openly expresses any admiration for Wagner's work exposes themselves to from the ] or ]. ] 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:::One would think under "Generalized Influences, White Supremacy, Eugenics, and Scientific Racism" the could be documented to have had more influence over the ] based ]s of the 20th century, but you pass over this. ] 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I was the one who inserted the chart into the aricle. I don't find there is a need to debate its merits in great length and detail in an inter-editorial sense. It is a useful scholarly "opinion," which of course, may be disputed and contested by other scholars. Misplaced Pages can and should accomodate such a discussion. That said, if Chip wishes to discuss it, that is his prerogative. ] 03:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::"Wagner borrowed from Nordic mythology but he transformed it so that in the Ring it exists as its own complete mythological world. It has been fascinating to delve inside that world." --] 03:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page==
Excuse, me, but is this fair? After Rangerdude files a complaint against me that goes nowhere, he comes here and plops a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry. A link would be sufficient. Most of the claims are absurd.--] 03:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, Chip, I encountered the Horowitz material and your controversy with him while researching the Southern Poverty Law Center. It was around this time that I also discovered that you have written extensively for the SPLC, including some of their most controversial material to appear in recent years. Since the controversy involved Horowitz not only denouncing the SPLC in a letter to Dees but also making specific complaints about you - the author of the SPLC's hit on him piece that prompted his response - I felt it perfectly proper to add pertinent material here as well. Also since the dispute also transpired over at least 5 different articles and responses, a simple link alone would not suffice. You will also note that in the interest of neutrality and a balanced representation, I also quoted your responses and linked to your rebuttal of Horowitz. It is also properly designated in the article's criticisms section, and as a whole serves as a counterbalance to the lengthy and generally positive biographical information at the top of the article. ] 06:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::I haven't looked closely at this, but I agree that there's too much detail. I'll take another look tomorrow. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 23 November 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
  • Chip.berlet (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
  • Cberlet (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2024.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

"verification failed"?

Here's the text from Wilcox that supports the section that somebody deleted:

Although mainstream figures are legitimately concerned with the LaRouche organization, a good number of his harshest detractors come from extremist ranks themselves. A writer who has spent considerable time on LaRouche is John Foster "Chip" Berlet, of Political Research Associates (PRA) in Boston. His articles on LaRouche go back into the 1970s. Berlet is also a veteran of the 1960s student left, and currently serves as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) representative to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation. Harvey Klehr confirms:

"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), founded in 1946. Expelled from France in 1949, the IADL is now headquartered in Brussels.Over the years it has supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan.The American Association of Jurists, the regional affiliate of the IADL, is headquartered in Havana.Its president, Ann Fagan Ginger, is a long-time NLG activist." 31

In 1987, when Berlet moved with his organization to Boston from Chicago, the Chicago Area Friends of Albania gave him a special sendoff, noting that, "Chip was one of our founding members, and a steadfast friend of Albania through thick and thin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55 Gators (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

evidence that the National Lawyers Guild "supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan"? There isn't any, because they didn't.
This is synthesis. The source does not say that Berlet was doing anything extremist. It says he was a member of a group, then it says that the group was doing certain things. Which does not mean that Berlet was doing those things. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't, Binksternet. The copy that you've twice deleted summarizes the point that George and Wilcox make, though it should probably be reworded for clarity. Whether or not Berlet was actively doing all the things that the NLG and CAFA were doing is irrelevant. He was a member of the organizations which is what the deleted copy states.Badmintonhist (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


The deleted copy says that Berlet was a member, and then it tries to implicate Berlet with things that the organization did. This gets Berlet's involvement quite wrong. For instance, the Chicago Area Friends of Albania is a group Berlet co-founded so that he could support the Albanian people, who were going through a rough time. He researched the problem of political repression in Albania through his group contacts. Berlet worked against anti-democratic Stalinists through the group, a fairly centrist stance which is exactly opposite of what your text is trying to imply: that he is an extremist. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, your beef apparently has more to do with the George/Wilcox "take" on Berlet in the first place than on the editorial summary of that take (though, on second glance, I don't see where George and Wilcox directly call the "Friends of Albania" a Communist front). So your contention here is less about verification or synthesis than it is about the reliability of George/Wilcox. Do you have anything here beyond your own WP:OR with which to impeach George and Wilcox? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The material that was deleted doesn't make any particular allegations about the groups that Berlet belonged to, it simply says he was a member. The source says unambiguously that Berlet "comes from extremist ranks." 55 Gators (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Wilcox and George do not describe any activities of Berlet with regard to the groups he has been associated with. They do not say Berlet supported the Soviets (which he did not). They do not say that Berlet was anything but a guy coming from the extreme left:

Although mainstream figures are legitimately concerned with the LaRouche organization, a good number of his harshest detractors come from extremist ranks themselves. A writer who has spent considerable time on LaRouche is John Foster "Chip" Berlet, of Political Research Associates (PRA) in Boston. His articles on LaRouche go back into the 1970s. Berlet is also a veteran of the 1960s student left, and currently serves as the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) representative to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation.

