Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 3 July 2006

Please post ALL new messages at bottom of page.

Please Note: After much painful experience, I now do not engage in content discussions on this page. If you wish to have such a discussion, please post it on the discussion page of an actual entry, and perhaps post a note on this page. Thanks.

Photograph

Hi Chip, do you happen to know who took the photograph of you and Dennis King that is on the Chip Berlet page? I am trying to find out who the copyright holder is and whether Misplaced Pages has permission to use it. Any information you have would be helpful. Many thanks, Slim 22:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

It was taken by a member of the LaRouche group outside the courthouse in Alexandria, VA the day LaRouche was led off to jail. I presume the photographer was working for their newspaper, or another of their publications, since it has appeared in LaRouche publications from time to time. I am sure they would be delighted to give permission.

-)

--Cberlet 04:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Train Salon

If you think an article should be deleted you have the option of nominating it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletionAndyL 03:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your photo

Chip, I'd like to use the photograph of you at http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg for the Chip Berlet page. Do you know who owns the copyright and how I can get permission? Slim 00:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, PRA owns the copyright to the photo, and you have permission to use it on Misplaced Pages as long as you preserve the copyright notice and say used by permission. I can't wait to see it appear in a LaRouche publication. Sigh... --Cberlet 03:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. I'll check that it's okay to do that. There's sometimes a problem with Misplaced Pages and copyrights, because everything is supposed to be open-source. But if you'd rather I didn't use the photograph, I won't, so do say if you're prefer not.

In the meantime, I've started to rewrite your page. At the moment, it's on a subpage that I've created at User:SlimVirgin/CBdraft, and there's a Talk page for it at User talk:SlimVirgin/CBdraft, where you're free to make comments, or else you can e-mail me if you have any information you feel should be included, bearing in mind that everything in Misplaced Pages must have been published somewhere already. It's probably best if you don't edit it yourself, so that no one can accuse you of interfering. Once I've finished the draft, I'll try to get a few other editors to read it, and if they think it's okay, we'll put it on the page instead of the current one. Then if the LaRouche editors try to attack it, we may have to look into asking for page protection. Slim 04:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I will see if we can get the original photographer to grant us a release.--Cberlet 04:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I've labeled it "fair use," which means there's a copyright on it, but Misplaced Pages has decided it's fair use under United States law. I'm sure that'll be okay, so long as you've no objections. Slim 05:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Cberlet 13:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Chip Berlet" article

The article on you has been re-edited in an attempt to make it conform with last year's Arbitration Committee ruling concerning the insertion of LaRouche related material in non-LaRouche related wikipedia articles. LaRouche supporters have been that if they continue to insert LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles their violations of the ArbComm ruling will be brought to the ArbComm's attention. AndyL 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Hi Chip, I get the numbers from Amazon. For Dennis King, for example, I went here, clicked on "hardcover,"; when I got that page, I scrawled down to "product details" and got the year of publication of the first edition. Then I hit the back button to take me back to the first page, scrawled down again to "product details," and this gave me the paperback details, in this case third edition, June 1999, ISBN: 0028628217 (which is not the same ISBN number as the hardcover). When you cut and paste ISBN numbers from Amazon into Misplaced Pages, you have to delete the colon, then it comes up as ISBN 0028628217. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin 18:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cberlet 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong title & redirect & delete?

You did everything perfectly up to putting the delete tag on it--common/likely misspellings (or alternate spellings) are left (or even created) as redirects to help people using the "Go" or "Search" button find the article at the correct location. It also helps prevent people from creating a duplicate article at the misspelling/alternate spelling. For example, note the redirs to Miskito (actually, it should probably have more), or to Mahatma Gandhi. The relevant guideline is here. Niteowlneils 03:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alternative news

Maybe alternative news syndicate - like news syndicate (presently just a redlink on news agency, but oh well) and I don't think it would be necessary to disambiguate U.S. because... where else were there any covered by such a name? Great good stuff, regardless! Samaritan 15:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stygean stables

CB - If they were Augean stables we might be able to muck them out by re-directing a river. Unfortunately, you are correct, they are Stygian indeed. The "Political Views" article is a mess and SV apparently has a plan to fix it, so I will step aside from that article while that plan is pursued. I enjoy editing articles, however just talking about editing articles is tedious. Sometimes having too many editors on an article can prevent forward motion. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New articles

Chip, did you intend to create new LaRouche articles (e.g. Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/The Brainwashing Incident? These are in the main Misplaced Pages namespace i.e. in the encyclopedia. If you want to write a draft, it should be preceded by Talk: Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/followed by the name of the draft; or preceded by your user name User:CBerlet/followed by the name. Best, SlimVirgin 04:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

No. Sorry. I misunderstood how the system works. I have noted them for speedy deletion.--Cberlet 04:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No worries. :-) SlimVirgin 04:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and racism

Oops, sorry; I usually get this right when I try to add attributions in the comments, but I f**ked up. Again, my apologies. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

User accounts

Chip, for your information, I have left the following note on Herschelkrustofsky's and Weed Harper's talk pages:

"A request was made recently to the developers regarding the relationship, if any, between the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. The reply from the developers is: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Assuming this is correct, it would be appreciated if you would choose either the Herschelkrustofsky or Weed Harper account to edit the LaRouche pages. There is no policy against using multiple accounts, but they shouldn't be used to create the impression of more support for a position than really exists, or to get round 3RR violations. Alternatively, if you feel the technical information is misleading, any light you can shed on the relationship between the accounts would be helpful."

I've been told that the correct thing to do is to leave a note for C Colden asking if s/he can shed light on the relationship between the C Colden account and the other two, which I have also done. SlimVirgin 01:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know that Herschel has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 07:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

And the Weed Harper user account has been blocked for 48 hours for making an edit while the H user account was blocked. SlimVirgin 19:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux. I didn't know Snowspinner was going to do this, so I have quickly cobbled together a request to add to his. If the request is accepted (I don't know how many arbitrators have to agree), the issue moves to an evidence page, which is where all the diffs have to be produced. SlimVirgin 05:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Finished playing in the sandboxes

CB, I'm done. I've tried to describe, at least generaly, what my edits were in the summaries. I've torn the LaRouche bio apart and tried to make it as chronological as possible. I know you listed future plans in the Press & Criticism sections, but I tried to move most of that material into the relevent places and I think the story of LaRouche can be more easily followed that way. For example, the Train Salon takes on a different look when preceded by years of negative press reporting and lawsuits. And I've been equally merciless on the Political Views article, trying to make that more thematic and less biographical. In any case, I'll now leave the sandbox so the next editor can have their turn. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS Feel free to undo/redo/overdo anything you like. This link shows all the changes I made to the bio , and this one does the same for the Poliviews . I've deleted almost nothing. Both articles are obviously rougher as a result of being re-arranged, but once the outlines are in place we can work together on the completion. I wish I could have marked more verbiage with strikeouts, as I hope we can get these articles into forms that people can actually read in a weekend or less. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PPS I've made a new sandbox, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox, take a look. It's just a sketch, and I'm not entirely sure if it can be filled out in a useful way. Let me know if you have any thoughts about whether such an article, under some title, would be worth pursuing. It could potentially handle some topics that are hard to fit into the existing series. -Willmcw 10:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and posting the black ghetto mother page. I wonder what he's talking about. I like Will's new page by the way. Shall we create another LaRouche talk page instead of posting to each other's user pages? Might be faster; or do we have too many to remember already? SlimVirgin 02:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well I've created one. Feel free to use it or not, as you see fit. It's Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox/talk

La Rouche arbitration

The La Rouche arbitration part two has been accepted; temporary injunctions have been proposed which would affect your editing of La Rouche related articles; please made any comments at the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_injunctions. Fred Bauder 15:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

Pending a final decision on the case concerning you, you re also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though you may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see the injunction order for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:03, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Don't let...

...them get to you, Cberlet -- just a short note to say "hi" and to urge that nolite bastardes carborundum. I'm taking a "wikibreak" as parenthood and work in my non-wiki life have been taking up most of my time the last few months. Hope all is well. BCorr|Брайен 23:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

As a ruling has been made on the case involving you, the temporary injunction against you has expired. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Hi, and thanks again for rescuing Conspiracy theory from my catastrophic 'fix'. You've done a great job sorting this out - I think it's fine as it stands. I'll see about reconciling your exported collection of theories material into the List of conspiracy theories article, unless you suggest a better idea. Adhib 09:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and Neiwert

No hay de que, amigo mio. If the topic is of interest, I highly recomment setting aside an hour or two to pour over the second of those two articles, "The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism." His thesis is not that Fascism is on the march, but rather that a set of traits are emerging that superficially resemble Fascism but absent the key element of violence, thankfully full far short of the genuine article. --AStanhope 11:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the link. It looks/sounds like this is your area of expertise. I am fascinated to see that Lyndon LaRouche is still doing his thing. I still have a copy of There Are No Limits to Growth! from like 20 years ago that has long been one of my favorite examples of extremist, crackpot rhetoric. Nice "meeting" you. --AStanhope 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in the September 11, 2001 attacks

Hi Chip. I hope you don't mind, after you renamed this I cleaned up a dozen or so links to the old article. Jayjg 21:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

Hi Chip, do you know anything about the political ideas of Leo Strauss? I recently encountered the article on him here, and it was nearly exclusively a highly academic discourse on his philosophical ideas. I have just added a section on political ideology, but it is pretty rudimentary and still needs some work. He seems to be a seminal figure for the US neocons, so it would be useful to have a clear exposition of his ideas here. -- Viajero 17:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS, I have known about your work since hearing you and Holly speak at ZMI '95 in Woods Hole. Viajero 17:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracies

thanks for moving that link, i was just about to do that. Looking at the linked site, it was hard to tell what view it held, but i'm pretty sure it is a general site, not making a specific claim. The linked page does, however debunk the "there was no plane" claim, so the "debunks" section is the right place. Bonus Onus 02:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Israel Shamir article

You might find this article helpful when making future edits. Jayjg 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at the current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak? Your opinion would be welcome. Jayjg 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's ok. I was looking more for clear thinking than a specific viewpoint. Thanks for responding. Jayjg 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

Hi Cberlet. Rhobite and Jayjg and you and I and others should talk about this. Sorry I was lazy to not get to your talk page. Initially I was communicating with Rhobite via the "revert comments field". He/she had 3 issues with my initial changes and I addressed them all. However my version did not please you and Jayjg. Let's try to build consensus. I don't care who writes the lead definition, however I am not happy with the current one because I (and likely Rhobite) think it is incomprehensible, inaccurate compared to the dictionary definition and leans more towards the colloquial definition over the legal one.

From what I have read and my understanding of English, the concept of "conspiracy theory" is really just the combination of the concept of "conspiracy" and the concept of "theory". To conspire is to plan together to do something, usually bad. However you and your mom can conspire to surprise your dad with a party! Theory is like a guess. So a "conspiracy theory" is a guess that a group of people conspired to do something. It is a guess, because the person guessing has no direct knowledge that the group of people planned it and executed on it. In the previous example, after the surprise party, your dad might suspect that the two of you were in on the surprise because he doubts either one of you could have pulled it off on your own (his conspiracy theory) and ask you both how you planned it.

If you check the dictionary definitions (google it if you like), you will see that my above example is correct usage of the term.

Do you want to give a shot at writing a lead wiki definition that works for this case and is consistent with the legal definition?

The lead definition should not be focused on the political examples with "secretive powers" and "common understandings". Bogusstory 07:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

LOL! My pleasure. You certainly earned it. SlimVirgin 02:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that your views and this page on the subject are highly biased POV

Comments like this don't improve the quality of dialogue. Following it up with "Don't be patronizing. I write NPOV" and so forth creates not only an extremely unconvincing argument, it also creates a hostile hypocracy which I would like to see less of. We've gotten along well editing a variety of contentious pages together in the past. Lets return to the method of compromise, civility and citing references which has served so well, and leave the incivility and rhetoric out. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11

>> "There is a discussion going on at Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks on where to put what. Your recent posts fall in between proven material with multiple named sources and unproven conspiracy claims. When you track down some of the cites to their primary publication, the sources get thin. But most of the claims have appeared in major press outlets, so they deserve to be put someplace other than a conspiracy claim or rumor page. Anyway, please join the discussion."

Thanks muchly for the heads-up. It's a long-winded messy article... can you summarise briefly where its gone since those additions, what you see the issue being, and where I could contribute? I saw missing material and added it as best I could, but that doesnt mean I necessarily know enough to make the finer judgements that perhaps you might think I have knowledge of...? FT2 00:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

misinfo and rumors talk page

Hey Cberlet, I am wondering if you noticed my response on the Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks page? I provided numerous examples that it seems to be wikipedia policy to put the word "Criticisms" first in an article's title, I understand the desire to put "9/11" first but that is needlessly encumbersome. What do you think? zen master T 22:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

Hi, based on some writing you did about 10 years ago, I thought you might be able to help out with this page. Also, what kind of magazine is The New Internationalist? Jayjg 01:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. Jayjg 15:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11 titles

I think Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report is good, but what do you mean "would the 'other' titles be 'OK'?"? Where was this question listed? zen master T 17:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Please be specific in your complaints about the Churchill article or be silent. Your choice. Johnnyio 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is an asswipe, but please note I didn't put that in the article and nor would I. All I want is for the unvarnished, unedited facts to be recorded. Johnnyio 21:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This guy has been blocked for 72 hours, so I think the coast is clear again. -- Viajero 18:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

Some law & order types are threatening to run away with the COINTELPRO entry. In response to POV changes (ie. characterizing all COINTELPRO targets as "violent") I've attempted to provide some historical background the FBI's practice of targeting peaceful organizations. You have a lot of experience in research on counterintelligence activities and I'd appreciate your input. DJ Silverfish 21:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is much improved now. I've been checking some of Ward Churchill's primary source citations, which I will insert as article references (with appropriate credit) when I have time. Cheers. DJ Silverfish 18:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, nice work on this article! We are lucky to have you here. -- Viajero 01:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

You can either ask an admin to protect the page or put in a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. In any case, I've locked John Birch Society. 22:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I don't appreciate you reverting wholesale a series of changes, most of which were painstakingly and individually added to the Temp article. Leave it alone please or make a positive contribution without destroying the hard work of others. TonyMarvin 02:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if you're polite or not, I certainly intend to be polite in all circumstances but I reject your swooping in and destroying the hard work of others. It's not a legitimate practice. Contribute something, as Viajero and I have been, we have a different view of what's neutral probably but at least we're exchanging and moving forward. You on the other hand are just deleting anything I contribute. I don't think it's impolite to call on you on it, I hope I provoke you into actually contributing something that isn't agenda pushing. Churchill is going to become - if he isn't already - a really important figure in education, especially if he is removed. I would like the article to intelligently reflect his importance and not just be a fanpage by those who agree with his politics. With every Colorado politician (GOP and Dems) agreeing to condemn him, one has to suspect his fanbase is pretty small. TonyMarvin 03:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're nearly there I think. I withdraw my comments that you were not compromising or participating. Kudos. TonyMarvin 03:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you over wrote Viajero's post

Was this an accident?

Also, "American Indian" is still wrong I believe but I will acquiesce. zen master T 16:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill compromise attempt

I noticed that your compromise version of TonyMarvin's changes was basically the version I reverted to plus some minor tweaks? Anyway, TonyMarvin apparently disagrees with your compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=0&oldid=12548435 zen master T 03:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't disagree at all with Cberlet. The removal of the word 'some' was perfectly correct. Churchill said he meant 'some' years after he'd written the essay which made no such qualification. For Churchill it was OK to murder an investment banker but he was less comfortable with the murder of the receptionist or the janitor. I think the summary of his views is tighter and better now. TonyMarvin 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yeah sure like you do. Zenupassio 02:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-semitism

There was no consensus for LevelCheck's removal of content, including the removal of the quote by Political Research Associates. Please add this back into the article --Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I just don't understand why content was removed. --Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Hi Chip, that's done. For future reference, if you need a page protected or unprotected, you can either approach an individual admin on their talk page, or you can make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, which is where requests for unprotection go too. Best, SlimVirgin 23:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

Your comment on my talk page doesn't make sense. If you wanted a literal answer I do play chess but I do not blow up frogs. zen master T 01:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request

Could you please take a look at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review? Thanks. AndyL 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society

See the Talk page. The tag is certainly correct and justified. But if you disagree, you can remove it. Mirror Vax 21:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Keetoowah

I am considering opening an RFC on User:Keetoowah. His aggressive and nasty style is really not helping. But I'm not sure it would help. Thoughts? Kelly Martin 20:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Note to Keetoowah. I know it is sometimes hard to resist being snide and patronizing--these are flaws I find in myself--but it does not help build consensus. I also am concerned that you seem to be taking a position that only your views count in this discussion. This is especially toubling since you appear to have deleted a discussion I was having with someone here on this talk page. See: diff-1 and diff-1. --Cberlet 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cberlet: I really don't know what drugs you have been taking but I did NOT delete anything. Also, the nature of Misplaced Pages makes your accusation absolutely ludicrious. Why? Well, every change, whether an addition or a subtraction, is tracked by the Misplaced Pages software program. My edits are a matter of record and the deletion that you unfairly, irrationally, and incorrectly accuse me of making does not appear in the record of edits. You need to show me using the Misplaced Pages edit tracking system the deletion that I supposedly made or should keep or unfair, irrational, incorrect and unstable accusations to yourself. So until you provide me evidence to back up your claim, and it would be in the Misplaced Pages system if I really did it, please get a grip on your grasp of reality. When I did supposedly do this??? Wouldn't the date and time be in the Misplaced Pages system??? YES. Show it to me. I now understand the reason that you feel compelled to defend the FAKE Indian.------Keetoowah 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difference that you are pointing to was made by 137.224.252.10 That particular IP address is based in the Netherlands. I'm not in the Netherlands, I'm in the U.S. So you need to talk to someone in Europe, not here.------Keetoowah 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to Kelly Martin: I know that you don't like my position concerning the FAKE Indian. That is your right, but you shouldn't really attempt to stifle my comments because you don't argree with my point of view. I find your style as "aggressive and nasty" also. You are not prone to consensus either. You have given me direct orders when you should have been attempting to discuss and talk, but you have not been acting that way. Also, your ally here,Cberlet accused me of deleting comments on the Talk page, which was and is not true. The Misplaced Pages software system makes that completely clear. You need to work on your attempts to work with me. Your "aggressive and nasty" style is not helpful.-----Keetoowah 00:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

I am getting sick and tired of our anonymous AOL IP editor running roughshod over the Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism article while refusing to participate in any sort of consensus building on the Talk: page. Is there something that can be done about it? Jayjg 04:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title vote (various_options)

There's a discussion and vote going on about the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in the title of this (and other) articles. I thought you might want to put in your 2 cents worth and/or vote. Jayjg 15:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chip, thanks for your note. I've set up a page at Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory. I don't know whether it's more appropriate to use the talk page or the main page, but I've gone ahead and copied part of the discussion about this from elsewhere onto the main page. Feel free to fiddle around with it as you see fit. Hope it helps. SlimVirgin 19:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

'Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism' chart

Greetings, sir. You are noted as the copyright owner of the abovementioned chart, and I was wandering whether you would be willing to release it for use on Misplaced Pages. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and keep up the great work, here and elsewhere! Yours, El_C 04:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of employing it in the White supremacy and Roots of anti-Semitism articles. While I do appreciate your concerns, at the same time, I think they could be addressed and accomodated, in more than one way, and with your assistance, relatively effortlessly (i.e. within the respective article/s, image field, etc.). What do you think? El_C 17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for releasing this (in my opinion, very insightful) chart! I have a 700x gif of it, I will upload it later as I am writing in haste and am literally out the door. Please review it once I upload it (likely in a few hours), and if you happen to find a better copy, simply upload it with the same filename and it will overwrite the original submittion. Thanks again, much appreciated. El_C 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted the chart into the Roots of anti-Semitism article, please review it, as well as the image field, and modify it as you see fit. I have yet to add it to White supremacy, an article that needs, I believe, an origin of section; one in which the chart would fit well. I cannot think of an editor more qualified to author that than yourself. I hope you will consider looking into it. If there's anything I could do to help, please do not hesitate. Regards, El_C 23:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Signs of a conspiracy theorist

A third would be the belief that people act for the purpose of "covering up" their activities and hiding them from scrutiny.. A fourth would be the insistence that those who oppose them are acting at the behest of secret masters (e.g. "your boss should be proud" ). That's four. Jayjg 20:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's another classic post: . Gee, I wonder why these two editors in particular are offended at the straightforward description of conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. Jayjg 21:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Hi Chip, I can protect the page, but can only do so on the current version, unless the anon IP has violated 3RR, in which case I can revert to the version before the 3RR violation. S/he seems to have violated it at first glance, but I'd need someone to show me the diffs. In the meantime, I've left a note for him/her about 3RR on the talk page of the most recent IP address s/he used. I can't act as though this were vandalism, because it's a content dispute. If you want me to protect, I'm happy to do so, bearing the above in mind. SlimVirgin 16:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. --kizzle 20:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Christian right

It's a difficult one. The first step in dispute resolution is to put up a request for comment regarding the article. Go to that page and add a brief, neutral, and unsigned description of the dispute. Article RfCs rarely bring much response, but it's worth a try. At the same time, you could try to interest like-minded editors who care about sources, and try to get them to help edit the pages. The step after that is a request for mediation between you and Sam. This will involve the mediator seeking a compromise position between you: also not ideal and it can be time-consuming. Another alternative is to put up a Request for Comment on Sam. You can see how to do that on the RfC page. It's time-consuming as it involves providing all the diffs to the edits you're objecting to.

The best bet is to start editing by using good sources yourself for your own edits. If you keep linking to your sources inline, and if they're credible, the edits can't reasonably be reverted. Also, you could make a request on the talk page for good writing standards to prevail. I'd start by trying to interest other editors if I were you and I'm thinking specifically of Will, as he's very good at this kind of dispute, though he's a bit tied up at the moment with the conspiracy-theory issue. SlimVirgin 03:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

your blog

Hi, just saw your new blog -- I look forward to reading it! -- Viajero 14:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Link? Also, see also. El_C 14:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

mediation

See Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal#Christian_right_and_Political_correctness. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"fixed plagiarism of Lind"

What the hell is that? I read a source, cited a source, and made an addition based on information from a source. Thats hardly plagerism, which can be a legal offense, and one I'm certainly not guilty of. Please don't make false legal allegations. Thank you. Sam Spade 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dennis King

An unregistered user is deleting a sentence from King's bio that states King was a member of the Progressive Labor Party. I've been restoring it on the simple principle of an explained deletion of sourced material. However if it is wrong then we should correct or delete it. Do you have any knowledge of this matter? If so, your input would be appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll see if there is a way of wording the material to clarify that this was a youthful activity that happened many years ago. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Request

I am in receipt of a mediation request regarding you (cited earlier on your messages here), please contact me when you get a chance to let me know if you're agreeable to working on the issue. --Wgfinley 01:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your reply on my talk page, mediation is not about mediating the content of an article, it's about assisting editors in reaching an understanding so that they can coexist in peace before other dispute resolution steps are required (RfC, Arb, etc). So, if you are interested in trying to reach such an understanding then let me know. You can find me in the Misplaced Pages IRC room on freenode.net or you can reach me on AIM as progboatguy72. --Wgfinley 02:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

In your response to my message - as you wish, however I don't see where my political orientation would enter into the equation? Again, our job is not to mediate the content dispute but to see if we can mediate the personality dispute between editors. If you're looking for someone to act as a jury for content disputes that would be the editors and the consensus building process. However, there are other members who could take a look at the dispute such as Kim Bruning. I'll note the reference page and sorry I'm not giving you enough specifics but the goal is to get the two of you together and air out some of the differences and see if something can be worked out. --Wgfinley 03:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Kim_Bruning#Unfortunately.2C_a_limited_answer. El_C 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism at Political correctness

I looked into your claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed you are right. Since it was presented without attribution or quotes, that constitutes plagiarism. It seems the subsection at Talk:Christian right where you noted this has been deleted permanently from the page history, presumably by someone after 01:16 UTC today. What disturbs me is that since the claim was accurate and detailed an actual policy violation, deleting discussion related to it is no more than the destruction or manipulation of evidence, something that has been seen before.

If you are actually considering mediation over a dispute with another user, may I suggest going through the official mediation channel, as opposed to informal. You are more can be assured of receiving a neutral mediator, or at least one that you selected, as opposed to the alternative. FeloniousMonk 03:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal was formed in response to recent comments on arbitration cases that the current mediation committee appears to not be functioning . This spawned a proposed revision to the mediation process known as Misplaced Pages:Mediation (2005), of which it is a part, and which is supported by the current chair of the Mediation Committee . Informal mediation is an important part of that process to head off problems earlier in the dispute resolution process, at least that's the idea. --Wgfinley 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you unwilling to even mention what pages are in dispute and who is the complainant? Can you see why this makes me lack confidence in this informal process as unbiased? I prefer waiting to see what happens on the pages I suspect are involved.--Cberlet 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was cited up there a couple of times, Sam cited it in his message to you, but, one more time here it is ---> <--- --Wgfinley 04:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation 2

If you're willing to move forward with me as a mediatior, I've created User:Snowspinner/Sam Spade and Cberlet mediation. If you'd start by offering a slightly more detailed explanation of the problem, that would be tremendously helpful. Snowspinner 16:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE TO ALL: I am reluctant to enter into an informal mediation process. On both pages, Political Correctness and Christian right editing moves forward. I have always relied on formal mechanisms in the past at Misplaced Pages, and found them useful and constructive. Please stop trying to involve me in a process not officially sanctioned by Misplaced Pages as a community. --Cberlet 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about informal mediation - that said, I have to say, as someone involved in informal mediation now, it works. And also, to be honest, our formal mediation system is in ruins, which is part of the appeal of the informal process. I ask you, at least, to reconsider. Snowspinner 21:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am out of town for the next few days. I hope this matter will have faded by the time I return. Lack of response during this period does not indicate lack of courtesy.--Cberlet 21:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian fascism

You seem well-informed about this sort of thing; would you care to comment on the article and the associated VfD? That would be much appreciated. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

___fascism

I endorse your proposal for merging the "religion and fascism" articles. The concepts are more similar than different, and by merging them they won't seem as much like attacks on particular religions. I'll support the effort in way that I can. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

On sources outside the MSM

Hi, I am currently involved in an arbitration case which partly revolves around the rejection by a rightwing editor of lefty sources. The case I cited in my evidence deals with an article I wrote earlier this year on Allan Nairn, in which I allude a report he published in the The Nation in 1994 which revealed that FRAPH had been backed by the USG. One of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, who is a staunch conservative, appears to be biased against the Nation, as manifested in one of the (proposed) findings . Another editor has called him on that on the talk page, where it is now being discussed. The crux of the matter is: is it scholarly admissable (ie, acceptable for Misplaced Pages) to cite news reports in avowedly "left" publications which haven't necessarily been reported/verified elsewhere? Given your long experience with this kind of research, it would be helpful if you could weigh in. Thanks. -- Viajero | Talk 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on 'Anti-Globalisation and anti-semitism

Hi there, thanks for your comments on my comments (I'm still learning how to write properly here) on the Anti-globalisation and anti-semitism page. I see that non-cited objections weren't very useful, so I'm trying to find some over the course of the next few days. As for the ethics of participating in a debate on which I am writing, please see my comments on the page. Thanks for your input, as I have found your comments on the above artcile to be very useful. Please bear with me, I'm still finding my way around here. illWill 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your comments on board, and will think further about adding any subsections to articles, and the manner in which I phrase them - I'm used to different forms of etiquette for online communication, and I admit i did have a strong reaction to the article. I'm interested in finding areas to discuss NPOV, and also the idea that "we are writing an encyclopaedia, not talking about how to write an ecyclopaedia" - as I'm not certain there is a clear distinction between the two. Anyway, I didn't add this comment to draw you into a debate (as I'm sure you must be very busy) but just as a response for you taking the effort to write on my page, so feel free not to reply. Thanks illWill 16:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Neofascism and religion

Hi Chip. I appreciate your dropping me a line. While I think you have done good work on the page, I hesitate to get too involved. My experience on the Islamofascist page has left a bad taste in my mouth; it appears that a number of editors who lost a VfD are determined to delete the article "by other means", and I suspect they would do much the same here. Jayjg 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, and Fascism#Fascism_and_socialism. Sam Spade 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Recently you have been making a habit of violating the Misplaced Pages:Edit summary policy, placing inaccurate information in your edit summaries , . This is unhelpful to other editors, and I advise you to give the matter thought. Sam Spade 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Comparative edit summaries

Complaints about your edit summaries are disingenuous and hypocritcal when viewed in light of his recent edit summaries which range from the plainly insulting , to churlish , to the just plain odd . As you can see, he thinks "WTF" is completely acceptable for section headers and edit summaries (though no doubt he would object to STFU as a response to his WTF).

And mediation = direct communication? Mediation is communication conducted through a mediator, by necessity it is indirect. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I ceased communication with him and sought an advocate immediately following an instance where he employed BS (wikiied) and "WTF" in edit summaries and talk page discussion against me. His response was that this was as polite he is going to get(!), and that it is I who needs to make the adjustments (for being too dispassionate, rather than emotionalist, abrasive and insulting? Dunno). El_C 08:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You've hit a nerve

You must be awfully close to the truth on this one point to pull this many right-wing defenders out of the woodwork:

And just when you think you've seen the last of it when they hit their 3RR limit, another one pops up to step in:

Keep up the good work. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Hi, Chip. Please see this and comment if you like. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet, links to Selected papers

Hi, Chip. I added a dozen or so links to the article. Please look over them, I'm not entirely positive how applicable all the links are. Thanks, El_C 12:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

copyedit & such

Hi again, Chip. I gave the article a cursory copyediting, please have a look and let me know if you find any rewording to be odd or in error. Also, I noticed that the criticism section isn't entirely symmetrical at the moment, missing a response from yourself on Daniel Brandt's criticism as well as that of The New American. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I think these are due (I also notice that the last paragraph, about LaRouche, dosen't depict any actual criticisms of you, only that they had some – any thoughts on that?). I find myself in the fortunate position of being able to ask you these questions directly, it makes my work much easier, as in research that I would otherwise be obliged to carry. :) El_C 09:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your messages

I'm sorry not to have replied to your first message; I somehow missed it, and was only alerted to it by your follow-up. Good luck with the redirects — I'll keep an interested (and sympathetic) eye on things. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requesting Copyright Permission

Dear Chip,

I believe that Misplaced Pages’s article on Right Wing Politics would be enhanced by an article (chart) found at the Political Research Associates website. I would like to edit Right Wing Politics article on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Right-wing_politics). I am seeking permission to add Political Research Associates’ “Mapping the Right: Chart One. Sectors of the US Right Active in the Year 2004”, located at (http://www.publiceye.org/research/concepts/Mapping-the-Right-02.html).

Thank you for considering my suggestion,

Daniel

Political Research Associates allows Misplaced Pages to use specific copyrighted material on a case-by-case basis as Fair Use for educational purposes.

Permission granted

This message will serve as permission for use of the Chart of Sectors of the U.S. Political Right.

The page with the most recent updates of the chart is: http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html

It is possible that there will be objections to the insertion of the entire chart. Wiki editors can be opinionated. :-) You can also consider using selected material from the chart as long as you somehow credit it to PRA. If it would help, PRA could produce the chart as an expandable image file. If the chart is used in its entirety, PRA will add a small copyright/permission note similar to the ones used on the page for me on Misplaced Pages where two images are located: Chip Berlet. The code for the notice and other instructions are located at User:Cberlet.

Good luck with your editing.--Cberlet 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added the .png version to the PRA website: http://www.publiceye.org/research/Chart%20of%20Sectors.png ---Cberlet 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi Chip, we have another LaRouche editor The Power of Reason (talk • contribs), possibly a sockpuppet. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at the deletion vote regarding two articles he's created about LaRouche economic theory. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 00:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. It's a pleasure to collaborate with you. -Willmcw 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

First your spurious accusation of plagiarism, and now you accuse me of vandalism. This, combined with dozens of other ugly statements on your part seem to be leading up to a rather damining arbcom case. I suggest you chill the fuck out. Sam Spade 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

I thought of your conciliatory work on the whole Islamofascism thing, and certainly wanted to get your opinion on the nomination.

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer

Are you sure that you are being more "NPOV" by rendering questionable things that are demonstrable? 14:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFM

Please see WP:RfM#User:Cberlet_and_User:Sam_Spade. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

September 11, researchers

Chip, would you be willing to merge whatever is salvageable from this article into 9/11 conspiracy theories? The VfD was clear that September 11, researchers should be re-merged, but the creators and maintainers of that article seem reluctant to do so. I will be re-directing soon, so I'd appreciate any assistance. Jayjg 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute

I see that youu've written about the Mises Institute before. The article here is undergoing active editing, with a number of LVMI faculty and staff participating. If you have any interest in it you might be able to bring a different POV to the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -Willmcw 22:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

911 Prediction Photo

Why do you feel the 911 prediction photo from July 2000 and background story are "too bizarre"? Are not all predictions bizarre? And how few of them come with photos and credible witnesses? I think you were too hasty in removing it. It took less then five minutes from being posted for you to remove it.

If you Google '911 prediction' it is the top link, so it is not completely unknown.

Dear anonymous. It does not belong on a page about real death and destruction. It would be outlandish and painful to many. It is a bizarre claim, there is no substantial coverage (astrology weekly notwithstanding). And if I Google "lunatic" and "prediction" I get 55,500 hits.--Cberlet 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chip. You are a journalist...so check it out. Apparently it was a real prediction witnessed by a credible journalist. There is also a very specific anthrax through the mail prediction from the same person witnessed by a PBS Frontline producer, apparently with video tape.

Be more skeptical. Before 9/11 there were studies by think tanks warning about jets being flown into buildings as a form of terrorism, as well as the use of anthrax being sent through the mail. Please stop bothering me.--Cberlet 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chip. Okay. Fair enough. Still I have never seen a photograph like the one linked above. What about this: AI Predicts Terror Attack? from the same guy. Again very specific, and he posted to usenet 4 days before the gas station building bomb, so the timing is real: Baby AI Issues Terror Advisory - Gas Stations Near Buildings So, three terror predictions, that appear dead on? I know I am very curious.

On primary sources

Hi Chip,

If you have a moment, could you take a look at Harry Magdoff? You are probably familiar with him; he is a prominent Marxist economist who has been an co-editor of Monthly Review for many years.

Last week, I asked 172 to have a look at the article; at the time, it was dreadful, very little on economics, lot of dubious allegations that he was a Soviet spy, largely the work of a Nobs01 (talk • contribs), a conspiracy buff who seems to find a spy under every bed. 172 rewrote the thing, and turned it into a decent article. Now, however another user, TJive (talk • contribs), has re-added a huge amount of this espionage stuff, ], thereby undoing nearly all of 172's work. The article, as it now stands, is basically a MacCarthyite smear.

The crux of the issue seems to be the the reliance of Nobs and TJive on what appears to me to be dodgy primary sources, such as Venona transcriptions, the type of things which 172 has says have not been sanctified by secondary sources. Given your experience as a researcher, I wonder whether you would care to weigh in. Any help you can offer in helping restore the balance to that article would of course be most welcome.

Thanks, Viajero | Talk 13:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alas, I just noticed that the situation is very similar with I. F. Stone. Viajero | Talk 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Red Scare

Hi. I see you're helping get rid of some of the nonsense on the Harry Magdoff and I. F. Stone pages that User:Nobs01 put in (and which his reactionary helpers try to keep in).

I haven't seen you break it, but just as a precaution, the reactionaries often try to trip people up on the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule which is to not revert a "page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." So familiarize yourself with this rule. Not that I've seen you break it, but I know they try to goad people into breaking it. Otherwise - good work. Ruy Lopez 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Note on Harry Magdoff

Mr. Berlet, I should remark that I am familiar with some of your work outside of this site (some of it I agreed with and some not). I welcome your constructive engagement on the Harry Magdoff article but preemptive mass deletions and moving entire swaths of content is not a good way to initiate discussions, which have already been ongoing for some time now. If you would indicate support for remerging and verifying the content and sources it would be a sign of good faith towards rationally compromising on the material. Thank you. --TJive 02:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet,

In my experience when there is a dispute over the accuracy of content a tag is placed on the article and it is discussed in the talk page. That is what was occurring in the article until you moved it elsewhere. Usually moves are for the purpose of saving space on an article which is not a concern here. That you dispute the text is nearly self-evident, but not justification in itself for creating a new article with an inflammatory title and introduction. That was bound to elicit a negative response no matter how you view it and I do not believe it is appropriate, as you can see by the Vfd. If you wish to compromise over the material I would be glad to participate but I am not going to do so on what amounts to a POV sandbox. Please reconsider. --TJive 03:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page, I must say that I had already posted the Vfd by the time I had asked, which is why I asked for your support in deleting and merging the content. I had assumed that you were perhaps initially acting a bit rashly (out of anger or otherwise) and might reconsider, as I have attempted to encourage you. --TJive 03:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have indicated a few times now that I look forward to constructive discussion and compromise on the matter but that I do not believe at all that the manner in which you have done so is helpful, that it is in fact counter-productive and inflammatory. Nobs, another major contributor who believes in the value of this material, agrees with me which is why he refused to comment on the page. There is no real reason for its existence. If you wish for constructive dialogue as you say (and having already read your comments I believe that you do), then simply move this content to the Talk:Harry Magdoff page where we will discuss it. I maintain there is no reason for what has been done and that it is counterproductive towards accomplishing the stated goals of both you and myself. --TJive 03:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I should add as an observer that the results of a VFD do not matter at all if the title violates wikipedia NPOV standards, which this one does. J. Parker Stone 11:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to have a discussion, let's have it on the discussion page. This is very frustrating and irregular.--Cberlet 11:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note, I prefer the original Magdoff article I wrote after it was merged with Ruy Lopez, et al contributors. It appeared well rounded. They insisted on a confrontation and no reference whatsoever as to the facts of his involvement with Soviet espionage. Hence, the result what you have now. This will continue, I suppose, until facts become accepted, and old myths discarded. My personal interest is in espionage activity, not counterespionage files, which is where most of the evidence is drawn from. But let me clearly state, the fact Harry Magdoff's espionage career may overwhelm his bio page, is not my doing. If the arguements are over what the meaning of "is" is, then the weight of evidence must be inserted. nobs 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

invitation

Cberlet, it seems that part of the problem that Rangerdude et al have with one of your edits on the Mises institute was that your affiliation with SPLC isn't declared on your user page. They seem to be of the opinion that if they declare their relationship to the Mises institute on their user page then they aren't hiding anything, so their edits can't be NPOV. That is my loose interpretation of some of their comments. Anyway, I thought that perhaps it would help resolve at least some of this mess if you put something on your user page that announced you affiliation with SPLC. Misplaced Pages policies don't require it, and I know the notion that "declare affiliation ==> therefore ==> exempt from NPOV" doesn't really add up, but maybe such a gesture would help, at least while you are editing the Mises institute article. I am not an admin or a mediator or anything official like that. Just consider this an invitation from a lowly editor with a silly idea that may or may not help anything. Accept or decline as you wish. FuelWagon 15:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks FuelWagon 20:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

given all things I've been accused of recently, either you are a saint for putting up with what you did, or I am a very bad wagon indeed.  ;) FuelWagon 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I. F. Stone

As a gesture of good faith in resolving a myriad of disputes, I will lay some cards on the table. You will note my input and/or reverting of material on the main article I. F. Stone has been minimum. I inserted an understanding of what Stone's relationship to the KGB was on the Talk page, and will deal with it fully once I have completed the review of Venona information regarding Washington, D.C. operatives within the U.S. government. Afterwards, I intend to review the Archives of the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB), which are now open, and should shed more light on I. F. Stone and other issues in question. It should be noted, Haynes & Klehr place I. F. Stone in their Appendix D, Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies, or "uncorroborated" as I refer to them; in this regard, I have departed from Haynes & Klehr's conclusions based upon the corroborative evidence of Oleg Kalugin, and as such, have not marked Stone with an (*) on the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_Venona_Papers. Conversely, I have not engaged in an edit war over placing Stone in . It seems the consensus is to leave the Kalugin material in the Stone article. I am happy with this, and would be willing to fall back on a presumption of innocence stand vis-a-vis leaving him out of , and marking him with an (*) on the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_Venona_Papers as "uncorroborated" until such a time as the SACB materials can be dealt with. I would be willing to cooperate with you in this regard, if you are willing to work with me in resolving several of the other disputes, including the persistent vandalism that now is occurring on the Venona project page itself. nobs 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page. Thank you. nobs 20:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am debating in good faith on the appropriate talk pages. Please do likewise. I have no interest in a side conversation.--Cberlet 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe I have acted without good faith in any manner whatsoever. If I have offended you somehow, I apologize. nobs 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I really prefer to work on public talk pages. Happy to continue working with you there.--Cberlet 01:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Soviet spies VfD

I have closed the VfD you opened for this category, and moved the discussion to Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion. This was done because WP:CFD is the prefered location to debate deletion of categories. --Allen3  20:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leftist Lie Factory?

Chip, is this you they are talking about? Please refute these charges! NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!!

Don't be coy. Not an auspicious start. However, here are my comments about the hit piece written about me.--Cberlet 12:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Red-baiting Lie Article!

David Horowitz had a fit when he read my article in the SPLC magazine, and commissioned a hit piece by Chris Arabia. It is full of distortions and factual inaccuracies based on assumptions that are false. Hit Piece

Here is my original article, for starters. Berlet article

Horowitz complained about my article: H-1

As the Chris Arabia article reports:

“Because Berlet impugned the integrity of the CSPC (among many others), David Horowitz thoroughly rebutted Berlet’s bile. Undeterred as ever by reality, Berlet repeated his distortions and SPLC endorsed and defended his misconduct.”

What that means is that I wrote a lengthy memo defending my few sentences about CSPC, and after the attorneys at SPLC read it, and compared it to Horowitz’s complaint, they and the editors felt the Horowitz complaint had no merit and defended my article as written. Horowitz then published the memo, even though he did not ask permission. Berlet memo

Horowitz’s counter response is here: H-2

The author, Chris Arabia, mentions my role in the Albania friendship group, but fails to mention my article where I talk about what I did in that group, especially my struggle against anti-democratic Stalinists and my criticsm of the “democratic centralism” of Leninism. See: “Abstaining from Bad Sects: Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations. Abstaining from Bad Sects

In case that is not clear, it means I am critical of communism. I have also written about Stalinism as a form of totalitarianism.

“In Berlet’s mind, North Korea on the Adriatic was paradise.”

Not true. Never said it, never thought it.

“Because Berlet arbitrarily redefines words such as ‘fascist’ to fit his delusions, he need not confront a reality that lays waste to his worldview”

Not true. I write scholarly articles on neofascism that have been published internationally. See, for example, Chip Berlet. (2003). “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”

This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) I left the board of a group Brandt ran when he refused to discuss my concerns over his increasing tolerance of conspiracy theories and antisemitism. He was mad.

“Even The Nation has printed criticisms of Berlet’s venomous proclivities.”

Apparently not on the page linked in the article, which is an attack on The Nation by the CSPC. It does not mention my name. Once, Alexander Cockburn felt I had not criticized the ADL strongly enough for a spying scandal in San Francisco (I guess co-writing an op-ed in the New York Times was not critical enough). Cockburn criticized me in The Nation, but was forced to retract some of his claims by the editors.

“Berlet’s unstated litmus test for ‘fascists’ is deviation from his far-Left political views.”

Not true and surreal.

“For example, Berlet has recently turned his poison pen on such dubious ‘anti-Semites’ as David Horowitz.”

Not true. The quote is ‘cooked,’ I never called Horowitz an anti-Semite. Read for yourself, here is the text: CSPC section

“By falsely insinuating CSPC's devotion to bigotry and hatred (a devotion belied by David Horowitz's multiple decades in the Civil Rights movement), Berlet created the false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand.”

Not true. Misrepresents my article. I never wrote that CSPC had a devotion to “hatred.” I wrote, at the beginning of the article:

“How do ideas that once were denounced as racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited get transmitted into mainstream discussions and political debates? Through a wide array of political and social networks.”

“Today, there are still political and social networks that seek to undermine full equality for all Americans. Their messages are spread using the standard tools: prejudice, fear, disdain, misinformation, trivialization, patronizing stereotypes, demonization and even scare-mongering conspiracy theories.”Berlet article

This next paragraph by Arabia is quite interesting:

“To aid the radical Left, PRA identifies three primary tasks: boosting ‘dialectical materialism’ to combat ‘conspiracism,’ continuing to support Palestinian anti-Semitism, and promoting ‘progressive internationalism’ to thwart the successes of capitalism.”

Not true. At PRA we could never figure out how he cut and pasted snippets of language (off of our website?) to assemble this totally false claim. Especially since we have multiple articles warning about anti-Semitism.

“Berlet is also on the roster of ‘Speak Out Now!’ a left-wing speakers bureau that features such luminaries as veteran Communist miscreant Angela Davis.”

This is a good example of the guilt-by-association red-baiting that is laced through the article.

And that's just a few of the reasons I call the CSPC article by Chris Arabia the "Red-baiting Lie Article!" --Cberlet 12:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's great book review of Horowitz's biography? It's really great. He tears it up. (I can't find the original Chronicles review; but here are some related comments/discussions.,,) So, what, are you some commie or socialist? I have always been curious why socialists and leftists act righteous and take the moral high ground, despite the fact that without property rights you can have no other rights. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 16:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Abstasining From Bad Sects" confuses me; the term "ultra-Leftism" confuses me. It appears there is a mountain of ideological belief somewhere underneath a construct of "left" or "Leftism", this all theoretical, and I haven't the patience to attempt to making sense of it. Seems it is all built upon the Left/Right Political Spectrum Theory, which I am disposing of in my tract "Fallacy of the Left/Right Spectrum Theory". Can you somehow make it more specific. Thank you. nobs 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So guys, if I ever run into you in person I will buy you a drink and try to explain it all, but there is such a vast ideological chasm between us, it would give me carpal tunnel syndrom to start typing a response. Well, except to say that I am a dull democratic socialist like Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornell West. Pinkish but not a full-fledged Red. Some of my best friends are commies, though.  ;-) But to suggest I am a Stalinist is like suggesting Ludwig von Mises was a neoconservative. Wrong era, wrong ideology, wrong category. --Cberlet 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I have engaged at Talk:Left-Right politics in an attempt to dispute the whole theory. Suffice it say, I reject the basic concept that all political activity is ideologically driven, hence the very underlying construct of a "left-right division". nobs 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I believe that this "hit piece" as you describe it is entirely too bombastic and its conclusion precedes its evidence but there are still some points to my mind not sufficiently resolved. I don't believe, tough as it may be, that I have been thrown into confusion or convulsion by the left-lingo of the sect article and yet in reading it I can not for the life of me figure out why in the world you would participate in such an organization to begin with. This was a "friendship" organization pertaining to a country which felt itself scorned by the rejection of Stalin and Mao in the USSR and PROC, respectively. It was itself the most sectarian and ideologically extreme of the communist bloc countries and yet you write almost as if you were surprised to see all sorts of Leninists and Stalinists show up, rigging and running the show for whatever minute pathological purposes it serves at that moment. That is like joining the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic" and being shocked and dismayed that you find yourself amongst racist and totalitarian cranks and are forever haunted by it. It's certainly not the fault of someone who gets a bad impression from the act.

For the purposes of full disclosure I have to say that as I referred to before I am familiar with some of your pieces. I think your material on LaRouche is generally valuable, but I also believe your work with SPLC was as much a "hit piece" on Horowitz and co. as this was on you, so in that sense it simply returned the favor. Horowitz is a grown man and can certainly defend himself (and he did), but I think you underestimate the exasperation that comes when a man who dedicated years to (real and faux) civil rights causes is being lumped beside neo-Confederate authors and racialist science proponents for what entirely appears (to him) as being a case of not conforming to an arbitrary expectation of what opinions and language is proper when dealing with already hypersensitive issues like slavery reparations. I've read quite a bit of his material and get entirely the opposite impression that you have of him; to my mind conflating people such as he and actual, fringe racist groups is a disservice to the SPLC's stated goals to be engaging in and, in fact, wasting time on. --TJive 00:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chipster, sure, I guess you can say you are not a commie, but still, all leftists are systematically hostile to private property rights to some significant degree, are they not? And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity; you necessarily then want some collective group with Big Guns--the state--to own the property instead. But he who owns the properts gets to tell the others what to do; it's a control thing, ya know.

What have you written on that nutjob Larouche? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps his encounters with "the Right" in Misplaced Pages he can then write investigative journalist articles and then sell through a non-profit organization, for which he he gets paid. nobs 02:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That conjecture does not assume much good faith, nobs. El_C 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting premise; we will see in three or four months in upcoming issues of The Public Eye if Venona project materials are being used by neo-fascist skinheads to promote anti-semitism. nobs 15:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity — Always convinient when the the premise is so... self-contained. I, however, dispute it. El_C 02:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it's disputed, what matters is that all long-term successful economies and societies have been market-oriented to some degree, and have included property rights. J. Parker Stone 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I maintain that it does, in fact, matters; and I dispute this definition you set out above. But I don't wish to engage in these polemics at this time. Also, we are intruding on Chip's talk page, which is unfair (on my part, too). El_C 02:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No polemics, just stating a fact. J. Parker Stone 03:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation at this time, nor with rhateorical or semantic epilgoues. El_C 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No smiley? :( J. Parker Stone 05:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought I added one, actually; doing too many things at once. :\ El_C 05:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 strikes again

Old version:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, a publication which has itself had two correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Nobs01 version:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, which has been referred to as a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" evidenced by having two of its own correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Cberlet: see my message to you at . nobs 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, Please stop vandalizing the Wiki pages on me and Political Research Associates. Please stop trying to engage me in side conversations. Please stop using this page to carry out attacks on me and my work. Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to. Any further discussion of issues will take place through a mediator. Please stop stalking and harassing me.--Cberlet 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I always find it amusing when people use "harass" to refer to something going on on the Internet. J. Parker Stone 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chip Takes Wiki Sanity Break

The attacks on me and my work continue to mount. The tone gets nastier, the claims more ludicrous. I need to walk away from Wiki for a week or so in the hopes that stuff will settle down and that more level-headed Wiki editors will step in and try to calm matters down. --Cberlet 20:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Over the past year it has gotten worse instead of better, and the chance of some deus ex machina where level-headed Wiki editors will step in and sort everything out becomes more and more remote with each day. I do not have a Panglossian view either, in terms of political articles, Misplaced Pages will get worse, not better. Perhaps when a left-wing and right-wing Misplaced Pages clones pop up (Demopedia? Dkosopedia? Anarchopedia? Red Wiki?) and all of the hard-liners flock to them, things will become saner. Ruy Lopez 09:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Edits

I followed your edits in the Christian Identity article. Very good edits, objective, and I think dispassionate. Christian Identity is, of course, a powder keg. If you can navigate as skillfully though other articles as you did through the Christian Identity one, I can't see why people would be giving you a hard time.

Well done. Thanks for your contributions.

Eustace Mullins

Chip, I believe you're a bit of an expert on the subject, have published articles about him and so-on. Would you mind taking a look at the current article? Jayjg 18:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Perceived ...

Thanks for catching that very important missing word; I didn't even notice! It's been a while since I looked at the article. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascism in the United States?

Could I prevail upon you to look in at Talk:Fascism#United_States? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Losing temper

It happens to the best of us. It's what caused me to slap a POV tag on an article you defend almost territorially. Your loss of temper is actually what has kept me from ever bothering to come back to try to constructively fix it. I begged out because I was too busy, which you tried to use as an excuse to remove the POV tag. It was appalling, but it's nice to see that you've finally admitted that you do, at least on occassion, lose your temper. Those of us with strong opinions sometimes express our POVs more forcefully than is civil, which is unfortunate, but at least, fortunately, in this venue, it's much easier to admit and retract. Tomer 03:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Liftarn at List of political epithets

I have run into what I consider disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Political Views of LaRouche

Dear Mr. Berlet

Since you revertet the following paragraph so fast could you help me with changing it in a way that incoroporates the legal information? I find the paragraph supreamly misleading without it.

This is the original paragraph:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

And this was added to clarify the courts statement "fair comment":

This ruling was in accordance to a U.S. Supream Court ruling that makes it clear that a public figue as a plaintiff must proofe that the opinion statet, even if untrue and harmful, was stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm the plaintiff. As long as this proposition can not be met the opinion is called "fair comment". That means the court did not qualify the statement of calling LaRouche an anti-Semite but judged if there was proof of mailcious intend etc. on the side of the defendend. The plaintiff in this case was LaRouche.

I also made an wikipedia article about fair comment which you might want to check. This article should put your concerns about original research to rest.

Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation in making the article better.

--Zirkon 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nixon & enemies list

Hi. What, out of curiosity, happened to this category? Do you know? Is the vote for deletion archived someplace? I can't find it. Thanks. --Cberlet 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know in detail. I don't follow WP:CFD, because it is mostly administrivia. Usually, someone alerts me when something substantive comes up. This time, no one did. I don't know where it is archived (you might ask on the CFD talk page, if it's not apparent). My assumption is that it was deemed redundant to Nixon's Enemies List. But it bothers me that no one thought to post a notice about the CFD at Talk:Nixon's Enemies List. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be in the archives for any time in the last three months. I'll try to follow up & find out what it happening. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Blindsided:_Nixon_.22enemies.22. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion, such as it was

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_19#Category:Nixon_.22enemies.22_and_sub-cat_Category:Original_Nixon_.22enemies.22. Let me know if you pursue trying to get this reversed, I'd certainly be with you on it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sun yat-sen

Since you're the expert on this kind of thing, HerschelKrustovsky added this to the Sun Yat-sen article years ago:

"Sun is highly regarded as the National Father of modern China. His Political philosophy, known as the Three Principles of the People was proclaimed in August 1905 and was based strongly on the American System. "

Is this Larouche propaganda? This article is nearing FA status, so I thought I would want to clean it up first. Please Reply ASAP, on my talk page if possible. Thanks, Borisblue 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington

Howdy, since you seem to be the resident wiki-expert on matters of paranoid american politics, I was wondering if you could take a look at my article and add context and spices. etc etc

Thanks Klonimus 03:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help, especially adding references. As you may have noticed, There is currently a VfD campagin against several books in Category:Books critical of Islam. I'm trying to fill out this category with post 9/11 books on this subject, and a small team of wikipedian's is trying to remove anything perceived as Islamophobic from wikipedia.

Perhaps you might have an opinion on the merits of the following articles. Klonimus 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad ranked 10,000+ on Amazon.com
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle ranked 25,000+ on Amazon.com
• The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism1

Political correctness

I'm not quite sure whether you objected to every P.C. example I gave, or if reverting all of it was just easier to do. Be that as it may, I will sanitize the stuff you consider politically incorrect, and put the other stuff back in as is, when I find the time. If you have any other specific objections, maybe you could tell me now, and save time later. Wahkeenah 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I had previously put similar remarks on the P.C. article's discussion page. Wahkeenah 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff and Misplaced Pages

I've made a comment on the talk page of Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage.

I see you took a break from Misplaced Pages. Such frustration is inevitable, you're banging your head against a brick wall. I've discussed my sentiments regarding this here User:Ruy Lopez/NPOV and categories. Misplaced Pages will always have the bias it has now, or may get even worse. While I don't discount the need to fix errors here (Misplaced Pages is the 36th most popular site on the Internet according to Alexa, and is moving up in rank every day), I think an alternative wiki which is run by progressives/leftists/whatever is a necessity. Several exist, and are listed on my page above, Demopedia, Dkosopedia, the niche-focused Sourcewatch, plus more radical ones like Red Wiki, Anarchopedia or Infoshop.org's OpenWiki. I have the ability to put up a wiki, but would not be able to pay the bandwidth charges at the current time if usage took off, so for the current time I am not putting one up. I'm happy for now trying to build up critical mass on the progressive wikis. Whether you participate to some degree or not, I hope you see the need for a progressive wiki that has hit a critical mass and is a resource for progressive movements.

I have been on Misplaced Pages for a long time. The pattern I see here is often thus: a progressive comes on, sees what appears to be an open, democratic atmosphere and begins editing, begins to get into arguments, thinks he (or she) can win, begins getting frustrated and on and so forth. Often at this point I pop in and tell them that the progressive wikis do not have momentum, have not reached a situation of critical mass to get momentum yet, and that their frustrating experiences on Misplaced Pages are fine, but perhaps they can spend a small percentage of their wiki-time building momentum towards a critical mass level on the progressive wikis instead of being frustrated bailing water out of a leaky boat on Misplaced Pages. Usually they don't participate in the progressive wikis, eventually get frustrated with Misplaced Pages and often quit Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, most of that I discuss in my above article. It's not like no one reads alternative wikis - one article I started on Sourcewatch has had over 10,000 views so far, so my hour or two writing the article was not done in vain. Although it depends on the subject - few people will read the Harry Magdoff article, despite all the time we all spend fighting over it. Ruy Lopez 02:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to contribute on Magdoff, but I don't know the case. I think this is a difficult issue, particularly because leftwingers tend to be more interested in fair and open debate than rightwingers who will quibble and distort endlessly. But that's our strength. I don't see that hiving off to a 'progressive wiki' is the answer - though these might be worthwhile. Misplaced Pages provides a possibility of a participatory democratic information source. I believe it has a future. It does have weaknesses - but less so than mainstream media/academe. Do we boycott them? No.--Jack Upland 06:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why contributing to other wikis is "hiving off" or "boycotting" this one. Isn't it possible for someone to visit two different web sites? If working on this website is so great, why did CB say he had to take a break for a few weeks due to the stress and frustration? Ruy Lopez 08:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I did say other websites were worthwhile. And I misunderstood your comment about a leaking boat/brick wall.--Jack Upland 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

On crack

"Is this Postmodernism on crack?" LOL!! SlimVirgin 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Venona

Hi, got your message. I must confess that the discussion associated with Talk:VENONA Project is all but impenetrable to me. I have no special knowledge of espionage or communism really. I do agree, though, that these "materials" deserve watching. I applaud you for your interest, but I don't know how useful I can be. · Katefan0 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I started that RfC to try to draw some more attention to the situation, from editors who hadn't already been embroiled in it, some of whom might be able to engage with Nobs & you on the actual content issues - which I can't really do, because of my lack of familiarity with the sources. I've already expressed pretty strong opinions on Nobs' style of editing and argument, on the McCarthy article and on his talk page, but the RfC is supposed to be about the article(s) rather than about personality. I don't expect it to be very fruitful - Nobs' contributions there so far have been typically off point - but as far as I understand WP process, it's the first thing one ought to try. And although he's dominated the "discussion", there is a small minority of editors who share some of his POV, with Noel being the most vocal - so it's a relevant question, even if he doesn't address it in any useful way. Anyway, I think an RfA is definitely called for - but that's up to you and/or Nobs to start. ←Hob 21:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I've been away for a bit. Like Katefan, I tried to get into the discussion at Talk:VENONA Project, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. If you like, you could e-mail me a synopsis, so I could understand better what's going on. I wish I could help more. Jayjg 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed and somewhat frightened by the amount of energy and detailed attention you've spent on this. I don't know if it will be possible for Nobs to collaborate constructively, but stranger things have happened... still, I think that the time to request arbitration/mediation is probably now. I don't see any sign that he's getting any nearer to responsiveness, and I also don't think the argument will spiral out of control into blatantly abusive chaos - it'll just go on this way, but longer. I think your attempts at breaking down the issues have been above and beyond the call of duty. Maybe the other editors above will step in at some point, but I see that the factual background is a pretty steep barrier. But then again I don't think it's going to be possible to resolve the factual issues till the amazingly frustrating and time-wasting behavior is addressed. ←Hob 03:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Both of us have had the same problem with Nobs (necesarry for the RFA), and others have to, to some extent. Maybe it's time to get an RFA together about this. RFA's take months to get resolved, so we might as well start now. On some level, I'd just leave Misplaced Pages to the Nobs's and go off to the happy hunting grounds of Demopedia, DKosopedia and whatnot, but anyhow. I think Hob is right, now is the time to start thinking about an RFA. I don't know what my schedule will be, but if I have the time, I will spare some time for it, if I do have the time. Ruy Lopez 04:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the above two editors have not been following the discussion; nobs & Cberlet appear to have resolved a major issue today. nobs 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, all I did was give up arguing over a cite that is unclear until we get some sort of confirmation rom the government as to proper title and authorship. The circular arguments and foot-dragging is still ridiculous.--Cberlet 16:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: see my last posting at Talk:Venona project; I'll give you time to get caught up on digest the work I did. let me know when your ready. I'll be here for at least another 4 hours. Thank you. nobs 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you invited me in on Venona, but I just can't do it. It's been such a process just trying to get an answer on what I thought would be a simple uncontroversial question about how the material is organized. The experience was like wrestling with an enormous creature made of Jello: you can't pin it down, but if it gets on top of you, you may smother.

I'm not all that knowledgable on Venona, so I don't really have that much to bring to it. I have what I'd consider a healthy skepticism about two-level decrypts (first, decrypting the documents themselves, then interpreting what name refers to what person in the real world) and I suspect that the Soviet agents in the U.S. were often reporting "successes" at turning people that had no basis in fact (if I had Stalin for a boss, I'd hesitate to report a failure), but this is more a POV opinion than anything based in real knowledge. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Cberlet! I've been assigned to your case, and I'll be happy to help you and Nobs out. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, where I've left a response. Would you prefer that mediation occur via talk pages and a special page (something like Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop), or via email? I would prefer that it stay on Misplaced Pages, but I'm fine with both. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Cberlet! I've moved Nobs01's previous workshop to a subpage and created a new workshop. There, I've created three sections- one section where both of you should agree on a few basic policies, another section where you should state your goals of mediation (i.e. what you hope to accomplish), and then a section where each of you can give a summary of the dispute. I ask that you do not respond to the other party's summary yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cognition

Hi Chip, Cognition has been busy tonight. Among other things, he's inserted LaRouche material into Physical economics and Abba P. Lerner, in the first instance to claim that LaRouche developed the ideas or coined the term, and in the second, to add a section about a debate LaRouche had with Lerner, though there's no indication this was a significant event for Lerner. I've removed the material, protected both pages, and requested sources. For Physical economics, Cognition has produced a source that is paid subscription only, so I asked him to upload it, which he did at File:Pu 45 977.pdf. Because I protected the page, I feel I ought not to be the one to judge whether the source is credible, though I notice that it cites a LaRouche paper as its source — Lyndon LaRouche, "The science of physical economy as the Platonic epistemological basis for all branches of human knowledge," Part 1, 2, 3 Executive Intelligence Review, 21 (9-10), 1994

Would you mind taking a look at it? Also note the new Cognition-authored Lerner-LaRouche debate. I've also left this note for Will. Cheers, SlimVirgin 07:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I don't think we have met before, but I have heard of you :). I was wondering whether you would be interested at voting at my Rfa? Please see here. Thank you very much. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)