| Revision as of 17:15, 28 September 2005 editRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 edits →Fairness and Balance← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:26, 28 September 2005 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| Hi, | |||
| Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche and other critics of Political Research Associates tend to post material here that is not merely critical but full of false or very outdated information. Please try to keep a balance of positive and negative out of fairness. Try to actually fact check criticisms before posting them. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Added NPOV note == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I am inviting a discussion of how to make this page balanced, while cutting the material that is not accurate. There are only a tiny handful of people who are critics of PRA. I am calling for a discussion about how to present this criticism fairly. | |||
| This page is now unbalanced in favor of PRA. Let the critics add material so that it does not contain false claims, and does not exceed 50% of the page. | |||
| --] 15:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages has a policy that says claims should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), clearly sourced and referenced. See ]. There should be a Reference section at the end of the article. Each book, paper, newspaper article or website referred to by the author for a particular claim should be listed in this section. Throughout the text, as claims are made, a reference should be provided inline like this and then also listed in the References section. (Not all claims have to be referenced, of course: it's a question of commonsense, but if a claim is challenged by another editor, a reference must be provided.) | |||
| :References should be reputable. The more contentious the claim, the more reputable the reference needs to be. Not all editors stick to these rules, but they are supposed to. | |||
| :There has been a problem with several Misplaced Pages articles being edited by ] activists/supporters. They are ], ], ] and ]. (The latter two appear to be the same person; not sure about the others. Weed Harper and a notorious Usenet LaRouche activist called Ralph Gibbons have both posted on Usenet using IP address ], and the same IP address has been reported for sending out pro-LaRouche spam around the Web.) Anyone who consistently tries to correct their editing is accused of being an anti-LaRouche activist. I first came to the attention of these people when I wrote the article on ], which they heavily contested. See ] and ] for details of the dispute. In the end, we agreed on a compromise version, which is what you now see on the page. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast but this is what happens to articles they get involved in. My own view is that these editors should not be editing articles that have anything to do with LaRouche, but that is just my personal view. There was an Arbitration Committee ruling against them, which you can find at ]. The ruling states that they are not allowed to insert "original research" emanating from the LaRouche organization into any article that is not about Lyndon LaRouche or a related person or organization. The articles that are regarded as being connected to LaRouche can be viewed at ]. They would therefore not be allowed to insert "original research" from the LaRouche organization into the Political Research Associates article, unless there was something in the article critical of the LaRouche organization, in which case the LaRouche response could be quoted. What is meant by "original research" here are claims not verifiable without reference to the LaRouche organization. | |||
| :If you feel able to, I would suggest you take the most biased version of this article you can find, and try to incorporate, into the current version, any of the claims you feel may have some validity, providing references for each claim, bearing in mind that the article must be written from a neutral point of view. Alternatively, it might make more sense if editors who are not involved with, and who are not opposed to, Political Research Associates do the editing. I hope this information helps. ] 02:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == unsourced claim == | |||
| ''There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially Chip Berlet, has a bias against persons and groups who see conspiracies as driving history and current events.'' Citation on this? ] 20:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Necessity of NPOV notice? == | |||
| Is it still necessary to have the notice about NPOV disputes at the head of this page? It looks perfectly kosher to me. If no one has any objections, I'd just as soon see it removed. ] 03:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Herschel, can you provide a reference for the Brandt quotes or remove them? Also, I'm going to remove the Brandt link you gave, as it is absurd and mentions the silly PROMIS conspiracy story, which truly is the preserve of lunatics. ] 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reference is the very link that you wish to remove. I think that it is customary to included references in the external links section, but to ease your mind, I have added a footnote. | |||