After that bit, Wilcox and George write further about the NLG, but without mentioning Berlet:

Harvey Klehr confirms: "The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), founded in 1946. Expelled from France in 1949, the IADL is now headquartered in Brussels. Over the years it has supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. The American Association of Jurists, the regional affiliate of the IADL, is headquartered in Havana. Its president, Ann Fagan Ginger, is a long-time NLG activist."

Wilcox and George quote a party invitation which says that Berlet was "a steadfast friend of Albania through thick and thin", which he was—a friend to the Albanian people, not to the repressive Soviet-controlled Albanian government.
Finally, Wilcox and George wind up with a damning indictment of LaRouche groups, saying that the groups have a "primary evil" in "how they treat their opponents and in the vision they maintain of the civil liberties of all Americans. Here the antidemocratic and anti-civil libertarian nature of LaRouche and his followers is manifest, and it is primarily on these grounds that they should be opposed."
Thus we cannot synthesize a position not taken overtly by Wilcox and George. As well, we cannot misrepresent Wilcox and George as being opposed to Berlet rather than being opposed to the LaRouche organization. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Wilcox and George oppose the Larouche cult can certainly be included in a reworked edit but so, OBVIOUSLY, should Berlet's membership in the National Lawyers Guild. That's the primary evidence Wilcox and George present for Berlet being "a guy coming from the extreme left." There's no synthesis here at all. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Klehr is quoted about how the NLG is "an affiliate" of the IADL, with the only stated connection being Ann Fagan Ginger's activism in both the IADL and NLG. Nothing here says the NLG is extremist. In fact, most observers call the NLG liberal, progressive or leftist—a much milder position. Berlet's involvement in the NLG is as a liaison to the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, a group formed to fight McCarthyism. Wilcox and George leave the reader wondering whether it was Berlet's 1960s activism which deserves the label "extremist", or his later NLG membership. We cannot decide ourselves what makes him "extremist" when it is not clear. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
My re-write was much closer to the source than Binksternet's. And why am I receiving a warning on my personal talk page about "Edit warring" from the guy who has undone every one of my edits? Is that the pot calling the kettle black? 55 Gators (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Those warnings are just Binksternet being Binksternet. As for the substance here, the whole reason for George and Wilcox bringing up Berlet's NLG membership is to demonstrate Berlet's own radical, front-organization roots; as you might put it, Gators, "the pot calling the kettle black." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
the description of the National Lawyers Guild and Berlet's connection with it is entirely scurrilous, repeating shopworn lies first circulated by Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, whom the NLG opposed. While the NLG certainly defended victims of McCarthyism, including communists, to say that it is or was an arm of the Soviet government is false. Moreover, the assertion that they supported the soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is pure fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.148.28 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources and BLP problems

This article was substantially cleaned up during the spring, but now it's creeping back to being a mirror site for Berlet's own websites. If Berlet said something worth putting in Misplaced Pages, it will also be covered in secondary sources, so people should stop putting in stuff sourced only to Berlet. This is particularly the case for Berlet's accusations against public figures, even LaRouche: BLP policy says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. 55 Gators (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to find third party sources that describe the LaRouchites as antisemitic and anti-Jewish, and LaRouche himself an antisemite, a neofascist, a neonazi, and even a "small time Hitler". It is also easy to find third party sources that describe in detail LaRouche's conviction for financial and tax crimes. That I have written about these facts is itself a fact that is easy to document. What is the issue here?Chip.berlet (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As 55 Gators said, third-party sources are needed to establish the notability of your views. If you wrote that your favorite cookies are chocolate chip - well, Misplaced Pages doesn't really care. --NeilN 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Or more accurately, since this article is about Chip not LaRouche, to show that his views on LaRouche are significant to this article, which I have now done. TFD (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that if someone said something, that we should use secondary or tertiary sources that report it, as was done with the mention of Ralph Nader. However the claims made about LaRouche are mentioned in Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, pp. 88-89, which is already used as a source in the article. I will therefore restore the text and add this source. TFD (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the citation you used was not from the source per se. It is from a bio of Berlet which appears in the preface, a bio which was probably provided by Berlet. 55 Gators (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
A preface "is an introduction to a book...written by the work's author." No idea why you not consider prefaces to have the same reliability as the books. Do you have any policies or guidelines? And who cares where sources get their informaton? We expect writers of reliable sources to use judgment, fact-checking, double-sourcing, etc. We ourselves do not do that, but rely on why reliable sources report. TFD (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chip Berlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

GangofOne (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chip Berlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

good work, BotBrain. GangofOne (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Update Request

Admitted self-serving request warning: https://www.crcpress.com/Trumping-Democracy-From-Reagan-to-the-Alt-Right/Berlet/p/book/9781138212497 I have a new edited collection that was just published. :-) In penance I will go update a few pages that have no connection to me. --Chip.berlet (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chip.berlet: seems to be my week to update bibliographies. I'ved added it to your bibliography article. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller 🌹 2607:FB91:D79:3EC:98F1:C7BE:A42A:7384 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Doug Weller Thanks 2607:FB91:D79:3EC:2819:947A:A6EA:3D44 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories: