Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nobs01 (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 5 December 2005 (→Funding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1

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)

I've removed that Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are major donors; can we have a cite for them please? SlimVirgin 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 asks: "What is "inaccurate" about this statement?" (above). Answer: Because it is an incompetent analysis of an annual auditor's report for a non-profit. If PRA was a charity, it would matter. Since PRA is a research think tank, a substantial portion of the staffing expenditures are devoted to fulfilling the stated educational purposes under which PRA operates. What matters is the percentage of expenditures devoted to fundraising--about 12%--which is well within the standard guidelines. Furthermore, what is the source for the claim that Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are "major funders? They are not. Even if a cite is provided, it is not accurate. Actually, this charge is peddled by by a well-known conspiracy crank, Bob Feldman and was picked up by Horowitz and Frontpage. Edelman and Streisand are related to foundations that have funded PRA, but are not directly "major" funders.--Cberlet 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim: Striesand is here,

• Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory, By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com, October 16, 2003

where it's always been. Thank you. nobs 03:15, 16 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)

What? Do I sue for defamation for calling me a Larouchie, or is this just another of User:Cberlet's conspiracy theories, "acting in concert"? nobs 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Audit

The Audit prepared by Kenneth Freed and Company, CPA, Boston MA represents a grand total of four expenditure items. Zoowwee. And all are ambiguous. It is hard to believe a non-profit entity with $600,000 plus in funding sources accepted an audit in this form. The problem with presenting an audit like this to the public is, it creates more suspicion than it discloses. Would PRA be willing to disclose it's IRS Form 990? Thank you. nobs 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PRA's IRS Form 990 is available to the public by law. Write PRA for a copy. The full audit is far more extensive. Stop trying to invent an issue where none exists.--Cberlet 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a simple question; perhaps you may wish to suggest to whoever's in charge there that what is posted on the site gives the appearance of not being forthcoming, and maybe more diclosure on the site would be helpful. Just a suggestion. nobs 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't the place to make it. You're getting your real-life animosity toward PRA confused with your responsibilities as a Misplaced Pages editor. SlimVirgin 04:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to respond, but because of the personal reference made, let me just state, PRA's link says,

PRA is funded...from the sale of our materials"

The Chip Berlet namespace is little more than a sales brochure for PRA materials. If the Arb Com takes up this issue, this is core to the case. nobs 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But I was the one who added the material, not Chip. Should we not describe what Wal-Mart does in case someone shops there because of our article? SlimVirgin 04:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised an interesting issue; articles like Wal-Mart (1120) place all the financial information right up front, in the opening sentences and paragraph. This non-profit (990) had no financial information whatsoever til I inserted a few days ago, and got slapped with an ArbCom filing evidently for doing so. nobs 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The actual full text: "PRA is funded entirely from non-governmental sources. Foundation grants, contributions from individuals, and income from the sale of our materials provide all of our financing."--Cberlet 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So there's no A-133 uniform audit? nobs 04:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to contact PRA or our auditing firm in writing for any further infromation.--Cberlet 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can it be e-mailed? nobs 18:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, you're getting Cberlet mixed up with PRA. Contact the company if you want information from them. This isn't the place. SlimVirgin 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

But that would mean disclosing a return address; and just reading Jimbo Wales he says "I am asking about privacy and respect." Can't it be e-mailed? nobs 19:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Email them and ask. This is not the place for this. Please stop grandstanding. This discussion is over. Gamaliel 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Funding

Does PRA recieve any funding from the Legal Services Corporation ? nobs 19:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, regarding PRA, the claim that "82% of its expenses are for general administration, staffing, and fund-raising, and 18% for programs," is totally misleading. Most of the 82% goes to program work through research salaries, library expenses, etc. As I stated above: "Since PRA is a research think tank, a substantial portion of the staffing expenditures are devoted to fulfilling the stated educational purposes under which PRA operates. What matters is the percentage of expenditures devoted to fundraising--about 12%--which is well within the standard guidelines." The claim that only 18% of income is spent on program work is simply false.--Cberlet 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chip, the difficulty is that it's sourced directly to PRA. This is what they say, so if it's misleading it's because whoever wrote that wasn't anticipating that a Nobs-like character would bear down on them. Do you know whether there's anything else on the website that says more about how the funds are spent, or anything that would flesh out the above? SlimVirgin 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me be specific: The fincancial report states "the following is a list of grant making institutions that funded PRA in 2003", it does not say "the following is a complete list". PRA site says "funded entirely from non-governmental sources". Technically, the Legal Services Corporation could be refered to as a "non-governmental" source, and not be included in a "complete list". Can this somewho be clarified ? Thank you. nobs 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)