| ::Incidentally, you are the first person to denounce Daniel Brandt as a source, to my knowledge. If you will take another, perhaps slower look at the linked article, you will find that he is in fact criticizing the PROMIS story. --] 16:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I put the NPOV flag back up. This entry is supposed to be about PRA, but it is now mostly a criticism of PRA by Brandt, who I have criticized in the past as a conspiracist willing to be an apologist for those who flirt with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. He is not an unbiased source. He has repeatedly attacked PRA. Furthermore, some of the information is not factual, and some is outdated. It is not fair for LaRouche supporters to edit pages about LaRouche critics in a way that makes dubious and highly marginal claims the dominant text. --] 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Chip, I'm not certain that I am following your reasoning here. The LaRouche pages are littered with attacks authored by persons who are not unbiased sources, and who have repeatedly attacked LaRouche -- persons such as yourself. I will be convinced that you are a supporter of fairness when I see you apply the same standards of fairness to your opponents that you request for yourself. In the meantime, I suggest you include some rebuttal information about Brandt in this article, or a refutation of that information which you claim is "not factual." --] 23:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point of an encyclopedia entry is to offer a fair and accurate summary of information. I write entries for published print encyclopedias. I do not include hyperbolic charges by marginal groups and conspiracist writers. I often do not include material that I believe to be true, but which is not the most important material for an entry. The tactic you pursue on this site is to paste in globs of outlandish claims from marginal conspiracist writers and then suggest that the way to proceed is for people to rebut these claims. In fact, these dubious claims do not belong in the entry in the first place. I understand you firmly believe the material you paste in is true. But as has been shown repeatedly, your posted additions are often not supported by the available facts or are hyperbolic or include personal attacks. Scores of editors of publications over the past 30 years have found my work to be fair and accurate. Like every writer, I make mistakes, and I take responsibility for them. While PRA has critics, the number of supporters vastly outnumbers those critics. Why make a marginal conspiracist critic the centerpiece of an entry about PRA? It is fundamentally unfair and biased. That is the point I am trying to make. What I say about people like LaRouche I can document and I can offer a reasonable argument for the claims and analysis I offer. The claims of LaRouche and other conspiracists exist in an alternate reality where the rules of logic do not seem to apply. Such claims do not belong in a serious encyclopedia entry. --] 14:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Chip, you seem oblivious to the irony in your comments. You are yourself a "marginal conspiracist critic", who makes "hyperbolic charges" and "personal attacks;" they are your stock in trade. That is essentially Daniel Brandt's criticism of you; he's not charging you with being "overly critical of 'conspiracism.'" --] 15:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Herschel, regardless of your own view of Chip Berlet, the important point here is that reputable sources must be used for articles. Daniel Brandt, rightly or wrongly, would not normally be used as a source by mainstream journalists or writers. Regarding the particular link you've provided, I believe Namebase is Brandt's own organization. I could be wrong about this. Does anyone know for sure? If it does belong to Brandt, this is a piece he has published himself, which means it is little better than a personal blog. If you want to include criticism of Political Research Associates, it must come from a mainstream publication. If you can't find any such criticism, it means no mainstream publication thinks there is anything critical that is true, fair and worth publishing, and Misplaced Pages should take heed if that is the case. | |||
| Our disputes have settled down recently, and I have no wish to re-start them, but I have to say that I feel it's not appropriate for LaRouche activists to edit pages about someone who was a LaRouche critic, or about a company that person now works for, because it's bound to lead to real or perceived POV problems. I feel the best thing would be if LaRouche activists were to leave this page alone. If people working for Political Research Associates edit the page in too positive a way, other editors will take them to task for it, myself included. However, if you feel you must edit the page, at least provide reputable sources so that no one can question your edits. Many thanks, ] 20:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Herschel, could you supply a good reference for this (not a wild conspiracy website, though, please)? "There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially senior analyst Chip Berlet, is overly critical of persons and groups who see ] as driving ] and current events." Many thanks, ] 22:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Slim, I'll do my best. That statement was made by senior analyst Chip Berlet, in an edit made to Misplaced Pages on December 7, 2004. Although Misplaced Pages is generally not regarded as a wild conspiracy website, editor Chip Berlet is regarded in some circles as a conspiracist, due to his practice of "decoding" hidden messages in the published utterances of political figures that he is targetting. --] 00:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It would be good to have a reference, because at the moment, we've got "some critics" believe X, and another critic, Daniel Brandt, believes Y. It looks a bit odd. ] 03:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Other additions== | |||
| It'd be nice to have a paragraph on particular specialties of the PRA, widely cited reports, or notable involvements. There's not much here that indicates what PRA has actually done to make them notable. Just a thought. -] 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Extreme partisan == | == Extreme partisan == | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 28 September 2005
Extreme partisan
David Horowitz and his website can be considered extremely partisan and so are inappropriate to cite here, according to the standard that some editors are pursuing. -Willmcw 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Nice disclaimer, Will. nobs 22:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Per WP:RS - "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Misplaced Pages except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." The material on Horowitz located here is explicitly attributed to him, thus meeting the stipulation in place. Rangerdude 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- So we are free to discuss, at length, the opinions of Horowitz and his websites and magazines, since this article is now about him and his opinions? Interesting. -Willmcw 23:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- You are only free to do what WP:RS says, and that is to discuss his opinions on the subject of the article with clear representation of them as such. Rangerdude 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not the article in which we are discussing the opinions of the DiscovertheNetworks.org, it is the article in which we are discussing Political Research Associates and its opinions. In a strict and logical interpretation of WP:RS, "extreme political websites" (in this case DiscovertheNetworks.org) "should never be used as a source for Misplaced Pages except in articles discussing the opinions of or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." So with that interpretation it would be appropriate to mention and discuss their opinions on the DiscovertheNetworks.org page but not on every page or here. It might also be argued that the same would apply to the SPLC, LvMI, Claremont, etc. Since the definition of "partisan" appears quite broad, a strict adherence to the letter of the guideline would ultimately mean an end to almost all of the "criticism" sections composed of comments for opposing organizations or people. Gosh, someone could argue that the NY Times is a partisan source, or even an "extreme political website", and then we'd might have to scrub out the ten thousand NY Times quotes in Misplaced Pages. Maybe we should start by tightening up the definition of "extreme political website". In the context of a world encyclopedia, what does "extreme" really mean? -Willmcw 00:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I updated the staff and director information. I hope my critics will not portray this as part of a communist/fascist conspiracy.--Cberlet 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Fairness and Balance
This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--Cberlet 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Request for Comments (RfC) filed: --Cberlet 13:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- My take on this whole matter is that it's generally inappropriate for persons and groups that are the subject of an article to be active in editing that article for reason of an obvious conflict of interest. That PRA has "discussed" its wikipedia article and deems its content problematic is not a basis for rewrite as we are not here to accomodate what PRA, a highly politicized POV-pushing organization, thinks wikipedia should say about it or what PRA believes to be a problem. That would be accepting PRA's POV about itself. Rather, our mandate is to present the organization from a neutral perspective and neutrality means showing both the good and the bad - the praise and the critics alike. That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia beyond accurately presenting both those critics and PRA's counterviewpoint, should they offer one in their own publications. That said, I would not object to the addition of favorable sourced material here so long as it is done with neutrality and is done by parties that are not conflicted in their interests. According to Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, articles that are believed to "omit important points of view" or have another similar imbalance "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Rangerdude 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am precisely suggesting that material be added to the page, and that you and a handful of other POV critics of PRA stop implying that in the real world the criticism of PRA outweighs the positive accomplishments and praise. So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right. Hardly fair, balanced, accurate, and NPOV.--Cberlet 16:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Flinging ad hominem attacks at one's critics is not a way to obtain neutrality in this article, Chip. I have not seen many LaRouche advocates on this article of recent & the remaining sources you mention are non-LaRouche political think tanks and figures. They're certainly from the different end of the political spectrum as your own, but that is no basis in itself to discredit a source. One could similarly respond that this topic is being controlled "by fans of a small uber-leftist think tank (PRA)" or dismiss its members, yourself included, as "leftist conspiracy theorists" and "carnival geeks of the ultraliberal political left." But stuff like that adds nothing to the political discourse, whereas sourced praises AND criticisms alike give us a complete picture of the controversy surrounding your group. Like it or not, figures such as Horowitz have made substantive criticisms of PRA, its politics, and its research methods. You are free to disagree with or respond to those critics with a counterviewpoint, and you've certainly made more than your share of political criticisms against Horowitz and LVMI. But you don't have a right to screen out their criticisms of you or your group because you don't like what they say. Again - if there is favorable material about PRA to add, then by all means it should be added. But per wikipedia stipulations, "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." IOW, why don't you spend less time whining about the people who have criticized PRA and focus more on those who have praised it, using the latter as counterbalancing material in the article itself while also allowing the critical viewpoint to be fairly and accurately presented. Rangerdude 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)