Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chip Berlet

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 15 November 2005 (→WP:CON: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:25, 15 November 2005 by FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) (→WP:CON: typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

/Archive 1

Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_terms

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

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

OK, how about "convicted crook and neofascist" instead of fringe for LaRouche? --Cberlet 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, so your flippant comments are not helpful. In any case, writing one article for a magazine hardly qualifies a writer as an employee. Was he a staff writer? -Willmcw 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
He was Washington, D.C. bureau chief. --HK 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If you've got a source for that we should include it in the article. -Willmcw 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Is HK meant to be posting here? I thought he was banned from talk pages as well as articles, though perhaps this one isn't included. Chip's name is well known among journalists, who make up a large percentage of the people who use Political Research Associates as a source. He's not seen as a fringe journalist at all. SlimVirgin 02:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly fair to say that Chip Berlet hails from the far left wing of the political spectrum, so if coming from an extreme such as that makes one "fringe" the term is just as fairly applied to this article's subject as it is to anyone he criticizes. HK and DannyZz are correct on this one regardless of what one thinks of the LaRouchies - abide by NPOV and that means dropping the weasel terms unless you're willing to apply them to everybody. As to Berlet being "well known" among journalists, a Lexis-Nexis search of full texts for major U.S. newspapers in their holdings over the past two years shows his name appearing in a grand whopping total of just 11 articles. One of them is an opinion piece he himself co-authored and submitted to the op-ed page of a paper. In the remaining 10 his name is regularly qualified by the terms including "progressive" and "radical left wing" and descriptions of his group as a liberal organization that monitors the right/conservatives/christian fundamentalists etc. A search for "Political Research Associates" over the last two years similarly produces only 8 articles, most of them the same ones pulled up by the Berlet search. As a point of comparison, the SPLC's hit count for the past two years in the same database is 307. For SPLC's main spokesmen Mark Potok gets 58 and Morris Dees gets 60. Elsewhere in the political left's "civil rights" crowd Julian Bond gets 400, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton each get over 1,000, Kweisi Mfume gets 443, and Louis Farrakhan gets 324. For that matter even Quanell X of the neo-Black Panther party outnumbers Berlet's cites some five times over with 56 hits in the last two years! If anything Berlet's a minor figure in a big pond of liberal "civil rights" activists. To pretend that he's some sort of widely respected and quoted mainstream journalism figure is simply a delusion. That's not to say that he shouldn't have an article - only that the article should not exhibit a pro-Berlet POV and should not be a case example of a "legend in his own mind" syndrome. Rangerdude 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Laird Wilcox

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

Quoted in published article by Robert Stacy McCain, "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs'

Exaggerate Hate Group Threat," THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 9, 2000, http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/wilcox.html. That took 30 seconds on Google, Nobs, this is just petty harassment.--Cberlet 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet said it; the question is what evidence is there (a) to support the statement (b) to republize it. nobs 20:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
We're quoting Chip Berlet. It's a quote. I hope you're always this meticulous, Nobs. SlimVirgin 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo

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

The "Age of Aquarius" studio shot that presently graces this article, makes the article look like a commercial promo for Chip's business venture. I think it would be more encyclopediac to use this candid shot. --HK 21:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an article about Berlet, and we have a photograph of him on the page already. No need to replace it with one of your propaganda shots showing him with someone else. SlimVirgin 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"Propaganda shots"? Please explain. --HK 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You want to make some kind of point, just as Cognition did when she uploaded the distorted photo. You're both arguably disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and it's tiresome, so please stop. SlimVirgin 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Slim, as WP:FAITH requires of you. It's one thing to politely explain why the old photo should be kept, but another to berate people who disagree with you and continuously accuse them of bad faith, so please stop the latter. Rangerdude 23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you by any chance wikistalking me, Randerdude? I sincerely hope not, given your reputation for activism on that front. SlimVirgin 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Since you've apparently forgotten that your effort to prevent me from editing this article failed, I'll simply remind you that I've been a participant in editing here for some time now, Slim. Nor do I intend to abandon this article, thus when you or anybody else starts harassing other people who are editing it you'll likely find me commenting here and directing your attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Few people familliar with the facts of the case would see it as harassment, I wager. HK's et al. RfARs and related policies have long been institutionalized into Misplaced Pages. I would advise avoiding further (unresearched) conforntations while your own Arbitration case remains ongoing —to avoid the appearence of these being seen as provocations— as ultimately in your best interests. Thanks. El_C 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It's funny you mention the link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, El_C, given its following finding..."6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Passed 5-1-1." Perhaps she's not the only one who's forgotten that of late. Rangerdude 04:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the photo was distorted to make Berlet look obese "in good faith" but I doubt it. I'm surprised to hear an editor here saying that everyone is required to assume good faith about the deeds of others, as that same editor has frequently complained about the bad faith of other editors. In fact, ew can only assume good faith until bad faith has been proven. Uploading a distorted photo of a political opponent is a strong indication of bad faith, and given the history of the editor who did so, the assumption of good faith may be misplaced. -Willmcw 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL!! Rangerdude, that arbcom ruling has become something of a personal logo for you, hasn't it? I wonder how many times you've quoted it in the last few months. Never mind, you'll soon have one of your own to replace it with. SlimVirgin 04:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

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

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

"Who is Phillip Agee? He is a renegade Central Intelligence Officer implicated in revealing the names of CIA officials in a manner leading to their endangerment, and in at least one case, that of Richard Welch, their death.124 Agee was deeply involved in the antigovernment Counterspy magazine, which made a practice of such disclosures. According to an item in Security Intelligence newsletter:
Agee...left the agency in 1968 and began exposing CIA officers and operations through lectures, magazines and books.125
Referring to Counterspy, a Washington Post editorial asked, "What other result than the killing did Mr. Butz and his colleagues at Counterspy expect when they fingered Mr. Welch?"126 Butz, incidentally, was on the editorial staff of The Public Eye, along with Chip Berlet and Russ Bellant.127


124 Richard S. Welch,Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16.
125 To The Surprise Of A Few...., Security Intelligence (24 August 1992), 5.
126 Welch, Op Cit.
127 Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.

Soon thereafter, Intelligence Identities Protection Act was passed.

In 1991 Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz released a revised version of their Reading List On Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression... The list notes that "This is the reading list circulated by Phil Agee at his Speakout lectures."121
121 Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, 1991).

And continuing,

U.S. Senator John Chaffee, a ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence pointed out in the Congressional Record:
"At the time of the Welch assassination, Counterspy magazine claimed they had leaked the names of 225 alleged CIA agents. Now, five years later, Louis Wolf of Covert Action Information Bulletin can boast that he has helped to disclose the names of more than 2,000 American intelligence officers stationed around the world.128 Louis Wolf, incidentally, is listed as being on the advisory board of Political Research Associates on PRA’s 1999 letterhead.129
128 For The Record, Washington Post, 27 July 1980.
129 Letterhead, Political Research Associates, 1999.

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

3 more corpses

On 13 January 1984 an open letter to Judge Charles Sifton entitled “Political Grand Juries Must Be Stopped!” appeared in the New York-based Marxist-Leninist, weekly, Guardian. …Among its signers were Chip Berlet and Jean Hardisty.
Other signers included convicted spy Morton Sobel, William Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy, attorneys active in the National Lawyers Guild…the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)… May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), National Lawyers Guild (NLG)... and the Youth International Party (YIP).104
The PFOC, formed in 1974, was the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), the terrorist spin-off from Students For a Democratic Society (SDS).
…Judith Clark, now serving a long sentence for murder in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery undertaken to fund radical leftist activities...
The May 19th Communist Organization acquired its notoriety from the role of several members in the attempted holdup of a Brinks armored truck in Nyack, NY, in November 1981 that left two policemen and one security guard dead...
Approximately six months later on 11 July 1984 another letter, this time addressed “To All Progressive People,” appeared in the Marxist-Leninist Guardian weekly...
Among the over one hundred signers—a virtual who’s who of the extreme radical left—were Chip Berlet and Jean Hardisty. Other signers included David Gilbert, Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark, all members of the radical Weather Underground organization and all serving prison sentences for the murder of a Brinks armored truck guard in 1981.
104 Guardian (11 January 1984).
110 Guardian (11 July 1984), reprinted in Stop The Grand Jury, John Brown Anti-Klan Committee (November 1984).

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

continue the body count

"During the 1960s and 1970s the NLG (National Lawyers Guild) experienced considerable growth with the rise of the radical student movement. Several NLG figures were violent revolutionaries, including… Judith Clark, now serving a long sentence for murder in the 1981 Brinks armored car robbery undertaken to fund radical leftist activities.
"An article in a 1981 issue of Military Police journal detailed the criminal careers of several National Lawyers Guild members as follows:
...Carlos Zapata who was killed in Denver by a bomb he was planting at a VFW hall on 22 March 1978. He was...involved in the National Lawyers Guild-sponsored ‘Police Crimes Task Force.’
…Francisco Kiko Martinez, also an attorney, was killed in a car when a bomb they were transporting exploded.
"The article by Detective Arleigh McCree, a former military police officer who became Officer in Charge, Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, observes that "The NLG continues to act as a clearinghouse and as an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism."
Sgt. A. McCree, A Case For Self-Defense, Military Police (Summer 1981).

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

See also biographical scetch which reads
" has also served as a paralegal on other intelligence abuse and civil liberties cases filed against local police, the FBI, CIA and Military Intelligence on behalf of groups such as the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago, National Lawyers Guild..." (emphasis added);
also Archived comments at ,
"I actually spent several years as a paralegal document analyst for a series of lawsuits aginst the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, and local police "Red Squads." ,
and
"I mostly researched Chicago, New York, and Detroit, but knew folks who researched the Milwaukee Red Squad. Also, see this list ",
with a link to PRA at Agencies Exchanging Political Spying Intelligence With the Chicago Police Department Intelligence Division (CPD/IU). nobs 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Arleigh McRee is honored at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, killed in the line of duty, 10 June 1997. Richard Welch name is inscribed in CIA's Book of Honor and his star is one of 83 on CIA's Memorial Wall for those who gave thier lives in the line of duty. nobs 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More skeletons in the closet

"On 25 September 1995 the second annual "Midwest Ant-Fascist Network" (MAFNET) held a three-day conference in Columbus, Ohio. Speakers included Chip Berlet as well as:
"Rita Bo Brown, former member of the nominally terrorist George Jackson Brigade (JGB). Jackson was killed in August 1970 when his brother attempted to free him from Soledad Prison by bursting in to a Marin County, CA, courtroom handing guns to three convicts and taking five hostages. In the shootout that ensued five people were killed including the judge." nobs 03:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reference to Rita Bo Brown giving guns to convicts in an escape. Do you have a source please? Thanks, -Willmcw 04:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
We're discussing Mr. Chip Berlet's links and ties using Mr. Chip Berlet's and PRA own methodology. nobs 04:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Why is this on the talk page? -Willmcw 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 127 . nobs 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The edits to the text made it appear that Brown was the one who gave the guns, so I added in tha unedited text - pardon me for editing your posting. Again, why is this here? -Willmcw05:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

What is your definition of "links and ties"? Some of these appear to be quite tenuous. -Willmcw 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Using Mr. Chip Berlet's biographical scetch here,
"Political Research Associates (PRA) is an independent, nonprofit research center that unmasks the US political right. PRA collects and analyzes information on anti-democratic, authoritarian, and racist right-wing movements and publishes educational resources that explain their ideologies, tactics, agendas, financing and links to each other."
This is the identical language cited in Wilcox, The Watchdogs, p. 114-115, which he cites as retrieved from www.guidestar.org./search/, the internet search service of Philantropic Research, Inc., and both appear to be a self-styled discription. Wilcox continues with,
"What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of PRA itself, including the fact that those “anti-democratic” movements fail to include Marxist-Leninist and extreme leftist movements unless they are in sectarian dispute with PRA. As for the “links to each other,” PRA’s “links” are examined here in detail. "
This is used in the same context of both Political Research Associates and Mr. Wilcox's report, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties". nobs 01:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More disininformation

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

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

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

In 1998, however news reports noted:

...documents from Russia's Presidential Archive finally prove, more than four decades after the fact, that the United States was the victim of a disinformation campaign scripted by North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union.
A report by Lavernti Beria, head ot Soviet intelligence, outlined the deception: "False plague regions were created, burials...were organized, measures were taken to recieve the plague and cholera bacillus."161

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

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

  • Editor's note: 15,000 Americans remain MIA or unaccounted from the Korean War; testimony has been given that custody of 15,000 captured American POWs were illegally transferred to the Soviet Union, where they were forced to walk from North Korea to Siberia, and all are presumed to have perished in Siberian Gulags. nobs 04:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of talk pages is to discuss edits, not re-post source material. Is there an edit that this concerns? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
We need to craft language from this to provide NPOV, so the article will look less like the solicitation and advertising for Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates than it does now. nobs 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"Craft language"? Why would we craft language? We're here to summarize verifiable sources in an NPOV manner. Dumping strangely-edited source material on the talk page might not be the best way to get there. -Willmcw 06:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Summarize? You mean just total the body count without supplying context? nobs 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
What "body count"? Are you implying that Berlet has personally killed people? -Willmcw 06:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As this source has presented, Mr. Berlet & PRA has links and ties with violent organizations responsible for the deaths of 14 persons, including 2 NLG lawyers that blew themselves up in the midst of terrorist activities. nobs 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"Links and ties"? Apparently in one case that meant speaking at the same symposious as someone who once belonged to a gang, other members of which committed some murders. Is that a link or a tie? If we use those three degrees of separation, every body in this encyclopedia has "ties and links" to those responsible for violent deaths. This is beginning to sound like original reseasrch. -Willmcw 06:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is Mr. Berlet, and PRA's, own methodology. This methodology is (a) what made Mr. Berlet the 'authority' he is today (b) continued practice of both Mr. Berlet and PRA. It the subject of the entire source article. Laird Wilcox applies Mr. Berlet's own standards to Mr. Berlet, and the organizations he is associated with. This may be the only way to give NPOV to Chip Berlet and PRA, given thier acceptance now in some circles as an authority. nobs 06:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
We're not PRA. We have a different methodology here, which every editor is expected to follow. It's certainly fine to mention Baird's criticism of Berlet, but if we come up with our own criticisms, or "bodycounts", then we'd be violating our methodology. NPOV requires that we represent all notable points of view, not that we dig up derogatory material. -Willmcw 07:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
If true, this is certainly a refreshing change of direction. Have you informed Cberlet and SlimVirgin? --HK 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Given the current level of interest in the Plame affair, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act article reads,
"Some commentators, in fact, say the law was specifically targeted at his actions",
directly linked to this,
"Referring to CounterSpy, a Washington Post editorial asked, "What other result than the killing of Richard Welch did Mr. Timothy Butz and his colleagues at CounterSpy expect when they fingered Mr. Welch?" Butz, incidentally, was on the editorial staff of The Public Eye, along with Chip Berlet and Russ Bellant.
"Richard S. Welch", Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16.
Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.
Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 122-123. ISBN 0-993592-96-5
See also John E. Mulligan, "Agent-ID bill had its roots in R.I.", Providence Journal-Bulletin, 22 October 2003 LexusNexus
This is extremely unusual, that a federal law is passed primarily targeted at the behavior of a few of individuals, Philip Agee, Timothy Butz, Chip Berlet, and Louis Wolf. Also note, Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979 of the Public Eye has been sanitized from The Public Eyes site. Here is the current list of Public Eye "Featured Authors" . Given the level of interest, I would suggest the starting point is to complete the CounterSpy and Richard Welch articles to lay some of the foundation of Mr. Berlet's links and ties to violent extremist groups. nobs 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
See --> User:Nobs01 for testimony on treatment of Korean War prisoners. nobs 21:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

body count (cont.)

"In 1983 an issue of The Public Eye contained a statement by Cathy Wilkerson, a captured fugitive from the ill-fated Weather Underground terrorist bomb factory that blew up in March 1970 killing three people...
113 The Public Eye (Volume IV, Issues 1 & 2, 1983), 20-21. nobs 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
See Court TV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army.
"Two 1980's homegrown American terrorist groups, one white and one black, join their brutal forces to fund their anti-American causes with the Brink's robbery and cold-blooded murder of New York cops." nobs 05:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NLG

"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.97
97 Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 161. nobs 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have a proper cite, but the point is the point you make is neither notable nor is it the defining characteristic of the NLG, which is better known for many other things. I oppose the "which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism" fragment because it is clearly intended to be inflammatory, not informative. Threatening to add more cites doesn't address that problem. You're going to need to find a more accurate and less inflammatory way to describe the NLG, I'm afraid. Simply tossing out a cite doesn't help you. You need more than a cite to support a fundamentally uninformative, inflammatory statement like that. Make a proper justification for it here or accept that it's contested and does not benefit from consensus WP:CON. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, I reverted your edit because the source appears to be a police sergeant speaking 24 years ago, and that's not an authoritative source for such a strong statement. See WP:RS, which says that the more controversial the edit, the better the source needs to be. Also, it isn't appropriate to tuck this information away in a footnote, and this article uses a References section, not a Notes section. See WP:CITE for the need for consistency of citation style within articles. That apart, the sentence would have to read "which has been described as X by Y," to make it clear who is making the claim. Can you find a better source? If this is a commonly held view of the NLG, someone else is bound to have said it, and more recently than 1981. SlimVirgin 06:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Court TV - Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army, refers to them as terrorists; all the information is available for reputable sources.
SlimVirgin: Also Arleigh McRee is honored hero at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, killed in the line of duty fighting domestic terrorism, 10 June 1997; may perhaps tread carefully before we get into the game of trashing sources. nobs 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, can you say which page the terrorist reference is made in the crimelibrary article, because it's not on the first page and it looks very long (also, is this a good source)? Secondly, whether or not someone is an honored hero is beside the point in terms of whether he's an authoratitive source regarding which groups are to be considered as "terrorists." If this is a widespread view, someone authoritative must have said it: perhaps one of the law societies? SlimVirgin 06:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(<--
SlimVirgin:

