| Revision as of 21:37, 9 August 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Page Protection Policy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:02, 23 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,576,742 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">— 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) | |||
| == |
== 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 — 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 — 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, ]. — ] ] 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. —] ] 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| May I also just note that describing someone as a "yellow journalist" seems like a ] on that individual. —] ] 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) | |||
| Cberlet: The chart labels ] as among the "Genealogy of White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", yet does not show Christianity's geneology. Please explain why this should not be considered another ] smear against the whole of ] for which the ] is gaining a reputation. Thank you.] 13:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Notation: There has been no substantive response to any of the issues raised in subsection. ] 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't like the chart then you don't have to look at it. If you can find a notable critic addressing it then you can quote them. But this is not the place to critique the chart, which is presented here as a sample of Berlet's work. -] 20:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't confuse the issue; no one offered a personal view as to whether they "liked" it or not. Some of the problems have been stated here. ] 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issue is that in this article the chart is presented as an example of Berlet's work. It is just as improper for us to critique it here as it would be for us to add our own critique's of ''Guernica'' to an article on Picasso's article. -] 21:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Painting ], ] , and the now it appears ] of the ] as well (see ]) with the broad swath of "White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", or for that matter anyone who enjoys the Operas of Richard Wagner, and calling it "cute", IMHO is unresearched, unscholarly, and inappropriate. ] 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Depicting the influence of Wagner's Nordic heroes on Hitler is not the same thing as calling everyone who enjoys Wagners' music as White Supremacist. However, even if it were it wouldn't matter for this article. If Picasso depicts the citizens of Guernica as gray people, when we "know" that they were acually white, brown, or pink-skinned, then that too would be unresearched, and unscholarly on the part of Picasso. Bad Picasso! But it would be highly inappropriate for us to add that criticism to the article, or to demand that the "inaccurate" painting be removed. -] 22:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, but I can speak as an eyewitness to accounts of persons over many decades who are "closet Wagnerians", afraid to openly confess an admiration for Wagner, or hide Wagner CD's at home from guests and visitors, for the fear of being called a ]. ] 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then maybe it isn't inaccurate after all, if it depicts a commonly-held cultural belief, as exhibited by your closted friends. -] 23:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, ] must be an racist, anti-Semitric neo-fascist skinhead , according to the ] and other groups that publish materials, make "hate-group" lists, since Hawking says this, | |||
| :::::::::''It was in 1963 that I first developed an interest in Wagner, or "Wag-ner" as my speech synthesiser pronounces him. Wagner more than any other person before or since had the ability to compose music that has an emotional effect. It reaches a level no one else does.'' ] 23:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: According to ], ] is the 17th most edited page in Misplaced Pages; must be either a lot of Opera lovers out there or anti-Semitism is on the rise. ] 01:19, 8 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. You *did* engage in an attack on a high profile conservative writer that was published by a high profile liberal organization. That conservative writer also responded to your attack at length, and an ensuing exchange included both a subsequent rebuttal by yourself from the left and another rebuttal by the conservative. It is not a reasonable request to expect that an exchange of this sort should be overlooked or minimized. Misplaced Pages is a neutral encyclopedia with a mandate to give balance, not puff pieces about Chip Berlet that show only the good but ignore the bad because he personally thinks the bad is "absurd." Also since the dispute transpired over at least 5 different articles and responses, a simple link alone to one of them would not suffice and would probably violate NPOV by giving favor to that link over the 4 others. 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) | |||
| :::For the record: the section I added on the Horowitz-Berlet dispute is a total of 3 paragraphs. Berlet is quoted expressing his POV at length twice, and Horowitz is quoted twice (one more person - Chris Arabia, writing for Horowitz's organization - is also quoted criticizing Berlet and I would be more than happy to quote the SPLC's Mark Potok defending him to counterbalance this if anyone thinks it is proper) By comparison of length the section of Laird Wilcox criticisms takes up the equivalent of 3 detailed paragraphs when the blockquotes are included. The section on Berlet's criticisms of people on the left entails 4 detailed paragraphs and also spills over into a fifth at the beginning of the next section. Considered in the perspective of these comparable sections, devoting 3 paragraphs (the majority of which are direct quotes that are shared between both the critic and the accused) is entirely appropriate. As ] has also repeatedly and publicly declared her personal friendship with and admiration of this article's subject elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I will ask her to avoid reaching any conclusions on the appropriateness of critical material about Mr. Berlet that are influenced or distorted by this stated personal allegiance. Thanks - ] 07:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stop trying to argue that I'm biased. I don't know Chip outside Misplaced Pages. I admire him because I think he's a good editor and writer, and I trust his judgment. I also trust myself to be neutral, and I wish you'd extend that courtesy to me and stop trying to undermine people who disagree with you. | |||
| ::::It's not so much a question of length as of detail. There's too much he said/she said without the relevance of it being clear, and it's written in journalese. I'm going to take a closer look at it tomorrow. Perhaps in the meantime, Chip could say which parts he feels are wrong/unfair/unnecessary. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::SlimVirgin - as long as you respond to Misplaced Pages policy and guideline cases about any of your editor friends' behavior with the stated equivalent of "I know editor X, and he's a good editor so the complaint against him must be wrong" - as you have done more than once - I have no alternative but to conclude that a biasing personal attachment to editor X both exists and induces you to assert the aforementioned ] as your stated basis for dismissing the case. Given that this has occured more than once in my interaction with you, raising your awareness of it (and you will note that I addressed it to you in a manner that was perfectly civil, even if you do not like me criticizing you for non-neutrality) has become a necessary response. Regarding the Horowitz section, the majority of the detail you describe comes in the form of quotations from all involved parties. I did so intentionally for the purpose of attempting to present the dispute in a neutral manner, as quoting participants directly is the only sure way to avoid being accused of misrepresenting one or both. As noted I also attempted balance by allotting these quotes to both participants (2 Horowitz quotes, 2 Berlet quotes) so that each has space to state his position in the included text. Reducing this, IMO, will only serve to bias the section in one way or another, add confusion as to what the positions and responses were, or both. If you have a suggestion of particulars that you believe we should clarify and can offer them with neutrality I will welcome them. Thanks ] 07:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It is important to note from the outset that the length, detail, direction, etc., of claims will be determined according to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines; namely, ], ], ], ], and ]. Thanks. ] 08:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: According to Rangerdude: "I also discovered that you have written extensively for the SPLC, including some of their most controversial material to appear in recent years." This is a total fabrication. It is not true in the slightest. List the articles I have written, please, or correct the record. | |||
| :::::::As for length, it is way too long for what was a tempest in a teacup. All of the material can be linked if people want details. It comes down to a disagreement. SPLC article appears, Howoritz writes "Open Letter" , Chip responds with memo , Horowitz responds again , Arabia hit piece appears , Chip responds to Arabia . It should take a paragraph. | |||
| :::::::I do think that it is significant to note that both Rangerdude and Nobs have started attacking me and my work on several pages after I began challenging their edits on Wiki pages. So let's not call SlimVirgin biased folks. Or I will just hold up a mirror. | |||
| :::::::The "Albania" link, if it remains, should include mention of the actual story of my involvement which is in an online article I wrote. I put one paragraph here to show that the current sentence misrepresents what happened: | |||
| ::::::::"In Chicago in the 1980s I was asked by friends of my spouse to be parliamentarian at a founding meeting of a national US/Albanian Friendship Society. At the time, I was still collecting hours of such work needed to become a certified parliamentarian. I turned out to be one of the few attendees not in one of three competing Stalinist cadre organizations. Everyone was on their good behavior, however, and over several days we actually managed to draft principles of unity and a constitution and by-laws. I had quipped that if this group somehow managed to come up with democratic guidelines that didn't require supporting the government of Albania or its political system, that even I would join. They did, so I paid my dues and have been red-baited ever since." | |||
| :::::::And I am red-baited again here on Wiki. If the issue is discussed at all, it should not be placed where it is, but placed in the context of examining how the Arabia article for Horowitz presented a highly POV attack by twistuing facts.--] 13:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| From the Southern Poverty Law Center's website: | |||
| # - 17-part feature article authored by Berlet for the SPLC's magazine | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert" | |||
| # - favorable review of Berlet's book by the SPLC | |||
| I'll accordingly stand by my characterization of Berlet as having extensive connections to the Southern Poverty Law Center. And yes, I do contend that a 17-part feature article in the SPLC's magazine is more than enough to qualify as an extensive contribution to them. That feature also provoked hostile responses from many of the 17 groups he did hit pieces on in it (the Horowitz incident that he is currently attempting to expunge from this article about him among them), so to characterize it as falling among the most controversial pieces done by the SPLC in recent years is also accurate. As to the Albania story, if the material Mr. Berlet has requested is added it should be done so with due note that it is his personal explanation written some 16 or so years after the fact according to the date on that article (and coincidentally around the same time he started taking heat from the political right for being involved in that group). ] 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Is Horowitz an "extreme political partisan"? == | |||
| On a related page an editor objected to using "extreme political partisans" as sources, offering the deifintion of "partisan" as "a fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea". The consensus on the other page is tending towards the position that the term only applies to highly "extreme" individuals or groups. But if a different standard is agreed on then Horowitz may qualify, which could result in the removal of his criticisms from a number of articles, including this one. Food for thought. -] 22:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from reminding the above editor to make his long-overdue visit to ], I need only note that Horowitz's quotes here are explicitly attributed to him as a representation of his opinions regarding Berlet and the SPLC controversy, to wit: "except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." As such, quoting Horowitz to represent Horowitz's clearly identified opinions meets the stipulations of ] for cases in which a partisan source may be used. ] 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The opinions of Horowitz are relevant to the Horowitz article. But are the opinions of someone who may be considered an extreme political partisan relevant to other articles? As for the guideline you reference, a simple discussion is not a disruption. Actually demanding that sourced informaiton be removed in order to prove a point, as is happening on another page, might be considered differently. -] 23:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] the exception is "in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." It does not say "in articles about themselves." It says "in articles discussing the opinions of that organization" - meaning '''any''' article where that opinion is deemed relevant by Misplaced Pages's other content guidelines and policies and by ]. The editor is once again reminded of ]. ] 23:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is the title of this article "Opinions of David Horowitz"? No? Hmmm. It sounds as if you're saying that the guidline means that any article in which a partisan is mentioned becomes an article discussing that partisan's opinion. That seems like a stretch, especially since we aren't even discussing Horowitz's opinion, just quoting it. As for ], what's the disruption? -] 00:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ]? Hardly. I think the phrases "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" or "hoist on your own petard" are more apropros. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edits to Horowitz Section== | |||
| :I've reduced the Horowitz criticism to one paragraph, pasted below. Keeping it short meant deleting Chip's response, but as there was a response to the response, I thought it best just to describe the basic dispute, and people can click on links if they want to know more. Any views? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist ] over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Berlet wrote that right-wing think tanks like Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and made allegations of racial insensitivity against the CSPC. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged him to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears ..." Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations, as well as a response from Berlet. </blockquote> | |||
| ::I strongly disagree with this shortening and believe it removes far too much of the material on what was a long and drawn out dispute. It also removes stronger representations of Horowitz' views as stated in his own words and replaced it with a half-line mid-sentence excerpt that fails to convey his protest to Dees. There were also specific critiques of Berlet's style and techniques that were removed entirely. Arabia for example has argued that Berlet's approach has the undesirable effect of squashing free speech and debate - a serious charge that should not be ignored. This reduction in material appears to have been conducted primarily for the purpose of accomodating Cberlet's request that unpleasant sourced criticisms be removed - a request that was inappropriate in the first place. As I noted previously, other existing sections in the Chip Berlet article devote 3 and 4 paragraphs to single topics, making the complaint that the 3 paragraph Horowitz section was too long patent nonsense. While I would be more accomodating to a compromise that slimmed down the Horowitz material, this edit essentially obliterates two thirds of it and does so for reasons that are not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's autobiography and NPOV provisions. ] 03:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which parts specifically do you think should be reinserted? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The following things need to be retained: | |||
| # A fuller quotation of Horowitz that conveys his charges and stated implications to Dees. | |||
| # In fairness and to accomodate NPOV, a balancing fuller quotation of Berlet would also be needed. | |||
| # Reference to the allegations by Arabia against Berlet's style of argument - e.g. critique for guilt by association and critique for squashing free speech. | |||
| # Specification of how the dispute actually concluded - not simply "see here." For example, it should be noted that SPLC stood by Berlet and Berlet responded, plus Horowitz's counterresponse. The fairest way of doing this is again to give both Berlet and Horowitz a representative quote in their own words. ] 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. It's quite normal for people who are criticized by journalists to write letters attacking them, so there's no need for so much detail, in my view, and the Horowitz quote gives the flavor of what he thought of the piece. I see no need to go into the Arabia article. The link is there if people want to read it. We should wait to see what the others think. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Leaving out the Arabia article is effectively suppressing critical material about Berlet. As for the quotes, their very purpose is to accurately portray what the quoted person thinks about the subject he is writing on and the best way to do that is to quote both sides fully and responsibly. I don't trust that your representation of Horowitz fully conveys his position, which included a very explicit message to Dees asserting that Berlet's hit-piece and guilt-by-association styles were discrediting to the SPLC as an organization. While I also await other editor commentary on this, it is also worth mentioning that genuine outside commentary made with an aim of producing a neutral quality result will carry greater weight in my mind than that from editors (and a certain ] of self-insulating editors) whose main purpose here is to protect an ally from valid sourced criticism. ] 03:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::You must stop the ''ad hominem'' attacks, and try to concentrate only on content and not who's writing it. Otherwise, I could just as easily ask you to stop editing this piece because you display such hostility toward the subject. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Slim - If there wasn't a serious personal bias problem toward the subject of this article in the edits of yourself and certain other editors who share your mutual sympathies, I wouldn't need to lodge a grievance about it. But as I have addressed to you both here and on your talk page to little avail, that bias is evident and it continues to be problematic within your edits. As long as it remains an obstruction to developing this article, I can and will address it before you, all the while urging you to cease. You direct me to focus on "content" now rather than who's writing it, yet amazingly for the past several days you've been basing your arguments against the extensively documented '''content''' I added to this article upon your personal allegiances to ], who you have incessantly assured all of us is too good of a guy to ever do anything wrong or meriting of criticism. You are correct that my politics are opposite of this article's subject and I have made no effort to hide this, but as any reasonable and objective editor would concede I went to great lengths to ensure that the Horowitz section was presented neutrally and in a balanced manner that also quoted Chip Berlet's responses to his critics at length and in fairness to him. There are plently of balanced and reasonable revisions that could be made to that section, but plowing through and gutting it in a manner that outright removes two thirds of the material and snips away all substance that criticizes the article's subject - who you have repeatedly pledged your allegience to - is just plain unreasonable. If you were here to make honest content edits and revise this section in a way that improves it but does not remove valid and sourced material simply because you don't like who it's critical of, I look forward to your contribution. If, on the other hand, you are going to continue to use this discussion and editing process as a medium to insulate your editor buddies from criticism, and if you're gonna appeal to talk page consensus only to round up an editor's clique of similarly aligned contributers to support your efforts at insulating him, I'll have no part of it. ] 06:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You've developed a strong personal bias against Chip, particularly since your failed RfC against him, and you should probably stay away from him and his page for a couple of weeks at least. Your edit was long-winded and seemed designed to get digs in, which is why I shortened it. All the links remain in the text, so nothing's being hidden. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you honestly view RfC's as nothing more than a contest for points between editors, Slim? RfC's are designed strictly to resolve disputes on articles themselves that are otherwise at a standstill on the talk page, be that dispute about the content itself (as is the case of a regular RfC) or about another editor's behavior (as in User RfC's). In either case, whether an RfC is a success or failure depends on the outcome it produces to the article and the RfC you mention succeeded in attracting a new breath of participants to the subject article who then labored extensively to bring it into NPOV compliance. That new breath resulted in reaching a consensus and removing the POV tags that were originally installed following the behavior that was subject of the RfC. I'll also note for the record that every mention of the unrelated LVMI RfC to date has been made by yourself, Cberlet, or another person supportive of his request to remove critical material about him from wikipedia's article on him. Given this circumstance, that you would purport the RfC to be _my_ object is an absurdity contradicted by your own lingering obsessions with it. The LVMI editing disputes were settled without your help, and indeed in spite of your presence. Time to move on, Slim. | |||
| :On the subject at hand here, your characterization of the Horowitz section as "long winded" is farcical, as the majority of its text (and the part you removed) was nothing more than direct quotations of Horowitz and Berlet. As I have informed you many times, I did so for purposes of neutrality - the surest way to accurately represent somebody's viewpoint is to quote him directly and fully. That's why your slashing of Horowitz's quote into a carefully excerpted fraction of its full self is so problematic on NPOV grounds. Simply stating that all the links remain does not suffice either, as links are substantially less than content. Reducing a fully documented section of sourced criticism from a well known writer to little more than links conveys a POV agenda to diminish that criticism's presence in the article and hide it from the casual reader. ] 07:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===This is Misplaced Pages's article on Chip Berlet, not "Chip's Article"=== | |||
| :One more thing, Slim - this article is Misplaced Pages's article about Chip Berlet including all pertinent biographical material, be it positive or negative. It is '''not''' Chip Berlet's own personal property, as he insinuates when he refers to it as "my article" in his request for "help" in expunging criticisms of him. And it does '''not''' belong to Chip Berlet as you indicate when you describe it as "his article" in urging other editors to stay away from it. In fact, Misplaced Pages strongly discourages contributers with a vested interest in an article, as is inescapably the case in an article about yourself, from editing it at all (]) for the very reason that they might start thinking of it as their own personal domain and might start trying to control its content or exclude negative material from it. The fact that a contributer doesn't personally like it when sourced critical material about him is added to his biography is not a legitimate basis for removing that material. Neither is a friend's personal allegiances with that editor/article subject. ] 07:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == An Outside View == | |||
| I see that a Request for Mediation has been posted. I think that this is the sort of dispute where mediation would be a good idea. It is unfortunate that there is a long backlog for mediation. | |||
| This dispute has a history which I will not summarize. It does appear to me that the amount of criticism of Berlet is disproportionate for the length of the article and causes the article as a whole to be a negative POV of Berlet. | |||
| I will say more, but not right now. ] 11:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :As always, I look forward to further comments from you, Robert McClenon. Thank you for taking the time to look into this dispute. ] 12:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==You request is my command== | |||
| Just saw this on the article RFC page: "a sourced and documented criticism of this article's subject by another was added to the designated section. The article's subject, who is also a wikipedia editor, then posted a message to the talk page asking for "help" in removing the critical material from "my page." Several subsequent attempts made by this editor's supporters to expunge the critical material per his request." | |||
| And given the request for comments, my comment is that someone needs to drop the 'tude, stop harrassing other editors, and either find an article they can contribute to neutrally, or leave wikipedia. I'll leave it as an excercise for the readers to decide who would best benefit from this comment. Please let me know if this nonsense continues. ] 14:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :"my comment is that someone needs to drop the 'tude, stop harrassing other editors, and either find an article they can contribute to neutrally, or leave wikipedia." -- Do I take it that you're going to do this voluntarily, FuelWagon? ] 18:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can take it anyway you wish, Rangerdude. ] 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I support FW in his comment, and will be watching and editing out any unsupported or blatantly pov content. ] 20:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::A good place to start may be the introduction of this article itself. Much of it is lifted almost directly from a POV biography of Mr. Berlet on the website of the liberal think tank he's with. ] 21:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reading both versions objectively, the one supported by consensus, and the one being promoted by you, the only content I'm finding that does any ideological ax-grinding is in the version that you seem bent on forcing into the article. Sorry, but that's how I see it. That the consensus-supported, NPOV bio borrows from non-copyright protected source in irrelevant, that the source is Berlet's place of work is equally irrelevant. What is relevant here is factual accuracy, relevance/notability and NPOV. These are the only criteria I will consider moving forward. ] 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FeloniousMonk, there is no "consensus" here and it is not a requirement for changing a particular passage which does not amount to "major content changes" in the first place. --] 22:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi TJ, there ''was'' a consensus about this page and it's been stable for months as a result, until Rangerdude added several paragraphs of Horowitz criticism, thereby changing the balance of positive/neutral material and critism. Journalists get attacked just about every time they publish criticism of others, and letters to editors/publishers are commonplace. There's no need for more than one paragraph, and in fact there probably isn't even a need for that, but I reduced it to one paragraph as a compromise. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::SlimVirgin, it appears to me that the context with respect to "consensus" is specifically in regard to the new additions of Horowitz-related material. Hence what consensus existed prior to these additions is not relevant in establishing what is proper treatment for our immediate purposes. | |||
| ::::::In this respect I disagree with you. The material written by Horowitz is a very notable criticism which initiated not only a response from Berlet but wider contentions against the SPLC because of Berlet's piece as well as further Berlet detractors (even in passing) such as Chris Arabia. In any case it is unnecessarily sloppy to simply list three links in a row without contextualizing what was said and when. This is what I attempted to do in my edit while taking into account a balance of space, which was still to be had in the eight other criticism paragraphs. | |||
| ::::::Hopefully there will be an attempt to establish an agreement on the treatment of material instead of editors simply trying to outlast the other for the block and get the "right version" in on time. Comments from others which suggest certain users are simply not allowed to edit without explicit permission are not helpful to attaining this. --] 23:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'd certainly be willing to see a quote from the Arabia article, though if we're going to do that, we should probably also add a quote from the Chip rejoinder. But I wouldn't want to see it longer than that. Regarding consensus, I can only repeat, there ''was'' a consensus regarding the balance of positive/neutral and critical material, and RD's edit changed it. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could decide on this page how to handle the Horowitz material so we don't go back to edit warring. Do you agree with that approach? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not quite understanding the point. I would assume (perhaps unwisely) that we are not simply castigating Rangerdude's additions as not being valuable in principle. Then, if we recognize the merit of material related to Horowitz's dispute, we must also recognize that the article requires balance ''anew'', not simply a return to previous consensus, which seems to necessarily lack this input. The question is then what is sufficient and appropriate to summate the material? Rangerdude's long version? A brief summation with multiple external links? Or a version which takes space into account but does not lose the full effect of what transpired? The latter was what I had in mind in attempting to compromise. --] 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Horowitz compromise== | |||
| TJ, I did prefer your version to RD's, but still felt it was too long. Perhaps we can thrash out a compromise. I wanted this one: | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist ] over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Berlet wrote that right-wing think tanks like Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and made allegations of racial insensitivity against the CSPC. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged him to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears ..." Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations, as well as a response from Berlet. </blockquote> | |||
| You wanted this one: | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist ]'s Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. In response, Horowitz wrote an open letter to SPLC president ] in his '']'', urging him to remove the article from the SPLC website, stating that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." </blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>Berlet responded to Horowitz in a manner which reiterated his initial assertions about the SPLC, accusing it of "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States." Dees declined to remove the article; since then, ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees as well as other critical pieces on Berlet such as the article "Leftist Lie Factory" in which Chris Arabia writes that, "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." He accuses Berlet of creating a "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and of attempting to squash "vigorous debate and discourse" even among the political left. </blockquote> | |||
| So how about this one as a compromise between them? | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist ] over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) on right-wing think tanks, which he argued "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and allow "ideas that once were denounced as racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited get transmitted into mainstream discussions ... " In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," and an article by Chris Arabia alleging that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." </blockquote> | |||
| :Slim: The term "right-wing think tanks", is treated as a generic noun. I would suggest this can be improved to something less devisive and inflamitory. Thank you. ] 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| How about: | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist ]'s Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," , a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." </blockquote> | |||
| --] 01:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever we decide on we can probably copy into the Horowitz article without too much re-writing. It appears to be an argument between them, so it as relevant to one article as to the other. -] 03:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| TJive - I am supportive of your original two-paragraph version as an acceptable compromise. I do not see how it can be shortened any further though without cutting into the quotes and eliminating pertinent sourced material. I would rather have a longer section that accurately quotes both Horowitz and Berlet than a shorter one where we attempt to edit the quotes into a sentence, and in doing so increase the risk of misrepresenting their positions. I will also note that I find the decision by Jayjg - himself a non-neutral participant in this content discussion - to protect the page from editing at a time that preserves the contested revisions by SlimVirgin to be inappropriate. ] 06:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::FYI, a parallel discussion is going on at ], over the inclusion of Horowitz's criticisms. -] 23:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| TJ, I can live with your compromise (the one dated 01:50, August 6, 2005) though please note that it's closer to your original version than it is to mine. For that reason, I hope you'll agree to change the end of the last sentence to "and an article by Chris Arabia alleging that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." (The "harshly critical" is a POV). But I won't revert you over that one sentence, so either way you and I have an agreement about that section. Will, Nobs, Fuelwagon, El C, Robert, do you have a view? | |||
| :: I also think that 01:50 version is reasonable. (I wasn't much impressed by Arabia's article, but thought the earlier pieces by Horowitz and Berlet were quite illuminating, so I wanted to see them quoted at a bit more length, as they are in that version.) ] ] 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Do we also have an agreement regarding the rest of the page, as someone (Rangerdude?) talked about rewriting the whole thing, and I would prefer to see that not happen, particularly if Rangerdude is involved. In particular, do others feel the balance of criticism to neutral/positive is okay as it is? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really see how that small evaluation of the article's prose/intent is POV; it is indeed critical and very harsh in its assessment of Berlet. | |||
| :Regarding the rest of the article I have no opinion as of now. If other editors feel that there are changes to be made these should be judged on the merits when and if it occurs. --] 04:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, as I said, I won't argue over that one sentence, so that's fine by me. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about "...Chris Arabia maintains that Berlet's work..." ] 04:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd be fine with that too, Nobs. I was hoping we could reach an overall agreement about the page (balance of criticism and the rest) before requesting unprotection. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I strongly disagree. An agreement on the Horowitz material is sufficient to unprotect as it was the subject of edit warring. Retaining protection until every other aspect of the article is hammered out strikes me as little more than an attempt to preserve what some editors consider to be the "right" version of the article at the expense of editing freedom and a true collaborative process in developing it. Furthermore, protections should not be applied by administrators who have been party to this talk page discussion as was the case with the last one. This is not a request - it's the rules. ] 04:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Although I disagree with you about the Arabia quote, I do agree on your point here; the timing of the protection (''two minutes'' after TJive's attempt at a compromise edit was wholly reverted, with no counter-attempt at a compromise) looks exactly like a transparent attempt to "preserve the 'right' version of the article". If we're done with the source of the edit war (how to handle the Horowitz blowup), it's time to unprotect the article. Rangerdude, since everyone else is OK with the 1:50 version (modulo a minor tweak as to how to characterize Arabia's article - although I agree it was quite reasonable to describe it as "harshly critical", because I thought it was a bit over the top), how about just letting it go, so we can move on? ] ] 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::TJive - The criticism by Arabia asserting that Berlet's tactics squash "vigorous debate and discourse" needs to be retained as this is one of his main arguments. The most 1:50 revision and all of SlimVirgin's versions that I'm aware of remove this substantive critique. They also remove the bulk of Arabia's quote. As I've maintained consistently from the beginning, we should not get into the habit of chopping up quotes as doing so makes the article prone to misrepresentation of their authors. The edits proposed by SlimVirgin were unacceptable to me because they heavily edited Horowitz's and removed Arabia's quotes into tiny mid-sentence snippets that removed the bulk of their critiques. To have a larger quote of each (and Berlet's response for that matter) is not at all unprecedented in this article, which already has several multi-line block quotes of other persons. In short, I'll agree to the 1:50 version provided that it restores the fuller Arabia quotes as my main stipulation. ] 04:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ====Compromise version==== | |||
| Noel & others - I'd rather have the 1:50 version up there than the current revision, so I'm fine with adding it and unprotecting the page. I still believe that Arabia's argument will not be represented accurately unless due mention is made of his point about Berlet's style of argument squashing free speech and discourse. This is a very minor yet important addition for accurately representing Arabia's argument. It is also one that can be easily restored in quote form without significantly lengthening the Horowitz paragraph itself (it could be done in less than one additional line). I've made note of this request several times and have yet to see any of the proponents of dropping it give a reason why it shouldn't be included. | |||
| To that end I'll offer the following version, which is TJive's 1:50 version with the pertinent Arabia quote restored. | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist ]'s Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," , a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.</blockquote> | |||
| If this version is acceptable it should replace the existing version - which has been the source of far more disagreement anyway - as soon as the page is unprotected. ] 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I've read Arabia's complete article, and I'm unimpressed by it. Although he does produce some interesting data in parts of it, overall the general flavour of it is rather over the top (Berlet's "genuine affection for Stalinism"?). It also suffers from not providing sources for the quotations from Chip, which is always troubling (one can't read the original, to make sure the quotation is not being taken out of context). So I find the original 1:50 text about Arabia's article ('an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand."') much better. ] ] 00:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Noel - Thank you for your comments, but it is simply not our place as editors to exclude Arabia's based upon personal disagreement with it. One could just as easily argue that Berlet's original race-mongering against Horowitz's group was "over the top," but it is not our place to remove it for believing so. The revision I offer adds the following half line quote for the purposes of fully representing Arabia's arguments: ''"and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left."'' Whether we agree with it or not, this was clearly Arabia's argument and it does not significantly expand the space devoted to the Horowitz controversy. ] 06:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I see nothing wrong with Rangerdude's addition to my last version. --] 07:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : My problems with Arabia have little to do with where he and I stand on the ideological spectrum ("personal disagreement"), and a lot more to do with the fact that I think it's simply second-rate work, not worthy of being quoted. I like the one sentence I didn't object to, because I think it states very concisely the chief problem with the original column (the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand"), but I find the second quote just standard boilerplate mud. ] ] 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Noel: my preference would be your 01:50, August 6, 2005, but I would like some discussion about the other sections too before we request unprotection. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::...yet you state no substantive reason why the half-line Arabia quote - which is the only addition I request to the 1:50 version - is objectionable to you. What's wrong with fully representing Arabia's argument, Slim? He indisputably devoted a large section of his article to making the case that Berlet's tactics intimidate the exercise of free speech. Since this can be accurately represented in a way that adds a negligible amount of length to the paragraph I can see no reason why it would be excluded beyond those which are political, and as such not a valid basis for exclusion. I also disagree in the stongest terms with Slim's request to retain the page protection until unspecified agreements are reached on unnamed disputes pertaining to other sections of this article. Page protection was imposed, and under controversy at that, solely around the Horowitz dispute. Retaining it beyond that dispute only inhibits constructive editing to the article itself in other areas. There was no revert warring in those other areas - only over Horowitz and only after the article's subject himself requested that the critical Horowitz material be expunged from an article that he incorrectly claimed as his own property. I find it odd that one of the chief participants in the revert warring that supposedly necessitated this protection is now its strongest advocate (and coincidentally when her version is the one preserved by the protection imposed only 2 minutes after it was reverted to). Keeping this page protected beyond the Horowitz dispute gives credence to the suspicion that protection in this case is being used for the purpose of retaining what certain editors deem to be the "right" version of this article until anybody disagreeing with that version gets tired of waiting and goes away. ] 20:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Rangerdude & TJive, and there is ample evidence to support Arabia's claim. ] 20:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page. You've expressed strong personal hostility toward the subject of the article. It's one thing to feel political opposition to a public figure, but quite another to have developed hostility toward them as a non-public figure i.e. toward ]. It's exactly the kind of situation that could cause Misplaced Pages a legal problem (regarding this and other pages), because it appears to involve malice, and I'm thinking of taking the issue further for that reason. I won't be discussing it any more on this talk page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for admitting the fact that you're engaged in personal attacks, Slim, to wit: | |||
| ::::::''"What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page."'' | |||
| :::::Before reminding you of the fact that you have been reprimanded before for making such attacks by the Arbcom, I'll direct you to Misplaced Pages's no attack policy, which explicitly states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (]). Furthermore, since you are now invoking issues of legality as a basis of disputing my editing rights and making threats of "taking the issue further for that reason," I will remind you of Misplaced Pages's policy ], which reads "Don't make legal threats against other users of Misplaced Pages" and warns "A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing." Now, regarding your past behavior Slim, you are once again reminded of the Arbcom's decision: '''6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation.''' Passed 5-1-1. You have repeatedly violated this injunction in your recent comments directed at me and should accordingly be warned that you are approaching a situation where dispute resolution proceedings could be initiated against you and further sanctions applied. Accordingly please cease and desist in the behavior described above and return to the practice of responsible civilized editing in compliance with Misplaced Pages's mandates. ] 21:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not making a personal attack or a legal threat. I'm drawing attention to the problems you're potentially creating, and as I said, I'm not going to discuss it further on this page. I would say that, given the number of people you've recently tried to cause a problem for, any dispute resolution you started would go against you, as did the two recent RfCs you filed against Chip, Willmcw, and FuelWagon. I strongly encourage you to take a break from editing articles related to Chip, and to stay away from pages being edited by the other people you're in dispute with, even if only for a week to give yourself some distance, and then to return with a fresh eye. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Announcing your objections to a compromise edit by explicitly stating your intent to exclude me from this and other articles is a personal attack, Slim. It's also bullying and is quickly approaching the level of an abuse of your administrative powers. This is something that you do not have the right to do. I have just as much of a right to contribute to this article and any other article as you or any other editor and your cavalier disregard for that fact is evidence of a hostile personal agenda on your part. Making a threat of "taking the issue further" in regards to a legal matter is a legal threat. Per ] "you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article" - something you are doing at this very moment and something that could get you blocked from Misplaced Pages per that policy. As I have referenced and directed your attention to each of these policies repeatedly now, you have no excuse for violating them further and no basis to claim ignorance of them. I would prefer this not go to dispute resolution, but once again am prepared to take that step should you persist in this path. You should also be reminded that mediation and arbitration both have ] provisions, so rounding up the clique to insulate yourself from the repercussions of your policy breaches is no longer an option. If anyone should take a break from this article, Slim, it is you. Your strong personal allegiances to Chip Berlet, your repeatedly exhibited hostility towards myself, and your recent breaches of civility, personal attacks, and legal threats against me are evidence that your edits here are conflicted from content development and engulfed in personal matters, many of them in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy. ] 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I seem nothing to indicate that SV is abusing her admin powers. Saying she "strongly encourage" you to act in a certain way is something any editor can say. She has a concern about you editing the article, and that concern may be excessive, but it in no way amounts to an inappropriate legal threat. You're reading a little too much into all this - chill out. ] ] 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| RD, please stop provoking other editors. Discussing editor's behavior should be done on a user talk page, not in an article. -] 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Willmcw - as a non-neutral participant with demonstrated personal allegiances to SlimVirgin and with a lengthy dispute history against myself that includes, among other things, ] me, I ask that you refrain from participation in this dispute. This request applies to any dispute resolution proceeding or other wikipedia administrator and policy provision where ] issues apply as well. The discussion of editor behavior was initiated not by myself, as you imply with your allegation of provocation, but rather by SlimVirgin in the post located . That post, made in response to a message I had posted regarding the content of a proposed compromise wording, both attacked me personally and implied a legal threat. Per the letter and spirit of all wikipedia dispute resolution processes, my response of urging her to cease and desist and directing her to the applicable policies was proper. ] 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| RD, please stop provoking other editors. Discussing editor's behavior should be done on a user talk page, not in an article. -] 22:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Willmcw, please stop inserting yourself into editing disputes that do not concern you on behalf of editors with whom you have a personal allegiance. Behavior of this type is disruptive. ] 23:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the record once again, and this definitely ''is'' the last time I'll address it, no legal threat was made against you. I'm considering taking this further within Misplaced Pages, not outside it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slim - If you insist it was not intended as a legal threat and do not make additional legal threats, I'll take your word that it was not. Whether intended as a legal threat or not though, it did come across as one. Even threatening the application of adverse legal consequences while not threatening a lawsuit itself can run afoul of Misplaced Pages's policy, as the section about POV pushing I quoted above indicates. I accordingly urge you to avoid making similar implications in the future and once again refer you to the Arbcom caution against making personal attacks. ] 23:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't we all get along? This wording is so close to resolution, let's get back to the subject of the article's contents. ] 00:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that would be nice, Nobs. Again, I'm happy with TJive's 1:50 compromise suggestion for the Horowitz edits. But I'd also like to know whether there are proposals to change other parts of the page, and if so, what they are. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Truth be told, I'm really an idiot. Can I see what the compromise draft looks like now where we stand, if it's not to much trouble? Thank you. ] 01:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nobs - as noted I'm happy with TJive's 1:50 version plus the half-line Arabia quote. I saw that you and TJive were both okay with this one as well. Absent any ''substantive content based'' objections to this, I think we should find a neutral administrator to unprotect the page and substitute it. Any other changes can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through both edits and discussions as each arises. Also per your request here's the draft. ] 01:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist ]'s Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," , a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.</blockquote> | |||
| :I will object to any request for page unprotection until we discuss what you intend to do with the rest of the article. You've indicated that you intend to be some rewriting but refuse to say what you have in mind. Or if I have misunderstood you, please say so. As for neutral admins, Jay has protected it, Rama has endorsed the protection, and Noel is reviewing it. How many more do you want to involve? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think Jpgordon also offered to unprotect and reprotect if necessary, so that's four already. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jayjg's neutrality in this article has been disputed, though the assistance by the other three administrators you named is appreciated. I even thanked one of them and discussed edits with another of them at length. You seem to have developed quite a chip on your shoulder over me, Slim, as my original request asked for nothing more than getting a neutral administrator to unprotect the page now that we're approaching an agreement. To respond in the combative tone that you did - and twice at that - is yet again indicative of the hostility you are employing towards me over everything from content and dispute proceedings down to the most minor details of a simple discussion with another editor. Chill out for a moment. ] 04:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slim - I've got nothing specific in mind on what I "intend to do" to this article, so yes - you've certainly misunderstood something. In fact, before the article's subject summoned you here for the explicit purpose of expunging the critical material about him from Horowitz, I was not intending to edit much more on this article at all and only resumed it because you proceeded to gut the Horowitz material for POV and personal reasons. As for the future, I will participate in the editing process and discussions over its content if and when they arise with a mind towards moderating the extreme pro-Berlet POV's exhibited by some of the participants. As these edits proceed you should also be aware that you have neither a right nor a basis to prevent me from participating, nor must my contributions meet your personal criteria for editing when they exceed the standards required by Misplaced Pages policies and when they are applied arbitrarily on a POV basis. ] 03:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Notice: As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution on other pages, I will be abstaining from further input in this article or other articles directly relating Mr. Chip Berlet (until such a time as this abstension is suspended, etc.) Thank you. ] 20:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :That's very decent of you, Nobs. Showing such good faith and collaborative spirit, there's actually no reason for you to withdraw. ;-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Page Protection Policy== | |||
| The wikipedia policy on page protection ] explicitly states ''"Do not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute."'' Administrator ] imposed a page protection on this article that preserves a contested edit to the Horowitz section by ] located . In doing so Jayjg violated the protection policy as he himself has participated in the disputes on this article within the last 24 hours. I accordingly request that Jayjg remove the protection he placed on this article in compliance with the policy cited above. Thanks. ] 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Posting a joke is not the same as being "involved in an edit dispute." ] never '''edit'''ed the article. -] 06:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ] "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page '''or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page''')." (emphasis added) Humorous or not, Jayjg's comment on the talk page contained an opinion in the discussion on the use of partisan sources as applied to Berlet and Horowitz. He therefore is not permitted under wikipedia policy to protect this page. ] 06:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I expressed no opinions on about the article on the Talk: page; nor could I, since I have on idea what the contents of the article are. Rather, I expressed opinions about your interactions with other editors. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have endorsed the protection of this page, which I hope will be enough to lift these concerns. ] 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for assisting in policy compliance. ] 08:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] admits he has no knowledge or involvement but he flys-by and protects the page "to the last version by ]". That's very common conduct from Jayjg, one Misplaced Pages's most controversial editors.] 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, obviously, we are buying your attempt to stain the reputation of a long-time editor by making general vague and groundless accusations, Mister... who ? ] 06:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Cripes, he's not just an editor, he's maybe the 2nd most controversial ]. ]] 22:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no idea about the solution to the personal disputes ongoing here but I have a few comments: | |||
| :# I am fine with the proposed version with or without the second reinsertion from the Arabia article. | |||
| :# There does not appear to be anyone significantly disputing the insertion of this passage into the article, so compromise appears essentially reached. | |||
| :# Unless there is an explicit Misplaced Pages policy regarding the editing of subjects which are themselves involved on the site it is absolutely inappropriate to keep this article protected from unrelated and purely hypothetical disputes. | |||
| :--] 04:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding your third point, I'd normally agree, but if Rangerdude is going to immediately start rewriting the page, I'll request protection again, and there's no point in unlocking and relocking. So I suppose the question is: does Rangerdude, as things stand now, intend to make further changes? If so, could he indicate what they might be? It's perfectly standard to discuss whether everyone agrees with the general direction of a page before requesting unprotection. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, he indicates above that he doesn't. So can we decide on a Horowitz version? I agree with Noel and prefer your 1:50 Aug 6 suggestion. Will RD accept this? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:37, August 9, 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: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This 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. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2024. |
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
|
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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- 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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y 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)
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:
- 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.
Y 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)