Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User2004 (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 7 August 2005 (→Extreme partisan: let's pay attention to the wording and its meaning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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of Political Research Associates tend to post material here that is not merely critical but full of false or very outdated information.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.

Chip Berlet - Political Research Associates

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. --Cberlet 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 Misplaced Pages:cite sources. 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 Lyndon LaRouche activists/supporters. They are Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden, Weed Harper and 64.30.208.48. (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 64.30.208.48, 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 Jeremiah Duggan, which they heavily contested. See Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive1 and Talk:Jeremiah Duggan 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. 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 Template:LaRouche. 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. Slim 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? DanKeshet 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. Wally 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. Slim 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. --HK 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. --Cberlet 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." --HK 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. --Cberlet 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.'" --HK 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, Slim 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 conspiracies as driving history and current events." Many thanks, Slim 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. --HK 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. Slim 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. -Willmcw 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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)