  • The story "The Weather Underground & Black Liberation Army" (scroll down & click) is in this index from Court TV Crime Library (also, see Categories in green in upper left, "Terrorists, Spies, Assassins, etc"). Court TV's production can be fully qualified, it's purpose is to give contemporaneous background.
  • As to Arleigh McRee, reading this biographical scetch , this courageous hero was not content to sit behind a desk and just write articles in 1981, rolled up his sleeves and was fighting domestic terrorists, defending the lives of innocents, when he was killed defusing a bomb in 1997 (I can barely restrain the tears). He is deserving of his own namespace article, author, hero, sacrificing his life in defence of others.
  • As to the objection "speaking 24 years ago", again the source document gives this direct, relevent context:
"A 1981 issue of the publication states unequivocally that 'The Public Eye is produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes.' It also lists Chip Berlet as a managing editor. "
95 The Public Eye, Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).
Source: Wilcox, p. 115.
  • Both citations are from 24 years ago.
I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but could you say exactly what you're using Court TV (or crime library or whatever it was) as a source for, and could you please quote the part you are using, quote it exactly, then tell me exactly where I can find it (not linking to an article with 27 pages or whatever it was)? Because I currently can't see what you mean.
Regarding using a sergeant as a source from 1981, I don't feel happy about that, because it's not what anyone would call an authoritative source. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? SlimVirgin 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
(A) I am not proposing using any material from the Court TV source (yet); I present it here in Talk to give some background to the issues raised in Laird Wilcox's Report p. 114-131. (Of course, material from Court TV, or other WP:RS's could be used if the Chip Berlet article needs to be expanded because of an unwillingness or read the Wilcox material). (B) Arleigh McCree fully qualifies McCree, and resistance to this material can devour time, but will ultimately fail. The question is how much of the Wilcox material needs to inserted into Chip Berlet namespace to present NPOV. nobs 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

wording

Proposed text:

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

Notes

Hi Nobs, I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear here. When you say "Berlet is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism"., could you please supply a link for me, here on talk, to the exact page (not just the article) that actually says this? I can't find it. SlimVirgin 20:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem: p.117. nobs 20:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, thanks for the link. First, it's not Laird Wilcox saying this; it's the police sergeant. I'm still not sure how good a source he is. What do others think? SlimVirgin 01:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In studying this issue, I found only one person who trashes Laird Wilcox, and that is Chip Berlet. I asked Mr. Berlet 8 weeks ago to respond to what Mr. Wilcox discovered, and Mr. Berlet only provided a link to another page that says the same thing Berlet says in the namespace here . Given the time allowed to respond, one can only conclude Mr. Berlet is either unable or unwilling to substantiate his charge. nobs 02:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd sources

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

Laird Wilcox is a respected investigative journalist of all extremist groups http://www.lairdwilcox.com/; his copyright work includes an ISBN. His book, Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on the fringe, Prometheus Books, 1992. ISBN 0879756802 is a classic in the field of studying extremists groups, and recommended by Nizkor, among others. Here is an excellent review, see for example what Wilcox says aout the IHR, for example,
"hampers our understanding of important issues, muddies the waters of discourse with invective, defamation, self-righteousness, fanaticism, and hatred and impairs our ability to make intelligent well-informed choices.", other references, too. nobs 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Arleigh McCree opinion can stay in. He gets only 40 unique Google hits. I'll find the part of the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be. It seems to me that this is in violation of NPOV, in that it's a tiny-minority claim. SlimVirgin 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I can't find the policy that says the stronger the claim, the better the source has to be, except that there's a header in WP:RS saying "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," or words to that effect.
However, the Sgt McCree claim has to be excluded on three grounds, in my view: (1) McCree is not clearly a notable figure or an expert in the area; he gets very few Google hits, for example; (2) According to Amazon, the Wilcox book is self-published, so this book can't be regarded as a reputable source for Misplaced Pages; and (3) McCree's view seems to be a tiny-minority one, which has no place in an article about Chip Berlet. Quoting WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, both policy, quoting Jimbo:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
So Nobs, I feel this material has to be excluded until you can find a more mainstream source for it, so that we know we're not publishing self-published tiny-minority views. SlimVirgin 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Slim:I would recommend reading all 16 pages of Wilcox's report, and some of the issues raised under various subheads here (by far, not all the issues, only those linking associations with violent political organizations that have caused deaths, including their own members). Some of this material must be presented for NPOV. Please see my comments under Talk:Chip Berlet#More disininformation in connection with the section on the Guardian, another Soviet organ. For a human rights activist, this stands in marked contrast to the findings of this Commission (JCSD). I am happy with the inclusion & two footnotes as they exist now. So I would recommend studying all the evidence, and even allowing Mr. Berlet to respond. But as Mr. Berlet can probably attest, his efforts to suppress information have too often resulted in the bulk & the weight of evidence being inserted. Thank you. nobs 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If the Laird Wilcox thing is self-published, we can't use it. If the McCree view is a tiny-minority view, we can't include it. That is the NPOV policy. If you want to include this material, find a reputable source. If you can't find one, that should tell you something. SlimVirgin 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The McCree quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with Berlet, and apparently is a way of introducing a POV about the Guild. Apparently this is not a notable criticism of the Guild since it isn't even mention in National Lawyers Guild (yet). Criticisms in this article should be about Berlet, not second hand attacks on groups he was associated with. If the criticism doesn't directly refer to Berlet, then I don't see the need to have it here. -Willmcw 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This objection was handled last night; Berlet still refers to himself as "past" vice-president; Wilcox documents that (A) The Public Eye is an organ of NLG; (B) Berlet was managing editor in 1981; (C) McCree's comment is contemporaneous with Berlet's tenure. The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary. nobs 04:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, Berlet's association with NLG ‘Police Crimes Task Force’, which he's discussed with me personally; Carlos Zapata was associated with the group. nobs 04:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a smear. Unless the criticism is made about Berlet in particular, this article is not the place for criticisms of the National Lawyers Guild. Furthermore, unless the police officer in question is a notable attorney, I fail to see how his opinion is relevant. --Viriditas 06:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

