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)

Um, dude, I am not supposed to edit this page for major content. I work here. I generally only do housekeeping such as changing staff names and fixing the image copyright notice. Unlike some Wiki editors, I try not to edit the page for myself and my employer. :-) Calling for comments is hardly screening out content.--Cberlet 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am just jumping into this without to much information on the history the disputes here. This organization has been active for a number of years, has achieved prominence on a number of issues, and I am sure it has many "accomplishments" (depending on one's perspective) that are not listed on the site. In my view, the addition of material is generally preferable to deletion of content. I will try when I have the time to post material regarding the accomplishments of the organization. I would recommend that other editors add content. The inclusion of criticism's of right wing "intellectuals" such as Horowitz's is not inappropriate. Horowitz's allegations reveal much about him and about PRA. PRA might consider it a badge of honor to be criticized by Horwitz. If the addition of information concerning "accomplishments" of PRA were to be reverted in an effort to skew the article, a POV problem could be a serious problem. The article as I read it at this moment doesn't look like it terrible. --Whitfield Larrabee 15:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ford Foundation

Why does the Ford Foundation support this??? Sam Spade 04:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would presume they have a good Grant Writer; a good Grant Writer, whose job it is to apply for public and private foundation grants, can command a six figure income. Many grant writers work as outside consultants, and are hired to just help the non-profit entity obtain funding. They are specialists in the field, and handle numerous client organizations during the year. nobs 04:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but the Ford Foundation isn't known for foolishly dishing out $, quite the opposite, their accused of using their finances strategicaly, even too strategicaly... I am very confused at why they would want to give these guys, of all people, $... Maybe they think the info is handy? Sam Spade 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the grant writer jumped through all the qualifing hoops and successfully hid all the dirt. The CPA did a good job too, though what is reported on the Annual Report is dubious; for example, "Progams" can include airline tickets, a rental car, and hotel room for Mr. Berlet when he flies to New York to give a seminar. Also, "Fundraising" and "Programs" are nearly equal. "General Adminstration" doesn't tell much, it includes paperclips, the light bill & overhead, but a portion of "Administration" can be used to the benefit of Administrators. "Staffing" is interesting; if we divide the Staffing figure by number of Staff, we get an average of $44,000+. Of course, there is no such thing as an average staff member, so we can presume pay inequitities exist even in an avowadly Marxist organization. Some at the bottom make probably 25K to 36K, while others higher up probably double that. Then you have to factor what portion of "General Administration" also ends up being paid to Administrators. nobs 05:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an incompetent and biased piece of original research:

"According to PRA's most recent Annual Report, 70% of its expenses are for general administrative and staffing salaries, with only 18% allocated to "programs"."

PRA is a think tank. Paying researchers is part of the mission. I have removed the text.--Cberlet 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are not accurately called major funders of PRA. I have removed the text.--Cberlet 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: What is "inaccurate" about this statement,

. According to PRA's most recent Annual Report, 70% of its expenses are for general administrative and staffing salaries, with only 18% allocated to "programs". Thank you. nobs 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration filed concerning this page

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition, Herschelkrustofsky, and Sam_Spade for their participation in edit wars over this page and page entry on me: Chip Berlet. The case can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this article pending arbitration. (unless of vandalism or spelling etc.) Thank you. Olorin28 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)