Revision as of 01:58, 19 November 2005

The following Misplaced Pages contributor 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. Cberlet (talk · contribs)

/Archive 1

Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_terms

I note that there has been a minor fuss in the article over the use of the word "fringe." I would propose that in the interest of compliance with Misplaced Pages policy on weasel terms, the word "fringe" should simply be eliminated from this article (which has been dominated by Chip's POV posse if not Cberlet himself.) It could certainly be argued that a number of chip's perennial targets enjoy more respect and support around the world than Chip himself does, so for the article to routinely brand all of Chip's opponents as "fringe" this and that, without making a similar observation about Chip, is unacceptably POV. Better to just drop the term altogether. --HK 14:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

AGREED. Well stated, HK. Not many people in America know who Chip Berlet is, or have heard of him. Lyndon LaRouche has far more name recognition. I think there is some Berlet-LaRouche battle going on on Misplaced Pages. I have read through various talk pages covering it. They are interesting discussions, but it seems that some of the battles date back to the 1970's and early 1980's, which is quite a long time ago. Nonetheless, Chip Berlet is more "fringe" than Lyndon LaRouche to the majority of Americans and the English speaking world, as LaRouche has more name recognition by a long shot. Let's drop the term altogether, or be consistent in applying it. Working for "High Times" magazine is pretty fringe if you ask me. DannyZz 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about "convicted crook and neofascist" instead of fringe for LaRouche? --Cberlet 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, How about "pot-smoker and High Times Magazine employee: instead of fringe for Chip Berlet? DannyZz 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, so your flippant comments are not helpful. In any case, writing one article for a magazine hardly qualifies a writer as an employee. Was he a staff writer? -Willmcw 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He was Washington, D.C. bureau chief. --HK 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you've got a source for that we should include it in the article. -Willmcw 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Is HK meant to be posting here? I thought he was banned from talk pages as well as articles, though perhaps this one isn't included. Chip's name is well known among journalists, who make up a large percentage of the people who use Political Research Associates as a source. He's not seen as a fringe journalist at all. SlimVirgin 02:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly fair to say that Chip Berlet hails from the far left wing of the political spectrum, so if coming from an extreme such as that makes one "fringe" the term is just as fairly applied to this article's subject as it is to anyone he criticizes. HK and DannyZz are correct on this one regardless of what one thinks of the LaRouchies - abide by NPOV and that means dropping the weasel terms unless you're willing to apply them to everybody. As to Berlet being "well known" among journalists, a Lexis-Nexis search of full texts for major U.S. newspapers in their holdings over the past two years shows his name appearing in a grand whopping total of just 11 articles. One of them is an opinion piece he himself co-authored and submitted to the op-ed page of a paper. In the remaining 10 his name is regularly qualified by the terms including "progressive" and "radical left wing" and descriptions of his group as a liberal organization that monitors the right/conservatives/christian fundamentalists etc. A search for "Political Research Associates" over the last two years similarly produces only 8 articles, most of them the same ones pulled up by the Berlet search. As a point of comparison, the SPLC's hit count for the past two years in the same database is 307. For SPLC's main spokesmen Mark Potok gets 58 and Morris Dees gets 60. Elsewhere in the political left's "civil rights" crowd Julian Bond gets 400, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton each get over 1,000, Kweisi Mfume gets 443, and Louis Farrakhan gets 324. For that matter even Quanell X of the neo-Black Panther party outnumbers Berlet's cites some five times over with 56 hits in the last two years! If anything Berlet's a minor figure in a big pond of liberal "civil rights" activists. To pretend that he's some sort of widely respected and quoted mainstream journalism figure is simply a delusion. That's not to say that he shouldn't have an article - only that the article should not exhibit a pro-Berlet POV and should not be a case example of a "legend in his own mind" syndrome. Rangerdude 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox

It seems Mr. Berlet said publicly, "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter"; can the allegation of not being ethical be substantiated. nobs 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoted in published article by Robert Stacy McCain, "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat," THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 9, 2000, http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/wilcox.html. That took 30 seconds on Google, Nobs, this is just petty harassment.--Cberlet 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet said it; the question is what evidence is there (a) to support the statement (b) to republize it. nobs 20:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We're quoting Chip Berlet. It's a quote. I hope you're always this meticulous, Nobs. SlimVirgin 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Who is Laird Wilcox?

Wilcox is the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements at the University of Kansas, one of the largest of its kind in the world, which contains hundreds of thousands of documents on all political movements. He is also editor and publisher of annual guides on extremism. See Laird Wilcox, Guide To The American Right & Left (1997). 129.24.93.233 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo

The color photo and the B/W photos were taken about the same date, and the publicity shot is clearer and a better photo. The color photo is not fair use. It has been filshed without permission or proper credit. It does not belong on Misplaced Pages. The B/W photo has an explicit permission for use on Misplaced Pages. Please stop playing these stupid games with the photos. It is childish.--Cberlet 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Age of Aquarius" studio shot that presently graces this article, makes the article look like a commercial promo for Chip's business venture. I think it would be more encyclopediac to use this candid shot. --HK 21:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about Berlet, and we have a photograph of him on the page already. No need to replace it with one of your propaganda shots showing him with someone else. SlimVirgin 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Propaganda shots"? Please explain. --HK 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You want to make some kind of point, just as Cognition did when she uploaded the distorted photo. You're both arguably disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and it's tiresome, so please stop. SlimVirgin 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Slim, as WP:FAITH requires of you. It's one thing to politely explain why the old photo should be kept, but another to berate people who disagree with you and continuously accuse them of bad faith, so please stop the latter. Rangerdude 23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you by any chance wikistalking me, Randerdude? I sincerely hope not, given your reputation for activism on that front. SlimVirgin 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you've apparently forgotten that your effort to prevent me from editing this article failed, I'll simply remind you that I've been a participant in editing here for some time now, Slim. Nor do I intend to abandon this article, thus when you or anybody else starts harassing other people who are editing it you'll likely find me commenting here and directing your attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Few people familliar with the facts of the case would see it as harassment, I wager. HK's et al. RfARs and related policies have long been institutionalized into Misplaced Pages. I would advise avoiding further (unresearched) conforntations while your own Arbitration case remains ongoing —to avoid the appearence of these being seen as provocations— as ultimately in your best interests. Thanks. El_C 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's funny you mention the link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, El_C, given its following finding..."6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Passed 5-1-1." Perhaps she's not the only one who's forgotten that of late. Rangerdude 04:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo was distorted to make Berlet look obese "in good faith" but I doubt it. I'm surprised to hear an editor here saying that everyone is required to assume good faith about the deeds of others, as that same editor has frequently complained about the bad faith of other editors. In fact, ew can only assume good faith until bad faith has been proven. Uploading a distorted photo of a political opponent is a strong indication of bad faith, and given the history of the editor who did so, the assumption of good faith may be misplaced. -Willmcw 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! Rangerdude, that arbcom ruling has become something of a personal logo for you, hasn't it? I wonder how many times you've quoted it in the last few months. Never mind, you'll soon have one of your own to replace it with. SlimVirgin 04:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Seems Mr. Chip Berlet played an important role in the origins of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982—the very Law at the heart of the Valerie Plame Affair.

From Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 122 (PDF) ISBN 0-933592-89-2:

"Who is Phillip Agee? He is a renegade Central Intelligence Officer implicated in revealing the names of CIA officials in a manner leading to their endangerment, and in at least one case, that of Richard Welch, their death.124 Agee was deeply involved in the antigovernment Counterspy magazine, which made a practice of such disclosures. According to an item in Security Intelligence newsletter:

Agee...left the agency in 1968 and began exposing CIA officers and operations through lectures, magazines and books.125

Referring to Counterspy, a Washington Post editorial asked, "What other result than the killing did Mr. Butz and his colleagues at Counterspy expect when they fingered Mr. Welch?"126 Butz, incidentally, was on the editorial staff of The Public Eye, along with Chip Berlet and Russ Bellant.127

124 Richard S. Welch,Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16.

125 To The Surprise Of A Few...., Security Intelligence (24 August 1992), 5.

126 Welch, Op Cit.

127 Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.

Soon thereafter, Intelligence Identities Protection Act was passed.

In 1991 Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz released a revised version of their Reading List On Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression... The list notes that "This is the reading list circulated by Phil Agee at his Speakout lectures."121

121 Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, 1991).

And continuing,

U.S. Senator John Chaffee, a ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence pointed out in the Congressional Record:

"At the time of the Welch assassination, Counterspy magazine claimed they had leaked the names of 225 alleged CIA agents. Now, five years later, Louis Wolf of Covert Action Information Bulletin can boast that he has helped to disclose the names of more than 2,000 American intelligence officers stationed around the world.128 Louis Wolf, incidentally, is listed as being on the advisory board of Political Research Associates on PRA’s 1999 letterhead.129

128 For The Record, Washington Post, 27 July 1980.

129 Letterhead, Political Research Associates, 1999.

This appears to be one documented corpse associated with Mr. Berlet's "links & ties". nobs 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

3 more corpses

On 13 January 1984 an open letter to Judge Charles Sifton entitled “Political Grand Juries Must Be Stopped!” appeared in the New York-based Marxist-Leninist, weekly, Guardian. …Among its signers were Chip Berlet and Jean Hardisty.

Other signers included convicted spy Morton Sobel, William Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy, attorneys active in the National Lawyers Guild…the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)… May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), National Lawyers Guild (NLG)... and the Youth International Party (YIP).104

The PFOC, formed in 1974, was the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), the terrorist spin-off from Students For a Democratic Society (SDS).

…Judith Clark, now serving a long sentence for murder in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery undertaken to fund radical leftist activities...

The May 19th Communist Organization acquired its notoriety from the role of several members in the attempted holdup of a Brinks armored truck in Nyack, NY, in November 1981 that left two policemen and one security guard dead...

Approximately six months later on 11 July 1984 another letter, this time addressed “To All Progressive People,” appeared in the Marxist-Leninist Guardian weekly...

Among the over one hundred signers—a virtual who’s who of the extreme radical left—were Chip Berlet and Jean Hardisty. Other signers included David Gilbert, Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark, all members of the radical Weather Underground organization and all serving prison sentences for the murder of a Brinks armored truck guard in 1981.

104 Guardian (11 January 1984).

110 Guardian (11 July 1984), reprinted in Stop The Grand Jury, John Brown Anti-Klan Committee (November 1984).

See Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 118, 119. nobs 21:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

continue the body count

"During the 1960s and 1970s the NLG (National Lawyers Guild) experienced considerable growth with the rise of the radical student movement. Several NLG figures were violent revolutionaries, including… Judith Clark, now serving a long sentence for murder in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery undertaken to fund radical leftist activities.

"An article in a 1981 issue of Military Police journal detailed the criminal careers of several National Lawyers Guild members as follows:

...Carlos Zapata who was killed in Denver by a bomb he was planting at a VFW hall on 22 March 1978. He was...involved in the National Lawyers Guild-sponsored ‘Police Crimes Task Force.’

…Francisco Kiko Martinez, also an attorney, was killed in a car when a bomb they were transporting exploded.

"The article by Detective Arleigh McCree, a former military police officer who became Officer in Charge, Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, observes that "The NLG continues to act as a clearinghouse and as an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism."

Sgt. A. McCree, A Case For Self-Defense, Military Police (Summer 1981).

Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 116-117. ISBN 0-993592-96-5 nobs 22:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See also biographical scetch which reads

" has also served as a paralegal on other intelligence abuse and civil liberties cases filed against local police, the FBI, CIA and Military Intelligence on behalf of groups such as the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago, National Lawyers Guild..." (emphasis added);

also Archived comments at ,

"I actually spent several years as a paralegal document analyst for a series of lawsuits aginst the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, and local police "Red Squads." ,

and

"I mostly researched Chicago, New York, and Detroit, but knew folks who researched the Milwaukee Red Squad. Also, see this list ",

with a link to PRA at Agencies Exchanging Political Spying Intelligence With the Chicago Police Department Intelligence Division (CPD/IU). nobs 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Arleigh McCree is honored at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, killed in the line of duty, 8 February 1986. Richard Welch name is inscribed in CIA's Book of Honor and his star is one of 83 on CIA's Memorial Wall for those who gave thier lives in the line of duty. nobs 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More skeletons in the closet

"On 25 September 1995 the second annual "Midwest Ant-Fascist Network" (MAFNET) held a three-day conference in Columbus, Ohio. Speakers included Chip Berlet as well as:

"Rita Bo Brown, former member of the nominally terrorist George Jackson Brigade (JGB). Jackson was killed in August 1970 when his brother attempted to free him from Soledad Prison by bursting in to a Marin County, CA, courtroom handing guns to three convicts and taking five hostages. In the shootout that ensued five people were killed including the judge." nobs 03:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Rita Bo Brown giving guns to convicts in an escape. Do you have a source please? Thanks, -Willmcw 04:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We're discussing Mr. Chip Berlet's links and ties using Mr. Chip Berlet's and PRA own methodology. nobs 04:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Why is this on the talk page? -Willmcw 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 127 . nobs 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits to the text made it appear that Brown was the one who gave the guns, so I added in tha unedited text - pardon me for editing your posting. Again, why is this here? -Willmcw05:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--As aptly demonstrated by the body count (including two NLG suicide bombers), Mr. Berlet appears to have "links & ties" to violent and extremist political organizations. nobs 05:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What is your definition of "links and ties"? Some of these appear to be quite tenuous. -Willmcw 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Using Mr. Chip Berlet's biographical scetch here,

"Political Research Associates (PRA) is an independent, nonprofit research center that unmasks the US political right. PRA collects and analyzes information on anti-democratic, authoritarian, and racist right-wing movements and publishes educational resources that explain their ideologies, tactics, agendas, financing and links to each other."

This is the identical language cited in Wilcox, The Watchdogs, p. 114-115, which he cites as retrieved from www.guidestar.org./search/, the internet search service of Philantropic Research, Inc., and both appear to be a self-styled discription. Wilcox continues with,

"What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of PRA itself, including the fact that those “anti-democratic” movements fail to include Marxist-Leninist and extreme leftist movements unless they are in sectarian dispute with PRA. As for the “links to each other,” PRA’s “links” are examined here in detail. "

This is used in the same context of both Political Research Associates and Mr. Wilcox's report, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties". nobs 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More disininformation

"In order to grasp the apparent affinity both Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates and Leonard Zeskind and the Center for Democratic Renewal had for the now-defunct Marxist-Leninist (and sometime Maoist) publication, Guardian, it may help to know a little of its background... launched as the National Guardian in October 1948 by James Aronson, Cedric Belfrage and John McManus...Contributors included pro-Communist writers such as Agnes Smedley and Anna Louise Strong It also carried dispatches from Wilfred Burchett...

Burchett is most notorious for his false reports on American germ warfare in the Korean War*...

Burchett assisted in the extraction of "confessions" from American pilot POWs.

In 1998, however news reports noted:

...documents from Russia's Presidential Archive finally prove, more than four decades after the fact, that the United States was the victim of a disinformation campaign scripted by North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union.

A report by Lavernti Beria, head ot Soviet intelligence, outlined the deception: "False plague regions were created, burials...were organized, measures were taken to recieve the plague and cholera bacillus."161

"Whatever the nature of the relationship between Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates and...Guardian, it's significant that both parties regularly attempt to "link and tie" opposing individuals and groups with the publications they have written for or were favorably reported in. If one uses the standards suggested by their own writings, their "links" with the Guardian bear looking into...

161 Bruce B. Auster, "Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax," U.S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), 52.

• Editor's note: 15,000 Americans remain MIA or unaccounted from the Korean War; testimony has been given that custody of 15,000 captured American POWs were illegally transferred to the Soviet Union, where they were forced to walk from North Korea to Siberia, and all are presumed to have perished in Siberian Gulags. nobs 04:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss edits, not re-post source material. Is there an edit that this concerns? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to craft language from this to provide NPOV, so the article will look less like the solicitation and advertising for Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates than it does now. nobs 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Craft language"? Why would we craft language? We're here to summarize verifiable sources in an NPOV manner. Dumping strangely-edited source material on the talk page might not be the best way to get there. -Willmcw 06:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Summarize? You mean just total the body count without supplying context? nobs 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What "body count"? Are you implying that Berlet has personally killed people? -Willmcw 06:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As this source has presented, Mr. Berlet & PRA has links and ties with violent organizations responsible for the deaths of 14 persons, including 2 NLG lawyers that blew themselves up in the midst of terrorist activities. nobs 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Links and ties"? Apparently in one case that meant speaking at the same symposious as someone who once belonged to a gang, other members of which committed some murders. Is that a link or a tie? If we use those three degrees of separation, every body in this encyclopedia has "ties and links" to those responsible for violent deaths. This is beginning to sound like original reseasrch. -Willmcw 06:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is Mr. Berlet, and PRA's, own methodology. This methodology is (a) what made Mr. Berlet the 'authority' he is today (b) continued practice of both Mr. Berlet and PRA. It the subject of the entire source article. Laird Wilcox applies Mr. Berlet's own standards to Mr. Berlet, and the organizations he is associated with. This may be the only way to give NPOV to Chip Berlet and PRA, given thier acceptance now in some circles as an authority. nobs 06:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We're not PRA. We have a different methodology here, which every editor is expected to follow. It's certainly fine to mention Baird's criticism of Berlet, but if we come up with our own criticisms, or "bodycounts", then we'd be violating our methodology. NPOV requires that we represent all notable points of view, not that we dig up derogatory material. -Willmcw 07:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If true, this is certainly a refreshing change of direction. Have you informed Cberlet and SlimVirgin? --HK 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs - If I may propose a possible solution... One way of handling the factual material you are presenting would be to create a new article about the Guardian publication. It would be appropriate to include cited factual material about this publication on that article. As far as Chip Berlet's affiliations with it go, they could be described in a source NPOV sentence that wikilinks to the Guardian article. I believe the result would satisfy NPOV, WP:CITE and other applicable policies. Rangerdude 08:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the current level of interest in the Plame affair, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act article reads,

"Some commentators, in fact, say the law was specifically targeted at his actions",

directly linked to this,

"Referring to CounterSpy, a Washington Post editorial asked, "What other result than the killing of Richard Welch did Mr. Timothy Butz and his colleagues at CounterSpy expect when they fingered Mr. Welch?" Butz, incidentally, was on the editorial staff of The Public Eye, along with Chip Berlet and Russ Bellant.