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

Nobs, I've no idea what you're talking about: the second footnote, moving the goalposts. I asked you maybe four times for a link to the source of your claim, because I couldn't find it, and you eventually provided one. It's a self-published book, which I didn't realize until I looked it up. We can't use it. Secondly, the source it quotes (McCree) is himself not a good one. So we have one poor source quoting another poor source, self-published by the first poor source, and yet the claim being made is a very serious one. I repeat: if you believe this is not a tiny-minority view, then please produce a more mainstream source. If you can't find another source, it means it's a tiny-minority view, and publishing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This is a question of policy and trying to do responsible research, not a question of "allow personal sentiments to obscure objecting reading." SlimVirgin 03:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Slim: I am sorry for the confusion regarding finding that cite on the page (it was confusing, because Wilcox cited it on page 115, then refered back to it again on page 117, and I thought I gave the right page the first time). Anyway, this material will not be suppressed, I recommend you become familiar with it before you start trashing it. Once you are familiar with its substance, you may see the first insertion I made was reasonable and NPOV. If you want to spend weeks discussing the Weather Underground, Philip Agee, the Covert Action Information Bulletin, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the murder of Richard Welch, the May 19th Communist Organization, National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Korean War MIA's, and few other things (let's limit the discussion to associations with violent organizations for now), fine. In the end, you may wish the namespace only included "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism" (which incidentally refers to the NLG, not Mr. Berlet; Mr. Berlet dropped his association with High Times, but has kept NLG on his resume, for whatever reasons). So we're even granting him deniability with this one, limited inclusion. nobs 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:CON

FeloniousMonk: From WP:CON,

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

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

Not only does WP:CON apply, but WP:RS as well. Both you and I know what's going on here. Knock it off. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, FM. Statements such as the above do not. Rangerdude 05:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Good faith can only excuse so much. This has been going on for days with nobs. I think we're safely beyond that. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm involved, now. --Viriditas 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If I could propose a possible solution, it would be appropriate to say something to the effect that Berlet has been critized for his involvement in the National Lawyers Guild and attribute that to Horowitz, who has made such a criticism. If done this could be placed in the criticisms section. Rangerdude 06:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A suggestion: familiarize yourself with the substance of the material before adopting conclusions. I took more than two months to study it. Also, I asked Mr. Berlet 20 Septmeber 2005 to respond to it (see above, Talk:Chip Berlet#Laird Wilcox), and all I got was the same cut & pasted response from the Washington Times that is now in the namespace. Thank you. nobs 06:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. 116
  2. 115
  3. 115
  4. 116
Category: