Revision as of 16:37, 28 September 2005 editCberlet (talk | contribs)11,487 edits I am precisely suggesting that material be added to the page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:22, 8 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,216,687 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Books}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(125 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
Hi, | |||
{{WikiProject Books}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Archive box|] <small>Dec 2004 - Feb 2007</small> }} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche and other critics of Political Research Associates tend to post material here that is not merely critical but full of false or very outdated information. Please try to keep a balance of positive and negative out of fairness. Try to actually fact check criticisms before posting them. | |||
==Request for Comment: Validity of sources== | |||
Chip Berlet - Political Research Associates | |||
This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks. | |||
== Added NPOV note == | |||
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute | |||
Hi, | |||
* ] has taken it upon himself to comb through the encyclopedia and delete any references sourced to DTN. Hipocrite claims that DTN is in violation of the guideline ]. The only evidence presented by Hipocrite is ] where he states "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." I posit that until we have reached a consensus about the reliability of said source, Hipocrite should cease his deletion of sourced material from this and many other articles. Cheers. ] 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
I am inviting a discussion of how to make this page balanced, while cutting the material that is not accurate. There are only a tiny handful of people who are critics of PRA. I am calling for a discussion about how to present this criticism fairly. | |||
* I suggest that editors job is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and the barrier to entry for sources about living people a reasonably high one - a high one that is not lept by sites that gather their information from anonymous tips presented via web interface. I also suggest that no good-faith edit is ever vandalism, but labeling such is not a good faith edit. I further suggest that stalking good contributors like myself from article to article using edit summaries of "rvv" to revert all of their changes is a violation of ]. ] - ] 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:* The information at DTN that I saw was well-sourced, with easily corroborated facts as far as I know. To prove the site is unreliable would require a minimum of one example where it presented any information that was known to be erroneous, false, or unreliable. Not just because you don't like the information. Do you have even one example? ] (]) 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
This page is now unbalanced in favor of PRA. Let the critics add material so that it does not contain false claims, and does not exceed 50% of the page. | |||
--] 15:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
:::For the record, much of the information on DTN about PRA and Chip Berlet (me) is false, defamatory, and churlish. I have responded to specific falsehoods . Attempts to get DTN to remove the false claims have been met with silence. See also From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz, by Aaron Barlow, The Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2006: "...it was Horowitz who actually codified lying, making it into a tactic rather than just a careless mistake."--] 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Misplaced Pages has a policy that says claims should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), clearly sourced and referenced. See ]. There should be a Reference section at the end of the article. Each book, paper, newspaper article or website referred to by the author for a particular claim should be listed in this section. Throughout the text, as claims are made, a reference should be provided inline like this and then also listed in the References section. (Not all claims have to be referenced, of course: it's a question of commonsense, but if a claim is challenged by another editor, a reference must be provided.) | |||
:References should be reputable. The more contentious the claim, the more reputable the reference needs to be. Not all editors stick to these rules, but they are supposed to. | |||
:There has been a problem with several Misplaced Pages articles being edited by ] activists/supporters. They are ], ], ] and ]. (The latter two appear to be the same person; not sure about the others. Weed Harper and a notorious Usenet LaRouche activist called Ralph Gibbons have both posted on Usenet using IP address ], and the same IP address has been reported for sending out pro-LaRouche spam around the Web.) Anyone who consistently tries to correct their editing is accused of being an anti-LaRouche activist. I first came to the attention of these people when I wrote the article on ], which they heavily contested. See ] and ] for details of the dispute. In the end, we agreed on a compromise version, which is what you now see on the page. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast but this is what happens to articles they get involved in. My own view is that these editors should not be editing articles that have anything to do with LaRouche, but that is just my personal view. There was an Arbitration Committee ruling against them, which you can find at ]. The ruling states that they are not allowed to insert "original research" emanating from the LaRouche organization into any article that is not about Lyndon LaRouche or a related person or organization. The articles that are regarded as being connected to LaRouche can be viewed at ]. They would therefore not be allowed to insert "original research" from the LaRouche organization into the Political Research Associates article, unless there was something in the article critical of the LaRouche organization, in which case the LaRouche response could be quoted. What is meant by "original research" here are claims not verifiable without reference to the LaRouche organization. | |||
:If you feel able to, I would suggest you take the most biased version of this article you can find, and try to incorporate, into the current version, any of the claims you feel may have some validity, providing references for each claim, bearing in mind that the article must be written from a neutral point of view. Alternatively, it might make more sense if editors who are not involved with, and who are not opposed to, Political Research Associates do the editing. I hope this information helps. ] 02:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) | |||
:* As to the accusation of violating ], I had noted the following at : Hipocrite said "I'm reviewing your edit history also. So are scores of other people. If, while doing such, we find errors in articles you have contibuted to, we're gonna fix them." Sauce for the goose... (I don't see it on the current page, but it should be in the History. I gotta run.) ] 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== unsourced claim == | |||
*In a recent AfD for Common Dreams Newscenter several (?) conservative editors claimed that DTN wasn't a RS, and IIRC, argued against linking to it as well. - ] 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
: At I see Hipcrite and MortonDevonshire rejecting your claim that the article on Common Dreams at DTN counted towards CD's notability. They were wrong. Is there anything at you wish to identify as being in error? ] 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
''There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially Chip Berlet, has a bias against persons and groups who see conspiracies as driving history and current events.'' Citation on this? ] 20:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Recent edits are not appropriate == | ||
The recent edits add material that has been cherry-picked to imply a criticism of PRA that is not accurate. Most of the quote deals with two other organizations. This is biased POV and should be removed.--] (]) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:It seems the professors are making an important and highly appropriate ''criticism'' that while they may use PRA (mentioned specifically) and other named groups' information for "general information" purposes, as sociologists they consider them prejudiced and have to warn readers that even using only general info, errors may creep in. (Unfortunately, they don't make the statement as clearly and succinctly as they could.) | |||
Is it still necessary to have the notice about NPOV disputes at the head of this page? It looks perfectly kosher to me. If no one has any objections, I'd just as soon see it removed. ] 03:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
:Throughout the book they use 5 references from PRA - and three from Chip himself. It seems like an important criticism from people who have studied the same groups as PRA has but more objectively. I don't have a problem with quoting more of what they say until the point becomes clear. Any more neutral editors have anything to say?? Carol Moore 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
:Herschel, can you provide a reference for the Brandt quotes or remove them? Also, I'm going to remove the Brandt link you gave, as it is absurd and mentions the silly PROMIS conspiracy story, which truly is the preserve of lunatics. ] 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) | |||
==POV Misrepresentation== | |||
::The reference is the very link that you wish to remove. I think that it is customary to included references in the external links section, but to ease your mind, I have added a footnote. | |||
User:Carolmooredc is a well known conspiracy theorist with a grudge. Outside of Misplaced Pages I am a colleague of Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, and the quoted material is taken out of context. I asked months ago that this be reviewed, and nothing has been done. Please discuss this here.--] (]) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:*1) Please remove the personal attack per ]. | |||
::Incidentally, you are the first person to denounce Daniel Brandt as a source, to my knowledge. If you will take another, perhaps slower look at the linked article, you will find that he is in fact criticizing the PROMIS story. --] 16:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
:*2) Obviously it's a ] for you to remove material from the article that summarizes a criticism of your employer, and especially to use personal attacks in doing so. | |||
:*3) Who did you ask to review this entry, where? | |||
:*4) You certainly can comment on or offer a counter summary to correct any inaccuracies. I've tweaked the summary below and would put it in chronologically as the first criticism. | |||
:::'''Professors of ] Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (]) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (]), in their introduction to ''The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride”,'' admit that they "at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement," naming Political Research Associates as one of those organizations. They consider these groups to be "watchdog" organizations that "are setting particular agendas." They note that "what the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America."''' REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, ''The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!"'', ], 2000, 1-3. (See or versions.) Carol Moore 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
::::The material does not appear to directly discuss PRA, but rather makes more general points about "watchdog groups". Please restrict the article to material that is directly about PRA, not about "watchdog groups" in general. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hello, Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here :-) Here is the actual paragraph that I am summarizing. It clearly is referring directly to PRA as well as other groups. | |||
I put the NPOV flag back up. This entry is supposed to be about PRA, but it is now mostly a criticism of PRA by Brandt, who I have criticized in the past as a conspiracist willing to be an apologist for those who flirt with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. He is not an unbiased source. He has repeatedly attacked PRA. Furthermore, some of the information is not factual, and some is outdated. It is not fair for LaRouche supporters to edit pages about LaRouche critics in a way that makes dubious and highly marginal claims the dominant text. --] 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
::::::''Since little social scientific writing on the current movement exists, we at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement. The most prominent ones that publish their own materials are the Anti-Defamation league of B’Nai B’rith (AD), the Center ofr Democratic Renewal (CDR), Coalition for Human Dignity (CHD), Political Research Associates (PRA), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with its Klanwatch Project. In a sense, we consider these groups to be ‘watchdog’ organizations that engage in claims making, ‘promoting the ‘assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions’. Claims makers no only draw our attention to certain conditions (Spector and Kitsuse 1975:75) but also “inevitably choose to focus on particular aspects of the condition” (Best 1989:xx). In giving attention to certain causes, they are setting particular agendas. What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fac that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America.'' Carol Moore 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
:Chip, I'm not certain that I am following your reasoning here. The LaRouche pages are littered with attacks authored by persons who are not unbiased sources, and who have repeatedly attacked LaRouche -- persons such as yourself. I will be convinced that you are a supporter of fairness when I see you apply the same standards of fairness to your opponents that you request for yourself. In the meantime, I suggest you include some rebuttal information about Brandt in this article, or a refutation of that information which you claim is "not factual." --] 23:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
<-------- | |||
::The point of an encyclopedia entry is to offer a fair and accurate summary of information. I write entries for published print encyclopedias. I do not include hyperbolic charges by marginal groups and conspiracist writers. I often do not include material that I believe to be true, but which is not the most important material for an entry. The tactic you pursue on this site is to paste in globs of outlandish claims from marginal conspiracist writers and then suggest that the way to proceed is for people to rebut these claims. In fact, these dubious claims do not belong in the entry in the first place. I understand you firmly believe the material you paste in is true. But as has been shown repeatedly, your posted additions are often not supported by the available facts or are hyperbolic or include personal attacks. Scores of editors of publications over the past 30 years have found my work to be fair and accurate. Like every writer, I make mistakes, and I take responsibility for them. While PRA has critics, the number of supporters vastly outnumbers those critics. Why make a marginal conspiracist critic the centerpiece of an entry about PRA? It is fundamentally unfair and biased. That is the point I am trying to make. What I say about people like LaRouche I can document and I can offer a reasonable argument for the claims and analysis I offer. The claims of LaRouche and other conspiracists exist in an alternate reality where the rules of logic do not seem to apply. Such claims do not belong in a serious encyclopedia entry. --] 14:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
And if that whole paragraph was used, the comments would not be framed in such a biased perjorative way as the text crafted by Carolmooredc. Note that this text is part of the book where the authors discuss their POV and possible issues of bias--a practice common in social science. It is the twisting of the words and context that I object to, especially since they both have a favorable view of the work of PRA and my work outside of Wiki as Chip Berlet.--] (]) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Exactly, they are talking about the biases of some of the sources they use --as they put it -- "at times". So obviously they found the material of some use. I think my summary fairly reflects what they say. | |||
:Chip, you seem oblivious to the irony in your comments. You are yourself a "marginal conspiracist critic", who makes "hyperbolic charges" and "personal attacks;" they are your stock in trade. That is essentially Daniel Brandt's criticism of you; he's not charging you with being "overly critical of 'conspiracism.'" --] 15:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
:As for whether they favor some other PRA writing or project or the organization itself, you could always provide a quote from one of their published works to counter their criticism in this context. | |||
:Misplaced Pages has rules. We can't just take your word for it they "favor" PRA in such a way that what they wrote earlier is irrelevant and should not be included herein. Just like we cannot find it acceptable for an employee of an organization to insult people who criticize their employer to try to get them to drop a WP:RS criticism. Carol Moore 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
::This is what you posted on the entry page, Carolmooredc: | |||
Herschel, regardless of your own view of Chip Berlet, the important point here is that reputable sources must be used for articles. Daniel Brandt, rightly or wrongly, would not normally be used as a source by mainstream journalists or writers. Regarding the particular link you've provided, I believe Namebase is Brandt's own organization. I could be wrong about this. Does anyone know for sure? If it does belong to Brandt, this is a piece he has published himself, which means it is little better than a personal blog. If you want to include criticism of Political Research Associates, it must come from a mainstream publication. If you can't find any such criticism, it means no mainstream publication thinks there is anything critical that is true, fair and worth publishing, and Misplaced Pages should take heed if that is the case. | |||
::*Professors of ] Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (]) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (]), authors of ''The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride”'' wrote about Political Research Associates and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on ] and ] reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.” | |||
::It is neither a fair nor accurate summary of the full paragraph, and an unrelated sentence about ADL and SPLC is spliced in to imply wrongdoing on the part of PRA. A biased and cooked summary.--] (]) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I have a new version in <s>italics</s> bold above. Cooperative editing means looking at people's attempts to deal with concerns. Plus, again, if you have some quote from the authors about how wonderful and reliable PRA is, that also could be included as a caveat. Carol Moore 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
Our disputes have settled down recently, and I have no wish to re-start them, but I have to say that I feel it's not appropriate for LaRouche activists to edit pages about someone who was a LaRouche critic, or about a company that person now works for, because it's bound to lead to real or perceived POV problems. I feel the best thing would be if LaRouche activists were to leave this page alone. If people working for Political Research Associates edit the page in too positive a way, other editors will take them to task for it, myself included. However, if you feel you must edit the page, at least provide reputable sources so that no one can question your edits. Many thanks, ] 20:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) | |||
::::It's a copyright violation. --] (]) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Herschel, could you supply a good reference for this (not a wild conspiracy website, though, please)? "There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially senior analyst Chip Berlet, is overly critical of persons and groups who see ] as driving ] and current events." Many thanks, ] 22:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) | |||
:::::First I goofed about what my alternative summary and quotes was. It wasn't the full paragraph which is what is in italics; it is section in bold above. Second none of the versions are over 500 words and are not copyright violations. Since no other people are commenting, I'll ask for another opinion and hopefully an unbiased editor will appear to comment :-) Carol Moore 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
:Slim, I'll do my best. That statement was made by senior analyst Chip Berlet, in an edit made to Misplaced Pages on December 7, 2004. Although Misplaced Pages is generally not regarded as a wild conspiracy website, editor Chip Berlet is regarded in some circles as a conspiracist, due to his practice of "decoding" hidden messages in the published utterances of political figures that he is targetting. --] 00:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Actually, the idea that fair use is 500 words is a common myth. It is not true.--] (]) 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
It would be good to have a reference, because at the moment, we've got "some critics" believe X, and another critic, Daniel Brandt, believes Y. It looks a bit odd. ] 03:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I think this more than complies with ]. Using 59 odd quoted words from a source integrated into a three sentence summary is common wiki usage. Of course, if i only include a summary you'll say it's POV misinterpretation. Classic double bind. Lucking Misplaced Pages has lots of resources for ]. Carol Moore 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
==Other additions== | |||
===Third opinion=== | |||
It'd be nice to have a paragraph on particular specialties of the PRA, widely cited reports, or notable involvements. There's not much here that indicates what PRA has actually done to make them notable. Just a thought. -] 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Allow me to ask what seems like the obvious question - what is the use of this particular quote? what are you trying to use it to say? The full quote itself does not strike me as particularly critical of Dobratz and Shanks (it seems like a fairly standard academic explanation for their choice of data); in fact the full quote doesn't strike me as particularly ''informative'', in that all it really says is that they chose quotes from opposition groups on the grounds that they were more like watchdog groups. if someone can explain how this is being used, that would go a long way towards figuring out how to phrase it. --] 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:This quote was in the criticisms section. It is a more subtle criticism than the National Review calling PRA researchers "conspiracy mongers" or David Horowitz Freedom Center accusing "PRA mainstay Chip Berlet of engaging in "smear" tactics." But a subtle criticism from a reliable source may be more educational about the working of advocacy groups from an encyclopedic viewpoint than an insult from an opponent. | |||
== Extreme partisan == | |||
:Also I remain troubled by the fact that the PRA employee/ wiki editor Chip Berlet is smearing me above (on what grounds I know not) for daring to include this criticism. Also, despite my requests, he has not backed up his claim that the authors actually regard his group highly, which I certainly would be willing to add as a sentence after their comments quoted from the book. Carol Moore 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
::Ok, but it does pose a bit of a problem, sourcing-wise. the quote is from the authors themselves, and any academic would see this as a ''normal'' declaration in a research article. i.e., academics would read this as D&S stating their reasons for making a particular choice in data collection, and D&S would write it explicitly so that other academics could make a proper analysis of their results. no academic would consider this to be an example of bias (bias would be if D&S tried to hide the fact that they used a potentially problematic source - the disclosure is considered good research practice). this makes our usage of it here a form of original research - what we really want is secondary academic sources that criticize D&S's usage of these 'watchdogs'; we can't make that critique from examining their primary research. | |||
David Horowitz and his website can be considered extremely partisan and so are inappropriate to cite here, according to the standard that some editors are pursuing. -] 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Nice disclaimer, Will. ] 22:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Of course, neither the National Review nor the Horowitz Freedom Center can claim to be giving a neutral analysis either; those are both clearly partisan opinions and not scientific reviews. --] 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Per ] - "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." The material on Horowitz located here is explicitly attributed to him, thus meeting the stipulation in place. ] 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Of course you are exactly right. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::Does Misplaced Pages policy discourage the use of sources that represent clearly partisan opinions? If so, this could have a bearing on the use of ] and PRA as sources, which is remarkably widespread at Misplaced Pages, quite possibly out of proportion with their notability. --] (]) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your comment is irrelevant to this page, and to the discussion above. Please restrict your comments to discussions of the content of ''this'' article. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::Ludwigs' comments go way beyond anything I want to argue. I guess I'll let National Review and Horowitz have at it. :-) And just find an administrator to remove Berlet's insults per wiki policies. Carol Moore 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