"Richard S. Welch", Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16.

Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.

Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 122-123. ISBN 0-993592-96-5

See also John E. Mulligan, "Agent-ID bill had its roots in R.I.", Providence Journal-Bulletin, 22 October 2003 LexusNexus

This is extremely unusual, that a federal law is passed primarily targeted at the behavior of a few of individuals, Philip Agee, Timothy Butz, Chip Berlet, and Louis Wolf. Also note, Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979 of the Public Eye has been sanitized from The Public Eyes site. Here is the current list of Public Eye "Featured Authors" . Given the level of interest, I would suggest the starting point is to complete the CounterSpy and Richard Welch articles to lay some of the foundation of Mr. Berlet's links and ties to violent extremist groups. nobs 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See --> User:Nobs01 for testimony on treatment of Korean War prisoners. nobs 21:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

body count (cont.)

"In 1983 an issue of The Public Eye contained a statement by Cathy Wilkerson, a captured fugitive from the ill-fated Weather Underground terrorist bomb factory that blew up in March 1970 killing three people...

113 The Public Eye (Volume IV, Issues 1 & 2, 1983), 20-21. nobs 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See Court TV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army.

"Two 1980's homegrown American terrorist groups, one white and one black, join their brutal forces to fund their anti-American causes with the Brink's robbery and cold-blooded murder of New York cops." nobs 05:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NLG

"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.97

97 Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 161. nobs 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a proper cite, but the point is the point you make is neither notable nor is it the defining characteristic of the NLG, which is better known for many other things. I oppose the "which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism" fragment because it is clearly intended to be inflammatory, not informative. Threatening to add more cites doesn't address that problem. You're going to need to find a more accurate and less inflammatory way to describe the NLG, I'm afraid. Simply tossing out a cite doesn't help you. You need more than a cite to support a fundamentally uninformative, inflammatory statement like that. Make a proper justification for it here or accept that it's contested and does not benefit from consensus WP:CON. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I reverted your edit because the source appears to be a police sergeant speaking 24 years ago, and that's not an authoritative source for such a strong statement. See WP:RS, which says that the more controversial the edit, the better the source needs to be. Also, it isn't appropriate to tuck this information away in a footnote, and this article uses a References section, not a Notes section. See WP:CITE for the need for consistency of citation style within articles. That apart, the sentence would have to read "which has been described as X by Y," to make it clear who is making the claim. Can you find a better source? If this is a commonly held view of the NLG, someone else is bound to have said it, and more recently than 1981. SlimVirgin 06:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Court TV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army, refers to them as terrorists; all the information is available for reputable sources.

SlimVirgin: Also Arleigh McRee is honored hero at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, killed in the line of duty fighting domestic terrorism, 10 June 1997; may perhaps tread carefully before we get into the game of trashing sources. nobs 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, can you say which page the terrorist reference is made in the crimelibrary article, because it's not on the first page and it looks very long (also, is this a good source)? Secondly, whether or not someone is an honored hero is beside the point in terms of whether he's an authoratitive source regarding which groups are to be considered as "terrorists." If this is a widespread view, someone authoritative must have said it: perhaps one of the law societies? SlimVirgin 06:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--
SlimVirgin:

• The story "The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army" (scroll down & click) is in this index from Court TV Crime Library (also, see Categories in green in upper left, "Terrorists, Spies, Assassins, etc"). Court TV's production can be fully qualified, it's purpose is to give contemporaneous background.

• As to Arleigh McRee, reading this biographical scetch , this courageous hero was not content to sit behind a desk and just write articles in 1981, rolled up his sleeves and was fighting domestic terrorists, defending the lives of innocents, when he was killed defusing a bomb in 1997 (I can barely restrain the tears). He is deserving of his own namespace article, author, hero, sacrificing his life in defence of others.

• As to the objection "speaking 24 years ago", again the source document gives this direct, relevent context:

"A 1981 issue of the publication states unequivocally that 'The Public Eye is produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes.' It also lists Chip Berlet as a managing editor. "

95 The Public Eye, Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).

Source: Wilcox, p. 115.

• Both citations are from 24 years ago.

• As has now been aptly documented and demonstrated per WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS, this is direct relevent biographical material, and will be inserted properly into the namespace. nobs 19:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but could you say exactly what you're using Court TV (or crime library or whatever it was) as a source for, and could you please quote the part you are using, quote it exactly, then tell me exactly where I can find it (not linking to an article with 27 pages or whatever it was)? Because I currently can't see what you mean.

Regarding using a sergeant as a source from 1981, I don't feel happy about that, because it's not what anyone would call an authoritative source. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? SlimVirgin 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(A) I am not proposing using any material from the Court TV source (yet); I present it here in Talk to give some background to the issues raised in Laird Wilcox's Report p. 114-131. (Of course, material from Court TV, or other WP:RS's could be used if the Chip Berlet article needs to be expanded because of an unwillingness or read the Wilcox material). (B) Arleigh McCree fully qualifies McCree, and resistance to this material can devour time, but will ultimately fail. The question is how much of the Wilcox material needs to inserted into Chip Berlet namespace to present NPOV. nobs 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

wording

Proposed text:

• "Berlet is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism". A 1981 issue of The Public Eye states that it is "produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes."

Notes

• ^1 Sgt. Arleigh McCree, 'A Case For Self-Defense,' Military Police (Summer 1981), quoted in Laird Wilcox, http://tcbhatecrew.net/text/the_watchdogs_a_close_look_at_antiracist_watchdog_groups-%20Laird%20Wilcox.pdf, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 115-117. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.
• Laird Wilcox, http://tcbhatecrew.net/text/the_watchdogs_a_close_look_at_antiracist_watchdog_groups-%20Laird%20Wilcox.pdf, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 115. ISBN 0-993592-96-5. nobs 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nobs, I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear here. When you say "Berlet is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism"., could you please supply a link for me, here on talk, to the exact page (not just the article) that actually says this? I can't find it. SlimVirgin 20:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem: http://tcbhatecrew.net/text/the_watchdogs_a_close_look_at_antiracist_watchdog_groups-%20Laird%20Wilcox.pdf p.117]. nobs 20:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, thanks for the link. First, it's not Laird Wilcox saying this; it's the police sergeant. I'm still not sure how good a source he is. What do others think? SlimVirgin 01:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In studying this issue, I found only one person who trashes Laird Wilcox, and that is Chip Berlet. I asked Mr. Berlet 8 weeks ago to respond to what Mr. Wilcox discovered, and Mr. Berlet only provided a link to another page that says the same thing Berlet says in the namespace here . Given the time allowed to respond, one can only conclude Mr. Berlet is either unable or unwilling to substantiate his charge. nobs 02:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd sources

It appears that a large amount of info is being added to this page from an article on the Volksfront website: http://www.volksfrontinternational.com/, also known as http://tcbhatecrew.net. Is it really a reliable source? I'd say that it is an extremist group. -Willmcw 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox is a respected investigative journalist of all extremist groups http://www.lairdwilcox.com/; his copyright work includes an ISBN. His book, Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on the fringe, Prometheus Books, 1992. ISBN 0879756802 is a classic in the field of studying extremists groups, and recommended by Nizkor, among others. Here is an excellent review, see for example what Wilcox says aout the IHR, for example,

"hampers our understanding of important issues, muddies the waters of discourse with invective, defamation, self-righteousness, fanaticism, and hatred and impairs our ability to make intelligent well-informed choices.", other references, too. nobs 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Arleigh McCree opinion can stay in. He gets only 40 unique Google hits. I'll find the part of the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be. It seems to me that this is in violation of NPOV, in that it's a tiny-minority claim. SlimVirgin 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can't find the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be, except that there's a header in WP:RS saying "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," or words to that effect.

However, the Sgt McCree claim has to be excluded on three grounds, in my view: (1) McCree is not clearly a notable figure or an expert in the area; he gets very few Google hits, for example; (2) According to Amazon, the Wilcox book is self-published, so this book can't be regarded as a reputable source for Misplaced Pages; and (3) McCree's view seems to be a tiny-minority one, which has no place in an article about Chip Berlet. Quoting WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, both policy, quoting Jimbo:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So Nobs, I feel this material has to be excluded until you can find a more mainstream source for it, so that we know we're not publishing self-published tiny-minority views. SlimVirgin 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(Written before I read your above post...due to edit conflict)

Slim:I would recommend reading all 16 pages of Wilcox's report, and some of the issues raised under various subheads here (by far, not all the issues, only those linking associations with violent political organizations that have caused deaths, including their own members). Some of this material must be presented for NPOV. Please see my comments under Talk:Chip Berlet#More disininformation in connection with the section on the Guardian, another Soviet organ. For a human rights activist, this stands in marked contrast to the findings of this Commission (JCSD). I am happy with the inclusion & two footnotes as they exist now. So I would recommend studying all the evidence, and even allowing Mr. Berlet to respond. But as Mr. Berlet can probably attest, his efforts to suppress information have too often resulted in the bulk & the weight of evidence being inserted. Thank you. nobs 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Laird Wilcox thing is self-published, we can't use it. If the McCree view is a tiny-minority view, we can't include it. That is the NPOV policy. If you want to include this material, find a reputable source. If you can't find one, that should tell you something. SlimVirgin 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The McCree quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with Berlet, and apparently is a way of introducing a POV about the Guild. Apparently this is not a notable criticism of the Guild since it isn't even mention in National Lawyers Guild (yet). Criticisms in this article should be about Berlet, not second hand attacks on groups he was associated with. If the criticism doesn't directly refer to Berlet, then I don't see the need to have it here. -Willmcw 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This objection was handled last night; Berlet still refers to himself as "past" vice-president; Wilcox documents that (A) The Public Eye is an organ of NLG; (B) Berlet was managing editor in 1981; (C) McCree's comment is contemporaneous with Berlet's tenure. The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary. nobs 04:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Berlet's association with NLG ‘Police Crimes Task Force’, which he's discussed with me personally; Carlos Zapata was associated with the group. nobs 04:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a smear. Unless the criticism is made about Berlet in particular, this article is not the place for criticisms of the National Lawyers Guild. Furthermore, unless the police officer in question is a notable attorney, I fail to see how his opinion is relevant. --Viriditas 06:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--
Laird Wilcox, "foremost expert in analyzing right and left wing extremism" (Military Law Review), ; I would suggest becoming familiar with Mr. Wilcox and his reputation before engaging in these types of smears against him. nobs 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Slim: read all the material, digest it, examine Mr. Wilcox presentation of Mr. Berlet's somewhat checkered background (sentiments aside). Then you may see what now exists is fair and NPOV, and only a fraction of what is presented. Look at the record: you objected to a twenty-four year old citation -- documentation was then added to prove (1) The Public Eye was an organ of NLG (2) Mr. Berlet was managing editor at the time. I was happy with the simple citation, but you demanded the second footnote. Moving the goal post isn't gonna work. Again, I recommend some effort be made to examine The Watchdogs, and let's not allow personal sentiments to obscure objective reading. Thank you. nobs 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I've no idea what you're talking about: the second footnote, moving the goalposts. I asked you maybe four times for a link to the source of your claim, because I couldn't find it, and you eventually provided one. It's a self-published book, which I didn't realize until I looked it up. We can't use it. Secondly, the source it quotes (McCree) is himself not a good one. So we have one poor source quoting another poor source, self-published by the first poor source, and yet the claim being made is a very serious one. I repeat: if you believe this is not a tiny-minority view, then please produce a more mainstream source. If you can't find another source, it means it's a tiny-minority view, and publishing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This is a question of policy and trying to do responsible research, not a question of "allow personal sentiments to obscure objective reading." SlimVirgin 03:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim: I am sorry for the confusion regarding finding that cite on the page (it was confusing, because Wilcox cited it on page 115, then refered back to it again on page 117, and I thought I gave the right page the first time). Anyway, this material will not be suppressed, I recommend you become familiar with it before you start trashing it. Once you are familiar with its substance, you may see the first insertion I made was reasonable and NPOV. If you want to spend weeks discussing the Weather Underground, Philip Agee, the Covert Action Information Bulletin, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the murder of Richard Welch, the May 19th Communist Organization, National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Korean War MIA's, and few other things (let's limit the discussion to associations with violent organizations for now), fine. In the end, you may wish the namespace only included "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism" (which incidentally refers to the NLG, not Mr. Berlet; Mr. Berlet dropped his association with High Times, but has kept NLG on his resume, for whatever reasons). So we're even granting him deniability with this one, limited inclusion. nobs 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, some editors claim the sourced material is "inflammitory" (I can't imagine whatever for); as a compromise for now, at least til the ArbCom decides if it want's to get into a content dispute, I propose inserting Mr. Wilcox thesis from the report,

"There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information. "

This can be done without the link to a controversial site, and if some defamatory "link or tie" is alleged against Mr. Wilcox because others have posted his material on their site, we can deal with whoever wishes to defame Laird Wilcox when it happens. Thank you. nobs 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We already have material from Wilcox, and we can't quote from a self-published book on a Volksfront website, for the last time. SlimVirgin 04:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you misrepresent "self-published book on a Volksfront website", which given the evidence I've presented, may be construed as a defamatory smear against Mr. Wilcox. Can you clarify. nobs 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Either it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website, or it isn't. What's the problem here? --Viriditas 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Who republishes Wilcox where is not the issue; implying Wilcox is a white-supremacist fascist skinhead neo-nazi may be defamatory. nobs 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so do you admit that it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website? You said it was "republished", so I'm not sure what you mean by that. As for implications, I'll address those after you answer my question. --Viriditas 04:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, read Misplaced Pages:No original research. We publish material that has been published by credible sources. The Volksfront website is not a credible source, and a book that has otherwise been self-published by a single individual also doesn't count as credible, because there has been no oversight, no fact-checking, and perhaps no legal input. SlimVirgin 05:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas & Slim: I'll admit the United States Army recognizes Wilcox as "foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism" in its publication Racial Extremism in the Army, Pamphlet No 27-100-159, available in The Military Law Review ., published by the Department of the Army; can you suggest a better source the United States Army should be using to deal with racial disharmony in the ranks? nobs 05:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why he has to self-publish his own book? SlimVirgin 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cut out the middle man. nobs 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--Or you can visit the Laird Wilcox Collection at the University of Kansas. nobs 05:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But this is not material he has written. SlimVirgin 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the self-publishing foremost recognized analyst of political extremism in America has one of the largest political research University Library Collection's in the country named for him (which he started); he eacks out a living selling his writings to a limited market. nobs 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:CON

FeloniousMonk: From WP:CON,

• This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
• The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count only three editors involved in this polite discussion, with a consensus of roughly 1.33 to 1.66. I'm not certain that "concensus" applies in this case, but I do thank you very much for the link, and intend to abide by established proceedures, policies, guidelines etc. Thank you. nobs 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only does WP:CON apply, but WP:RS as well. Both you and I know what's going on here. Knock it off. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, FM. Statements such as the above do not. Rangerdude 05:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good faith can only excuse so much. This has been going on for days with nobs. I think we're safely beyond that. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of excusing, FM. It appears to me that Nobs sincerely believes some of the AGF controversy is material to this article. I suggested a way of addressing it below that would comply with WP:RS by attributing the critique to a specific person (i.e. Horowitz). Would you or nobs be agreeable to something like this? Rangerdude 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm involved, now. --Viriditas 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If I could propose a possible solution, it would be appropriate to say something to the effect that Berlet has been critized for his involvement in the National Lawyers Guild and attribute that to Horowitz, who has made such a criticism. If done this could be placed in the criticisms section. Rangerdude 06:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Do you have a link to the criticism? --Viriditas 06:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion: familiarize yourself with the substance of the material before adopting conclusions. I took more than two months to study it. Also, I asked Mr. Berlet 20 Septmeber 2005 to respond to it (see above, Talk:Chip Berlet#Laird Wilcox), and all I got was the same cut & pasted response from the Washington Times that is now in the namespace. Thank you. nobs 06:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Could Rangerdude indicate which exact part of WP:AGF that FM's statement violates? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no intent to get into a semantics dispute with you, Will, beyond noting that it is evident in the tone of FM's first comment. I'll also direct you to his comment above after I asked him to assume good faith. His response was that they were "safely beyond that" now. Rangerdude 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, you said above that if we don't allow the current edit in, there may be worse to come and we'll end up wishing we'd allowed the terrorist reference, which sounds like a threat. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It worries me that you've spent two months researching this stuff because (a) it sounds a little obsessive and (b) if you haven't found a decent source after two months, it strongly suggests there isn't one.

I don't mind Rangerdude's suggestion of quoting Horowitz and leaving it at that. RD, you'll notice I'm agreeing with you. This is a red letter day. SlimVirgin 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As of now, I'd suggest we can wait and let Mr. Berlet respond. Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented. to everyone else, go ahead and pick and choose what you want in so this article will be more balanced, there is plenty there. nobs 06:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My response is simple: Wiki editors involved in a content dispute, who seek out or create a page entry on a Wiki editor with whom they are having or have had a content dispute to add negative or derogatory material should be penalized with an automatic one week suspension of editing privileges.--Cberlet 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see how many apply....

John George and Laird Wilcox look at extremists as persons psychologically prone to extremism, regardless of political affiliation: "Both of us have had the feeling many times that the Bircher with whom we were talking could just as easily have been a Communist and vice-versa. It may be merely a question of who “gets to them” first. We tend to view the existence of an extremism-prone personality as a more reasonable hypothesis that attempts to account for the “pathology” of a particular point of view". GEORGE & WILCOX, supra note 30, at 66.32. Id. at 54.

George and Wilcox list twenty-two common traits of extremists. While all people exhibit some of these traits at times, the important distinction is that “ith bonafide extremists, these lapses are not occasional.” Id. The traits are:

• (1) character assassination;
• (2) name calling and labeling;
• (3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations;
• (4) inadequate proof for assertions;
• (5) advocacy of double standards;
• (6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil;
• (7) Manichean worldview;
• (8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics;
• (9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them;
• (10) tendency toward argument by intimidation;
• (11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping clichés;
• (12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others;
• (13) doomsday thinking;
• (14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible; see "The New Witch Hunt", The Public Eye, Vol. IV, No. 1 & 2 1983, p. 23.
• (15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis;
• (16) hypersensitivity and vigilance;
• (17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions;
• (18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty;
• (19) inclination toward “groupthink”;
• (20) tendency to personalize hostility;
• (21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; and
• (22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories. (see quote regarding "increase scepticism", et seq.)

George & Wilcox quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), fn 31, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Pamphlet No 27-100-159 . nobs 17:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say numbers 1 & 2 best describe your actions and the content you've been trying to add. Maybe 15 & 22 as well. FeloniousMonk 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me, as properly documented, Mr. Arleigh McCree made the statement; Mr. Wilcox also makes a similiar statement in his conclusion, which has not been inserted yet. Neither can be attributed to User:Nobs, and nobs makes no such original thought, research, or assertion. nobs 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I though we were discussing your actions in relation to consensus here. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Those involved in this discussion should be aware of Intelligence Identities Protection Act, in which nobs is inserting a reference to Berelet which seems to be totally irrelevant. Gamaliel 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobs' actions here and there seem to prove he is trying to grind an ideological ax at Misplaced Pages. Agreed? FeloniousMonk 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It certainly appears that way. Gamaliel 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this the "marginal site" refered to in the RfArb?

• http://intellit.muskingum.edu/terrorism_folder/terrorismrefmats.html (see for who Peake is). nobs 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration filed concerning this page

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition, Herschelkrustofsky, and Sam_Spade for their participation in edit wars over this page and the page of my employer: Political Research Associates. The case can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. I have posted my response, requesting the Arbcom to dismiss this matter as frivolous insofar as Mr. Berlet's allegations pertain to me. If anything, my posts in the most recent dispute here have been aimed at finding a compromise and urging tempers to be restrained via a good faith assumption. Please note that if the Arbcom does decide to take up this case, I will be requesting that they investigate Mr. Berlet for violations of WP:OWN in attempting to assert ownership and exercise content control over articles pertaining to himself and his organization. Rangerdude 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability of Subject and tone of article

Meaning no disrespect to the subject of this article, but its length and tone are out of proportion to his limited notability and that is probably why it has attracted opponents who feel compelled to balance its PoV with their own. The article reads like a c.v., not an encyclopedia entry. The subject is employed by an entity that has six employees and less than a $1M annual budget, the director of which Dr. Jean V. Hard hasn't warranted an article. OK, he has co-authored one book and edited a second, but we're not told how many copies sold, or how and where they were reviewed.

There are well known NYT journalists, who don't even have articles about them on WP, let alone a 3000 word essay. --FRS 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's that ol' Systemic Bias at work again -- or perhaps I should say "low-hanging fruit": articles that are easy to research or for which information is at hand get more attention. And controversial articles with opposing partisans get bloated as the various sides pile up the evidence against each other: call it a POV/NPOV Arms Race. And once that happens -- well, it's much easier to add in detail than it is to condense, since condensing means making explicit choices about what stays and what goes. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion. Consider a much shorter article that contains neither a hagiographic section (like the current article's first half) nor much space allotted to opponents' PoV. Clearly, the subject of the article has views that many consider controversial, and has opponents with their own controversial PoV. There are ample fora better than this WP article for the principals to fight out these battles. Rather than drag all that into an article about the living, marginally notable, person who is also a WP editor, limit this article to simple statements of fact, e.g., "CB, a senior researcher at PRA, is the co-author of book AAA, and the editor of Book BBB. He frequently contributes articles to C, D and E and has appeared on F, G, H. He is the former VP of THIS and sits on the board of THAT. He is a proponent of the view that (fill in the blank) and has criticized (fill in the blank). His opponents have contended that (fill in the blank)

Provide a few links to appropriate sources and be done (and delete the long list of papers and associated links to PRA) --FRS 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please do not edit this article pending the arbitration. (unless it is of vandalism or spelling etc.) Olorin28 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiEN-l

Text of User:Cberlet's WikiEN-l Sun Nov 13 21:55:52 UTC 2005

Hi,

Consider the situation from the point of view of a Wiki editor whose entry repeatedly has been attacked and filled with false claims and defamatory text. My real name is Chip Berlet. I discovered my entry after being on Wiki for a short time when I got an e-mail from a reporter asking me why I had hid the fact that I had been a member of SDS, a radical group in the U.S. in the 1960s. I had never been a member of SDS, I responded. It's all over the Internet, he replied.

Sure enough, it was all over the Internet, but is was not true. I tracked it back to an entry made by a LaRouche supporter here on Wiki. I deleted the false information, and was immediately embroiled in a controversy over whether or not it was proper for me to edit my own entry. Forget that the entry was false, and given that I am freelance journalist, potentially defamatory, and certainly something that threatend my ability to earn a living.

Since then, several Wiki editors with whom I have had a disagreement have gone out of their way to add negative text to my entry. Currently, one Wiki editor has added a large amount of false and defamatory material to my entry. This material has appeared on various websites and print publications, but it simply is not true. This editor is also in the middle of a lengthy mediation with me that has been protracted and not to his/her liking. Editing my entry is a form of juvenile retribution.

Am I supposed to publish a printed document refuting false statements plonked onto my entry by cult lunatics, right-wing fanatics, and just plain jerks? Am I supposed to rely on sympathetic and honest Wiki editors who take the time to demand documentation and evidence on my behalf on my entry page? Am I supposed to leave the false and defamatory on my page in the meantime?

Am I pissed off?

YES!

I do not have an answer to these question, but I do know that the typical anarcho-libertarian response that it will all work out in the long run is not very statisfying when someone is filling up your entry with crap.

-Cberlet aka Chip Berlet

Retrieved by nobs 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, that Wilcox book is on the Volksfront website. You're going too far. SlimVirgin 03:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That does not denigrate the substance of the material, or the source. nobs 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, who Mr. Wilcox is:

"John George and Laird Wilcox, two of the foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism, state that this definition reflects a common proposition about extremist behavior: it is more an 'issue of style than of content.' What the extremist believes is less important than what behavior he exhibits. Rather, extremism can cut across the political spectrum."

Quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 . nobs 03:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Protecting so edit disputes can be resolved. --Woohookitty 14:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How long is it proposed to continue protection on this page? FRS 06:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's currently up to Nobs. Did you want to add something, FRS? SlimVirgin 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I'd like to try taking some things out and tone down the language in general, as remarked above . I have a little sympathy with those who feel compelled to add negative PoV about the subject due to the overly positive PoV presented in the first half of the article. IMO, the article should be considerably shorter, more neutral and distant in tone (w/ links provided to the partisan sites of the subject and his critics). I also believe there's a lot of material in there that is not verifiable without reference to the subject himself or PRA. FRS 14:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FRS raised good NPOV points; the article 'as is' is basically a sales brochure for PRA published materials, a source of revenue as declared on PRA's site. Mr. Berlet even complains about all the solicitations and advertising being removed from the PRA article here . I will pledge not to "edit war", or make inserts from the Wilcox material if the protection is lifted pending the outcome of an ArbCom process, however it may proceed. There really are only three small references from the Wilcox source I'd like to discuss with interested editors that could give this article balance. Also, Mr. Berlet's attack on Mr. Wilcox I believe is unsubstantiated, and Wilkipedia should not be used as a platform for Mr. Berlet to attack Wilcox without evidence. This also needs discussion. nobs 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Illustration: User:Cberlet removed this rebuttal to criticism this morning in another article; yet in this namespace Mr. Berlet is allowed to rebutt critics with,

Berlet responded 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."

This is a serious double standard and cries out for NPOV treatment in both articles. nobs 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've filed a request to unprotect the article FRS 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FRS: I would be interested in your comments regarding Chip Berlet's unsubtantiated smear of Wilcox; is this the normal format in Wiki articles were "Criticism" subhead have been created for NPOV, where than the critics are then smeared with unsourced allegations. Thank you. nobs 21:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No comment on whether it's an "unsubstantiated smear" or on whether including it is "normal format."

I will say that I don't understand the encyclopedic relevance of including so much back-and-forth between Berlet, Horowitz, Wilcox, Arabia, Dees, etc. etc. IMO, this article started life as a highly PoV and defamatory slam against Berlet that apparently went unchallenged for several months. Since then, I believe the PoV has been allowed to swing too far in the opposite direction so that it now sounds too much like it was written by the subject. And along the way, the article has accumulated a lot of gratuitous personal details, criticism, and criticism of the criticism that should be pruned out. FRS 00:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pgs.115-17

Text extraction moved from User talk:Fred Bauder page.

"A 1981 issue of the publication states unequivocally that “The Public Eye is produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes.” It also lists Chip Berlet as a managing editor. ...

95 The Public Eye, Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).

An article in a 1981 issue of Military Police journal detailed the criminal careers of several National Lawyers Guild members as follows:

...Carlos Zapata who was killed in Denver by a bomb he was planting at a VFW hall on 22 March 1978. He was...involved in the National Lawyers Guild-sponsored ‘Police Crimes Task Force.’

Bernardine Dohrn, the much sought Weather Underground fugitive, was named student director for the National Lawyers’ Guild in 1967.

NLG member, Stephen Mitchell Bingham, is being sought by the state of California and the FBI for smuggling a .380 automatic pistol to George Jackson in prison...

...Guild member Frank Eugenio Martinez...was a Loyola law student who was active in NLG projects at the college and on the streets. Suspiciously, Frank’s fingerprints ended up on several of the eight letter-bombs mailed to Denver police officers in

1973...His younger brother, Francisco Kiko Martinez, also an attorney, was killed in a car when a bomb they were transporting exploded.

The article by Detective Arleigh McCree, a former military police officer who became Officer in Charge, Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, observes that “The NLG continues to act as a clearinghouse and as an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism.”

100 Sgt. A. McCree, “A Case For Self-Defense,” Military Police (Summer 1981).

Source: Wilcox, http://tcbhatecrew.net/text/the_watchdogs_a_close_look_at_antiracist_watchdog_groups-%20Laird%20Wilcox.pdf, pgs. 115-117. nobs 05:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs! Desist!

Nobs! This page is not your personal garbage dump. I have filed an arbitration naming you. Have the common courtesy to stop piling up more and more outlandish guilt-by-association trash on this page and await the vote on whether or not the arbitration will proceed.--Cberlet 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ok; say, I was trying to get that report on "Eco-Racism" from the PRA site. What happened to it? nobs 02:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for a New Approach

If this article is unprotected, I plan to introduce a much shorter version that avoids most discusions of the subject's views and the views of those critical of the subject. Berlet is an author, and his words on various issues speak for themselves. I don't see a need to rehash them or criticize them here.

I did some research on how articles concerning how other political commentators are handled on WP. Here are five well-known commentators that contribute to NPR, among other places, and links to their NPR bios.

E.J. Dionne David Brooks Andrei Codrescu Daniel Schorr

The four WP articles combined have fewer words than the current Berlet article. On a notability scale of 1 to 10, if Daniel Brandt is a one and the five commentators above average a ten, Berlet, imo, is around a three, and the article should be edited with that in mind. FRS 21:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In general, I oppose the arbitrary comparison of articles, since different articles receive different amounts of attention from different editors for different reasons which usually have nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Usually, the answer is to expand the shorter articles, not shorten a longer article. However, in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree, but only if we can condense the existing material instead of chopping out whole sections. Gamaliel 22:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see that the comparison tells us anything, especially when three of the articles chosen are just not very good, and that they're too short is part of that. This one's under 32K, I believe. SlimVirgin 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Giving Berlet a "three" is something of a stretch. In light of Cberlet's recently filed request for arbitration, one of the issues which will be increasingly under scrutiny is the propriety of using Berlet as a source on Misplaced Pages; since, in my view, the current use of his views as source material is wildly out of proportion to his notability, it is probably appropriate, for the time being, that this article be out of proportion to a similar extent, so that the Misplaced Pages reader may know something about this obscure individual who is so often quoted at Misplaced Pages. --HK 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I will make a proposal, as time allows, on three different quotes from the Wilcox Report. The subject of Berlet's unsubstanitated attack on Wilcox as "unethical" also needs to be addressed. And then I will present a case for listing this article in Category:Notable Wikipedians, given the connection to the Guardian as outlined by Wilcox, and in fairness to the families of 15,000 Korean MIA's who perished in Soviet Gulags. This directly involves the name of Misplaced Pages in this instance and should be examined. nobs 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. 116
2. 115
3. 115
4. 116

• Articles with connected contributors