:::::::'''Jayjg''' - I'm not certain Neils' comment ''is'' irrelevant to this page, and I think it deserves an answer regardless. | |||
:::So we are free to discuss, at length, the opinions of Horowitz and his websites and magazines, since this article is now about him and his opinions? Interesting. -] 23:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::::'''Niels''' - Misplaced Pages policy does not discourage sources that represent clearly partisan interests, so long as the particular biases of those sources are clearly presented (i.e., an anti- or pro- source is perfectly fine, so long as it is presented as an anti- or pro- source, and not as a neutral position). the way I prefer to interpret these issues is to consider a partisan source as a primary source - someone doing primary research with the effort of establishing a point, rather than someone doing secondary research that uses or explains other people's points. primary sources are useful (see ]) to establish facts or opinions from a given side in an argument, but can't be taken as neutral without the editor engaging in ]. If Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources (which I can't tell without looking at them more closely) then it is very possible that they are being used to excess. the way to be sure is to consider whether editors have to use some kind of ] in order to make the points Berlat et al are making appear as general consensus or established fact. | |||
::::You are only free to do what WP:RS says, and that is to discuss his opinions on the subject of the article with clear representation of them as such. ] 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::::let me take a moment and look at this page, to see if that error has been made here. --] 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
''This'' is not the article in which we are discussing the opinions of the DiscovertheNetworks.org, it is the article in which we are discussing Political Research Associates and its opinions. In a strict and logical interpretation of ], "extreme political websites" (in this case DiscovertheNetworks.org) "should never be used as a source for Misplaced Pages except in articles discussing the opinions of or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." So with that interpretation it would be appropriate to mention and discuss their opinions on the ] page but not on every page or here. It might also be argued that the same would apply to the SPLC, LvMI, Claremont, etc. Since the definition of "partisan" appears quite broad, a strict adherence to the letter of the guideline would ultimately mean an end to almost all of the "criticism" sections composed of comments for opposing organizations or people. Gosh, someone could argue that the NY Times is a partisan source, or even an "extreme political website", and then we'd might have to scrub out the ten thousand NY Times quotes in Misplaced Pages. Maybe we should start by tightening up the definition of "extreme political website". In the context of a world encyclopedia, what does "extreme" really mean? -] 00:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::::One of the benefits of editing on contentious pages (and why I keep it up on a couple pages I edit - or try to) is you learn so much more about wiki-editing so much faster. Sometimes it can be mind boggling, like your posts above. But once one studies the comments and then compares with various policies often one comes away much more enlightened on how to be a good editor and how to deal with some of the nonsense people come up with even on less contentious pages. Thanks! Carol Moore 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
I updated the staff and director information. I hope my critics will not portray this as part of a communist/fascist conspiracy.--] 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Also, re: whether "Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources" this has been discussed at least once, probably more on | |||
== Fairness and Balance == | |||
], including in archives. I am helping build this page to keep track of discussions of sources relevant to Israel-Palestine and all related issues, including groups like this that sometimes comment on the issue. ]. It will be finished in about a week. Carol Moore 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
::::::::::cool, I'll look in on that. thanks. :-) --] 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--] 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
==No reliable sources present in the article to establish notability== | |||
Request for Comments (RfC) filed: --] 13:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Article is self-promotion and the org is sketchy ] (]) 22:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:My take on this whole matter is that it's generally inappropriate for persons and groups that are the subject of an article to be active in editing that article for reason of an obvious ]. That PRA has "discussed" its wikipedia article and deems its content problematic is not a basis for rewrite as we are '''not''' here to accomodate what PRA, a highly politicized POV-pushing organization, ''thinks'' wikipedia should say about it or what PRA believes to be a problem. That would be accepting PRA's POV about itself. Rather, our mandate is to present the organization from a neutral perspective and neutrality means showing '''both''' the good and the bad - the praise and the critics alike. That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia beyond accurately presenting both those critics and PRA's counterviewpoint, should they offer one in their own publications. That said, I would not object to the addition of favorable sourced material here so long as it is done with neutrality and is done by parties that are not conflicted in their interests. According to ], articles that are believed to "omit important points of view" or have another similar imbalance "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." ] 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I am precisely suggesting that material be added to the page, and that you and a handful of other POV critics of PRA stop implying that in the real world the criticism of PRA outweighs the positive accomplishments and praise. So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic ]; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the ]. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right. Hardly fair, balanced, accurate, and NPOV.--] 16:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:22, 8 February 2024
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Archives |
Archive 1 Dec 2004 - Feb 2007 |
Request for Comment: Validity of sources
This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.
- Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
- User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to comb through the encyclopedia and delete any references sourced to DTN. Hipocrite claims that DTN is in violation of the guideline WP:RS. The only evidence presented by Hipocrite is here where he states "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." I posit that until we have reached a consensus about the reliability of said source, Hipocrite should cease his deletion of sourced material from this and many other articles. Cheers. L0b0t 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that editors job is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and the barrier to entry for sources about living people a reasonably high one - a high one that is not lept by sites that gather their information from anonymous tips presented via web interface. I also suggest that no good-faith edit is ever vandalism, but labeling such is not a good faith edit. I further suggest that stalking good contributors like myself from article to article using edit summaries of "rvv" to revert all of their changes is a violation of WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The information at DTN that I saw was well-sourced, with easily corroborated facts as far as I know. To prove the site is unreliable would require a minimum of one example where it presented any information that was known to be erroneous, false, or unreliable. Not just because you don't like the information. Do you have even one example? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, much of the information on DTN about PRA and Chip Berlet (me) is false, defamatory, and churlish. I have responded to specific falsehoods here. Attempts to get DTN to remove the false claims have been met with silence. See also "The Art of the Slur: From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz, by Aaron Barlow, The Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2006: "...it was Horowitz who actually codified lying, making it into a tactic rather than just a careless mistake."--Cberlet 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As to the accusation of violating WP:STALK, I had noted the following at : Hipocrite said "I'm reviewing your edit history also. So are scores of other people. If, while doing such, we find errors in articles you have contibuted to, we're gonna fix them." Sauce for the goose... (I don't see it on the current page, but it should be in the History. I gotta run.) Andyvphil 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- In a recent AfD for Common Dreams Newscenter several (?) conservative editors claimed that DTN wasn't a RS, and IIRC, argued against linking to it as well. - FaAfA 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- At I see Hipcrite and MortonDevonshire rejecting your claim that the article on Common Dreams at DTN counted towards CD's notability. They were wrong. Is there anything at you wish to identify as being in error? Andyvphil 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits are not appropriate
The recent edits add material that has been cherry-picked to imply a criticism of PRA that is not accurate. Most of the quote deals with two other organizations. This is biased POV and should be removed.--Cberlet (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems the professors are making an important and highly appropriate criticism that while they may use PRA (mentioned specifically) and other named groups' information for "general information" purposes, as sociologists they consider them prejudiced and have to warn readers that even using only general info, errors may creep in. (Unfortunately, they don't make the statement as clearly and succinctly as they could.)
- Throughout the book they use 5 references from PRA - and three from Chip himself. It seems like an important criticism from people who have studied the same groups as PRA has but more objectively. I don't have a problem with quoting more of what they say until the point becomes clear. Any more neutral editors have anything to say?? Carol Moore 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
POV Misrepresentation
User:Carolmooredc is a well known conspiracy theorist with a grudge. Outside of Misplaced Pages I am a colleague of Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, and the quoted material is taken out of context. I asked months ago that this be reviewed, and nothing has been done. Please discuss this here.--Cberlet (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Please remove the personal attack per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.
- 2) Obviously it's a WP:conflict of interest for you to remove material from the article that summarizes a criticism of your employer, and especially to use personal attacks in doing so.
- 3) Who did you ask to review this entry, where?
- 4) You certainly can comment on or offer a counter summary to correct any inaccuracies. I've tweaked the summary below and would put it in chronologically as the first criticism.
- Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), in their introduction to The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride”, admit that they "at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement," naming Political Research Associates as one of those organizations. They consider these groups to be "watchdog" organizations that "are setting particular agendas." They note that "what the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America." REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3. (See Books.Google.com or Amazon.com versions.) Carol Moore 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- The material does not appear to directly discuss PRA, but rather makes more general points about "watchdog groups". Please restrict the article to material that is directly about PRA, not about "watchdog groups" in general. Jayjg 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), in their introduction to The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride”, admit that they "at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement," naming Political Research Associates as one of those organizations. They consider these groups to be "watchdog" organizations that "are setting particular agendas." They note that "what the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America." REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3. (See Books.Google.com or Amazon.com versions.) Carol Moore 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Hello, Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here :-) Here is the actual paragraph that I am summarizing. It clearly is referring directly to PRA as well as other groups.
- Since little social scientific writing on the current movement exists, we at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement. The most prominent ones that publish their own materials are the Anti-Defamation league of B’Nai B’rith (AD), the Center ofr Democratic Renewal (CDR), Coalition for Human Dignity (CHD), Political Research Associates (PRA), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with its Klanwatch Project. In a sense, we consider these groups to be ‘watchdog’ organizations that engage in claims making, ‘promoting the ‘assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions’. Claims makers no only draw our attention to certain conditions (Spector and Kitsuse 1975:75) but also “inevitably choose to focus on particular aspects of the condition” (Best 1989:xx). In giving attention to certain causes, they are setting particular agendas. What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fac that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. Carol Moore 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
<-------- And if that whole paragraph was used, the comments would not be framed in such a biased perjorative way as the text crafted by Carolmooredc. Note that this text is part of the book where the authors discuss their POV and possible issues of bias--a practice common in social science. It is the twisting of the words and context that I object to, especially since they both have a favorable view of the work of PRA and my work outside of Wiki as Chip Berlet.--Cberlet (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, they are talking about the biases of some of the sources they use --as they put it -- "at times". So obviously they found the material of some use. I think my summary fairly reflects what they say.
- As for whether they favor some other PRA writing or project or the organization itself, you could always provide a quote from one of their published works to counter their criticism in this context.
- Misplaced Pages has rules. We can't just take your word for it they "favor" PRA in such a way that what they wrote earlier is irrelevant and should not be included herein. Just like we cannot find it acceptable for an employee of an organization to insult people who criticize their employer to try to get them to drop a WP:RS criticism. Carol Moore 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- This is what you posted on the entry page, Carolmooredc:
- Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” wrote about Political Research Associates and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.”
- It is neither a fair nor accurate summary of the full paragraph, and an unrelated sentence about ADL and SPLC is spliced in to imply wrongdoing on the part of PRA. A biased and cooked summary.--Cberlet (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is what you posted on the entry page, Carolmooredc:
- I have a new version in
italicsbold above. Cooperative editing means looking at people's attempts to deal with concerns. Plus, again, if you have some quote from the authors about how wonderful and reliable PRA is, that also could be included as a caveat. Carol Moore 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- I have a new version in
- It's a copyright violation. --Cberlet (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- First I goofed about what my alternative summary and quotes was. It wasn't the full paragraph which is what is in italics; it is section in bold above. Second none of the versions are over 500 words and are not copyright violations. Since no other people are commenting, I'll ask for another opinion and hopefully an unbiased editor will appear to comment :-) Carol Moore 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Actually, the idea that fair use is 500 words is a common myth. It is not true.--Cberlet (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this more than complies with . Using 59 odd quoted words from a source integrated into a three sentence summary is common wiki usage. Of course, if i only include a summary you'll say it's POV misinterpretation. Classic double bind. Lucking Misplaced Pages has lots of resources for dispute resolution. Carol Moore 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Third opinion
Allow me to ask what seems like the obvious question - what is the use of this particular quote? what are you trying to use it to say? The full quote itself does not strike me as particularly critical of Dobratz and Shanks (it seems like a fairly standard academic explanation for their choice of data); in fact the full quote doesn't strike me as particularly informative, in that all it really says is that they chose quotes from opposition groups on the grounds that they were more like watchdog groups. if someone can explain how this is being used, that would go a long way towards figuring out how to phrase it. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- This quote was in the criticisms section. It is a more subtle criticism than the National Review calling PRA researchers "conspiracy mongers" or David Horowitz Freedom Center accusing "PRA mainstay Chip Berlet of engaging in "smear" tactics." But a subtle criticism from a reliable source may be more educational about the working of advocacy groups from an encyclopedic viewpoint than an insult from an opponent.
- Also I remain troubled by the fact that the PRA employee/ wiki editor Chip Berlet is smearing me above (on what grounds I know not) for daring to include this criticism. Also, despite my requests, he has not backed up his claim that the authors actually regard his group highly, which I certainly would be willing to add as a sentence after their comments quoted from the book. Carol Moore 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Ok, but it does pose a bit of a problem, sourcing-wise. the quote is from the authors themselves, and any academic would see this as a normal declaration in a research article. i.e., academics would read this as D&S stating their reasons for making a particular choice in data collection, and D&S would write it explicitly so that other academics could make a proper analysis of their results. no academic would consider this to be an example of bias (bias would be if D&S tried to hide the fact that they used a potentially problematic source - the disclosure is considered good research practice). this makes our usage of it here a form of original research - what we really want is secondary academic sources that criticize D&S's usage of these 'watchdogs'; we can't make that critique from examining their primary research.
- Of course, neither the National Review nor the Horowitz Freedom Center can claim to be giving a neutral analysis either; those are both clearly partisan opinions and not scientific reviews. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are exactly right. Jayjg 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does Misplaced Pages policy discourage the use of sources that represent clearly partisan opinions? If so, this could have a bearing on the use of Chip Berlet and PRA as sources, which is remarkably widespread at Misplaced Pages, quite possibly out of proportion with their notability. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment is irrelevant to this page, and to the discussion above. Please restrict your comments to discussions of the content of this article. Jayjg 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ludwigs' comments go way beyond anything I want to argue. I guess I'll let National Review and Horowitz have at it. :-) And just find an administrator to remove Berlet's insults per wiki policies. Carol Moore 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Your comment is irrelevant to this page, and to the discussion above. Please restrict your comments to discussions of the content of this article. Jayjg 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does Misplaced Pages policy discourage the use of sources that represent clearly partisan opinions? If so, this could have a bearing on the use of Chip Berlet and PRA as sources, which is remarkably widespread at Misplaced Pages, quite possibly out of proportion with their notability. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are exactly right. Jayjg 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, neither the National Review nor the Horowitz Freedom Center can claim to be giving a neutral analysis either; those are both clearly partisan opinions and not scientific reviews. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jayjg - I'm not certain Neils' comment is irrelevant to this page, and I think it deserves an answer regardless.
- Niels - Misplaced Pages policy does not discourage sources that represent clearly partisan interests, so long as the particular biases of those sources are clearly presented (i.e., an anti- or pro- source is perfectly fine, so long as it is presented as an anti- or pro- source, and not as a neutral position). the way I prefer to interpret these issues is to consider a partisan source as a primary source - someone doing primary research with the effort of establishing a point, rather than someone doing secondary research that uses or explains other people's points. primary sources are useful (see WP:PRIMARY) to establish facts or opinions from a given side in an argument, but can't be taken as neutral without the editor engaging in original research. If Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources (which I can't tell without looking at them more closely) then it is very possible that they are being used to excess. the way to be sure is to consider whether editors have to use some kind of synthesis in order to make the points Berlat et al are making appear as general consensus or established fact.
- let me take a moment and look at this page, to see if that error has been made here. --Ludwigs2 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- One of the benefits of editing on contentious pages (and why I keep it up on a couple pages I edit - or try to) is you learn so much more about wiki-editing so much faster. Sometimes it can be mind boggling, like your posts above. But once one studies the comments and then compares with various policies often one comes away much more enlightened on how to be a good editor and how to deal with some of the nonsense people come up with even on less contentious pages. Thanks! Carol Moore 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Also, re: whether "Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources" this has been discussed at least once, probably more on
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, including in archives. I am helping build this page to keep track of discussions of sources relevant to Israel-Palestine and all related issues, including groups like this that sometimes comment on the issue. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_Reliable_Sources_Discussions. It will be finished in about a week. Carol Moore 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- cool, I'll look in on that. thanks. :-) --Ludwigs2 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No reliable sources present in the article to establish notability
Article is self-promotion and the org is sketchy Bashfan34 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Categories: