Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1

Dennis King

The connections with Dennis King are not "implied;" they are documented. There is even a photo, for the skeptical. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Berlet statements

I removed a number of anti-Berlet POV statements, the repeated use of the word "attack." and unattributed and/or unverifiable LaRouchite allegations about his ideology from Herschelkrustofsky at al. as part of the attemp to add LaRouche research into Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Findings_of_fact)

In terms of being unattibuted or unverifiable (other than on LaRoucite websites) see these Google searches:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Chicago+Friends+of+Albania%22&btnG=Search&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22populist+producerism%22&btnG=Google+Search

BCorr|Брайен 13:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nota bene: none of the material you removed came from LaRouche or myself. I find it ironic that you apply exactly the opposite standard to this article, that you have applied in editing Lyndon LaRouche. I also modified your formulation on the relationship between Berlet, and John Rees and Richard Mellon Scaife. Your formulation conveyed the implication that Berlet was using them as sources, when in fact, they were funding and encouraging his efforts as members of the same anti-LaRouche "task force". --Herschelkrustofsky 14:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Task force

Bcorr, you clearly wish the article to tip-toe around the relationship between Berlet and his sponsors. Why is that? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is your point of view that there was an anti-LaRouche "task force" -- that is not a fact but an opinion. My goal is simply to keep that clear. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really? How would you describe it? --Herschelkrustofsky 06:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note from Chip

Hi,

Quite a bit of the text formerly posted on this page was simply false. And most of the false information originated from the LaRouche organization, although it gets laundered around on the Internet.

Note two salient facts. 1) LaRouche is a convicted felon. 2). When LaRouche sued me for defamation--he lost.

In his "affidavit," LaRouche agent Herb Quinde couldn't even get the year of the NY meeting I attended correct. In a recent smear, A LaRouche pamphlet has me working for the National Student Association more than five years before I was employed by the group, in order to falsely claim I worked with the group while it was secretly being manipulated by the CIA.

I support the idea of a collective encyclopedia, but folks need to be aware of how fanatic groups and their supporters can abuse the process. I note that the current editors are trying their best to be even handed.

Chip Berlet

p.s. What type of total idiot would make a big deal over the name my parents gave me--a name I rejected when I began to use my nickname "Chip" during my work in the antiwar movement--a name I wanted to distance myself from, because John Foster Dulles was an architect of the Cold War. This is a prime example of why conspiracism is a pointless waste of time. Am I supposed to be complicit in naming myself? What garbage.

I wouldn't blame Chip for the name he was given -- but it is an eerie coincidence, given that Mark Evans accuses him of "Left-wing McCarthyism." Also, Chip's edits are a bit on the self-promotional side. Wikipedia frowns on that. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Train meetings

Bcorr, both you and Berlet seem to find the Train meetings to be something of an embarassment, and you wish to finesse the content of the article. This is not a matter of POV, but simply of factual accuracy. All the attendees were LaRouche opponents, whether from the left, the right, or the press. Berlet does not deny that the attendees were LaRouche opponents. If Berlet wishes to characterize it as a "debate", I won't object, but there was certainly no pro-LaRouche side to that debate, and to insinuate that there was is misleading to the reader. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Award information deleted

I see that an anonymous editor has made a number of significant changes recently. While this is not a topic I am conversant in, I can easily verify one deleted detail, that the book Eyes Right! won a Gustavus Myers Award. Why was this information deleted? It is subjective and is fully NPOV. Willmcw 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not "significant changes", but restoring some of the material that was changed or edited out here by Chip Berlet, and by somebody who is apparently a supporter of his. As it was, the article looked like a puff piece intended to stroke Berlet's ego, and giving the false impression that the only criticism of Berlet comes from Lyndon LaRouche-aligned sources. That is decidedly not the case. There are many on the left who believe his behavior from 1991 on has been disruptive, tends toward guilt-by-association and blacklisting tactics rather than serious criticism, is based more on identity politics than on anything resembling either liberalism or an old-left class based analysis, and often involves Berlet injecting some of his own unorthodox political formulations into his analysis (such as his favorite bugaboo, "centrist/extremist theory", his other bugaboos like "conspiracism" and "apocalypticism", and his belief that mainstream society and indeed mainstream liberalism is inherently racist, sexist, etc.)

If the article is going to mention awards his books have received, making him sound like some kind of saint, it should at least also mention that some believe his books are full of bad analysis and disinformation.

The answer is not to anonymously delete factual information that you don't like. Instead, add additional information that balances it. And please get yourself a user name. Making anonymous attacks on others is cowardly and does not give your opinions credibility. Willmcw 00:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another note from Chip

I understand that I have critics, but when people delete factual information and post false information it violates the basic purpose of Wickipedia.

"Wilcox also makes the observation that Political Research Associates is a three-person operation, with Berlet serving as both president, and the only analyst on staff."

This was factually false when it was written, and it is outlandishly false today. I have never served as president of PRA. Today PRA has a full-time staff of eight.

Out of basic fairness is it too much to ask that my entry be balanced by having criticism and support be roughly equal?

-Chip Berlet

Chip, I'm happy to see you come around to balance and fairness, so late in the game. It reminds me of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." But it may take some time for you to get used to the concept. For example, if you are labelling your opponents "right-wing" you should not call yourself "progressive." You could either cut to the chase and say the your think-tank is "left-wing", or you could find a warm and fuzzy euphemism like "conservative" for your opponents. Weed Harper 07:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip responds: This is exactly the type of biased person attack posing as a call to be unbiased that I am objecting to. Only a tiny handful of critics object to my work, compared to the dozens of editors of print and electronic media in commercial and alternative outlets who consider my work fair and balanced. Political Research Associates has picked the term "progressive" to describe our work. I call people who are conservative "conservative." I call fascists and antisemites with their proper name. I have defended my terminology in court and in numerous publications in popular and academic media.--Cberlet 23:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

The version I edited removed text that was just not accurate, and I left in all the criticism, merely adding material that balanced the page.

A fair page on me would contain about 90% positive and factual material and at most 10% negative comments. In the real world, the number of my critics is actually very tiny.

All I am asking for here is that the negative criticsm be balanced 50/50.

Let's have a discussion of this with everyone participating openly. No more anonymous deletions and edits. --Cberlet 14:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added NPOV flag --Cberlet 15:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Chip, your self-descriptive edits read like a resumé. You should carefully examine Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, and realize that Wikipedia is an entirely different world than your own websites: you can't just practice your vocation as a mud-slinger-for-hire here, and expect a free pass from criticism in the article on yourself. Your Yogi Berra-like request that the article "contain about 90% positive... and at most 10% negative comments," and "that the negative criticsm be balanced 50/50" is probably unrealistic. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, you are breaking the wikipedia rule against personal attacks. AndyL 22:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not add an entry for myself here at Wickipedia. What I object to is an entry that contains false information, and which is overwhelmingly negative. I object to harsh criticism being posted in large blocks while the fact that two of my books won human rights awards gets deleted repeatedly. I think it is fair to start out by listing the factual history of my work, and then go into the details valued by my critics. But even in those sections I think it is fair for there to be some balance between the negative criticism and material that rebuts it or adds a more nuanced dimension. I recognize this is awkward, but I am tired of seeing material that is just wrong, and which in some cases is actually false, malicious, and defamatory. I am choosing to follow the rules posted here for resolving a dispute. I will do my best to avoid personal attacks, and hope others will do the same.

So here is a question. What is wrong with suggesting that an entry on me contain no more than 50% negative criticism? I actually don't think that is fair--it is biased toward the negative--but I am willing to compromise to start with to see this matter discussed collectively within the terms of the Wikipedia community. --Cberlet 21:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sources?

Is http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.html a public domain source? It seems like chunks of text are being copied from there and pasted onto this page with little or no editing. -Willmcw 00:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Among those they met with were John Rees, of the John Birch Society; Roy Godson, then a consultant to the National Security Council and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB); Mira Lansky Boland, head of fact-finding at the Washington, D.C. offices of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; at least one representative of Freedom House, a private research organization headed by PFIAB Chairman Leo Cherne; Richard Mellon-Scaife, a wealthy Pittsburgh businessman notorious for contributing millions of dollars to right-causes (his foundation came under federal criminal investigation for illegally financing the arming of the Nicaraguan Contras, and he later became involved the Paula Jones case, and other activities intended to discredit President Bill Clinton); and several dozen journalists from major national media outlets, including NBC-TV, Readers Digest, Business Week, The New Republic and The Wall Street Journal.

According to eyewitness accounts, participants at the three Train salon meetings included Roy Godson, then a consultant to the National Security Council and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; John Rees, a longtime FBI informant; Mira Lansky Boland, head of Fact Finding at the Washington, D.C. offices of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; at least one representative of Freedom House, a private research organization headed by PFIAB Chairman Leo Cherne; Richard Mellon Scaife, a wealthy Pittsburgh businessman whose tax-exempt foundation would later come under federal criminal investigation for illegally financing the arming of the Nicaraguan Contras; and several dozen journalists from major national media outlets, including NBC-TV, Readers Digest, Business Week, The New Republic and The Wall Street Journal.

From the front page of [Executive Intelligence Review http://www.larouchepub.com]: "All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS." This is a copyright violation and needs to be replaced. DanKeshet 22:53, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Who is Mark Evans?

Mark Evans is quoted at length in this article, and is described as a journalist. What newspaper does he write for? I can't find any credentials for him. Is he more than just a blogger? Also, at least one whole paragraph seems to be a quote of Evans on LaRouche - shouldn't that be in the La Rouche article? -Willmcw 22:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The LaRouche-oriented paragraph was put in by Bcorr, who wanted to rebut Evans's comments on Berlet. Weed Harper 02:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved the LaRouche-oriented paragraph to the Lyndon LaRouche article. But I still haven't seen any evidence that Evans has any credentials. I can't find any biographical info on his website. Does he even call himself a journalist? -Willmcw 22:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Herschelkrustofsky edit is biased

What Herschelkrustofsky has done is rewrite whole sections of this page in a way thay highlights the highly biased claims of LaRouche and his tiny handful of supporters. If this page is going to be a forum where LaRouche supporters raise their criticisms of me (whis is profoundly unfair to begin with) then the least that can be agreed upon is that material that challenges their biased view is not deleted or rewritten in a way that primarily reflects the views of LaRouche. Factual error: Rees did not pay King's expenses. Biased claim: my work on LaRouche is a minor part of my writing, and it is simply not true to say that my articles about LaRouche are what brought me to the attention of a wider audience. --Cberlet 20:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error with respect to Rees paying King's expenses. It is your expenses that are of primary interest here. However, I think it is debatable whether you would have ever been published in the more mainstream media, were it not for your collaboration in the anti-LaRouche effort. And with respect to my allegedly biased edit, I changed very little -- primarily I reorganized it so that it is more coherent. The primary change has been your removal of the anti-LaRouche comments by Mark Evans, which were put in by editor Bcorr as a rebuttal to Evan's critique of you. I have no objection, however. --H.K. 01:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip responds: No, H.K. the result of what you did was to highlight the LaRouche version of events and call my claims into question. This was done through subtle deletions and additions. Instead of being named as a defendant in the LaRouche defamation case I was reduced to a "party." LaRouche is portrayed as losing the case due to a judge's action instead of losing the case in front of a jury. etc. And you deleted this line: "most of this controvery is the result of a handful of industrious LaRouche staff and LaRouche supporters trying to discredit Berlet's criticism of LaRouche." This is as defensible as many of the exotic claims by the LaRouche supporters in this entry. --Cberlet 04:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please stop inserting unsubstantiated LaRouchite claims

Let's examine some recent insertions...

"While the vast majority of material written by Berlet makes no mention of Lyndon LaRouche, in the 1970s and 1980s, Berlet became known as a critic of LaRouche."

No, I wrote articles. Known by whom?

"Berlet wrote reports and articles on LaRouche for several magazines and newspapers, including High Times magazine, which claimed LaRouche had a right-wing agenda and was an antisemite and fascist (the High Times article was subtitled "They want to take your drugs away.")"

It was a sub subheading which I did not write. It does not belong on this page.

"In 1984, LaRouche filed an unsuccessful civil libel suit against NBC, the Anti-Defamation League, Dennis King, and Berlet. LaRouche lost the case and the jury awarded damages from a counter-suit to NBC News, after Federal Judge James Catcheris ruled that the defendants could rely upon anonymous sources."

There is no causal or legal relationship between a jury ruling against LaRouche and the ruling of the federal judge on the use of anonymous sources. None. It was a defamation case. We stated our opinions of LaRouche and they were ruled by a jury to be fair comment.

LaRouche supporters need to discuss what they want to insert on this page before adding unsubstantiated material from LaRouche sources. --Cberlet 17:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the idea for the subheading was yours or not, it appeared in the magazine, so it is not an "unsubstantiated claim." Also, your claim that the judge's ruling had no bearing on the outcome of the case is preposterous. In a libel case, the defendants are responsible for the truth or falsity of the accusations they publish. However, if the judge permits them to simply attribute the accusations to anonymous sources, the defendants are off the hook. You may argue that the ruling did not materially affect the jury's decision -- good luck on that -- but you certainly may not argue that the judge's ruling was an "unsubstantiated claim." --HK 21:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Berlet didn't write the subheading, then there is no point in including it. It might be useful to include the title of the article, or a quote from it. Regarding the assertion about the judge's ruling, what substantiation do you have for that claim? Do you have a transcript? What is your source of information? -Willmcw 22:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I don't know anything about the particular facts of this case. This is just a general response to what you wrote above. The sources of an allegation are largely irrelevant in defamation cases. It is the accuracy and fairness of the allegation itself that is examined. Slim 22:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Will is correct, Herschel. If you want to mention the anonymous sources ruling, you'll have to either quote from the transcripts to show this happened, or cite an article about the case that was published in a reputable publication and that mentions the anonymous sources issue. Slim 22:38, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Berlet admits that the ruling happened, and as a defendant in the case, he ought to be considered a source. I think that Slim is wrong about defamation cases: "in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate)." [1] If journalist claims that he was merely quoting another (anonymous) party, then the journalist cannot be considered malicious. Weed Harper 14:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not my understanding of how the law of defamation works. The definition above is very superficial and not complete. There is the matter of "reckless disregard of the truth." We should be cautious about debating the law without an attorney in the discussion.

As I recall the court case (and I was in it at the beginning until the judge got fed up with the LaRouche antics in the depositions and cut me and King out of the case) the issue of anonymous sources had to do with demands by the LaRouche attorneys to conduct depositions of the anonymous sources. This would have required the judge to waive the applicable journalist shield laws (complicated by the fact that this would have involved multiple state laws since this was a multi-state civil action filed in a federal court). It is unusual for a judge to waive a shield law, although it does happen. The NBC attorney claimed the reporters should be covered by the New York shield law (legal origin of the broadcast), which is a strong one.

LaRouche's central claim of defamation was based on statements or implications on the NBC program that LaRouche was a crook, a cult leader, a lunatic, and a "small-time Hitler" with followers who often acted like thugs. That LaRouche is a crook has been demonstrated by his conviction. There is a public record of thuggery. The rest are opinions that are protected as fair comment as long as there is no prior knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth (which is what the term "malice" actually means in the law of defamation). See http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_overview.html

The Jury had to base its findings on the evidence presented in court. They could decide whether or not the reliance by the reporters at NBC on anonymous sources was malicious or reckless. They decided it was not. This is another example of the LaRouchites creating a smokescreen for their illegal and tawdry activities by claiming some sort of a conspiracy or official misconduct. They do this by littering the trail with red herrings, assuming that most people will not fact check their claims. Credulous supporters then accept the LaRouchite claims as fact--a serious error of faith trumping skepticism. --Cberlet 15:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the sources were surely only anonymous as far as the Court and the LaRouche people were concerned. The NBC reporters and probably NBC's lawyers would have known who they were.

Also, Weed, Chip can't act as a source for this information for Wikipedia, as strange as that sounds. Everything in a Wikipedia article must be easily verifiable by any Wikipedia reader, and that usually means must have been published somewhere else already. So any information in the article about the trial must come from a newspaper report about it. Slim 18:28, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Slim is correct. I cannot be the Wiki source. Here is what is online from the Washington Post. "The jury found that NBC had not libeled LaRouche but that his organization had tried to sabotage a network interview with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) The jury awarded NBC more than $3 million in damages." There are numerous print articles that are not online, but from which I can extract text. --Cberlet 18:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propose Moving Train Meeting Info?

The material on several pages relating to LaRouche is often redundant. I propose moving the section on this page on the John Train meetings to the US v. LaRouche page. There is no point in having this same material in several places. It takes up space and makes a serious debate over the merits of the text cumbersome. --Cberlet 15:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Train meeting info is not merely of interest to the LaRouche legal case. It underscores something that is essential to an understanding of Lyndon LaRouche's role in politics, that being that he has been the target of one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in post-WWII history. The fact that you, Chip, played a role in that propaganda campaign, is essential to an understanding of your own role in politics, and your desire to expunge it from your own Wikipedia article is understandable, while also self-serving and unacceptable. --HK 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the details of the Train meeting. United States v. LaRouche--Cberlet 16:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heads Up

I've changed the opening sentences of "Berlet as a Critic of LaRouche" to read the following:

"While the vast majority of material written by Berlet makes no mention of Lyndon LaRouche, in the 1970s and 1980s, Berlet wrote reports and articles on LaRouche for several magazines and newspapers. These articles claimed LaRouche had a right-wing agenda and was an antisemite and fascist."

The reference to High Times in the original, among all the magazines in which such articles were published the sole one specially noted, seems to me to be POV, and unnecessarily detracts from the validity of such work by association with a less-credible publication. Also, the word 'which' as previously used left doubt as to whether the articles or news organizations regarded LaRouche in this manner - the revision corrects that error. Wally 03:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HK's last edit

This additional quote is unnecessary and does not add anything of substance to what the article already says. I'm removing it. Wally 23:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quote from Daniel Brandt which Wally removed (I couldn't for the life of me understand his edit summary) was the following -- perhaps others would care to comment:

• "It is simple common sense for all of us to be aware of who associates with whom; for this reason Berlet's research is also valuable. But I have a problem with his presumption that a moral issue is involved, and I object to his tactics. Don't ever trade information, participate on a panel discussion, or share membership on an advisory board with one of Berlet's designated bad guys. If you do, he may try to undermine your work and isolate you. In my book, that's suggestive of the very 'neo-fascism' he's trying so hard to eliminate.

--HK 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forgive my edit summary — due to space constraints it was not clear, and I ought to have posted it here. What I said was that the I was going to keep the website you provided at the end of the quotes; however going there and reading the content (which described Berlet's writing as a "diatribe", and which sort of comment in a link does not gain my approval) I decided it, too, added nothing to the article. What redeeming feature does this quote have, may I ask, that the rest of the article does not cover? Wally 23:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the quote is significant, because Brandt, who is generally regarded as a neutral observer and has not, to my knowledge, been one of Berlet's targets, is suggesting that Berlet's tactics are reminiscent of the 'neo-fascism' that Berlet purports to oppose. Again, I would like to see some input here from a non-partisan editor. --HK 16:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I took the liberty of offering the complete paragraph, including the sentence you excised:

• "NameBase indexed this diatribe because Berlet's work is unique. It is simple common sense for all of us to be aware of who associates with whom; for this reason Berlet's research is also valuable. But I have a problem with his presumption that a moral issue is involved, and I object to his tactics. Don't ever trade information, participate on a panel discussion, or share membership on an advisory board with one of Berlet's designated bad guys. If you do, he may try to undermine your work and isolate you. In my book, that's suggestive of the very 'neo-fascism' he's trying so hard to eliminate."

Now I will confess that I know precious little about who Daniel Brandt is and what his motivations are. However, given that he describes the author-in-question's writing as a "diatribe", I can hardly see how he "is generally regarded as a neutral observer". What's more, he is not writing on his own, but on behalf of NameBase, which from what I have read of it and on its site seems to be blatantly biased. So what if he's not been "one of Berlet's targets"? Just because, for example, the CIA has never come after me, does not mean that I can be counted upon to be an impartial, objective observer of their activities. This quote has no place, and Daniel Brandt is already cited at some length. Wally 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source. He is an extreme leftwing activist and conspiracy theorist. He soaks up any material people send to him so long as it suits his ideology and incorporates it into Namebase. He's the author of Google Watch. Slim 21:57, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, outside of this article, would you consider Chip Berlet a reputable source? Just out of curiosity. --HK 22:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased Misrepresentation

Here is what was posted:

Berlet's views are frequently featured by columnist Matthew Continetti of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, attacking various figures on the Left who are deemed guilty of "conspiracism", the most recent target being Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.[2]

Here are the actual quotes from the article:

Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracism as a senior analyst at Public Research Associates, a progressive group, told me that Ruppert speaks regularly to sold-out crowds.

"It's a sinkhole," said Chip Berlet, when I first asked him about these conspiracy theories.

He sounded a note of regret about McKinney. "A lot of McKinney's complaints about the government are standard progressive fare."

So, what are the facts? I confirmed that Ruppert spoke to large crowds, I called conspiracism about 9/11 a "sinkhole," and I pointed out that a lot of what McKinney has said about government misconduct was standard progressive fare-which was meant to be supportive of her.

This is not what was implied in the posting I deleted. This was an attempt to use guilt by association to imply that the views of the author of the article are my views. Also I am not "frequently" quoted in the Weekly Standard, (another attempt at guilt by association). The posting I deleted is a clear case of a biased misrepresentation. --Cberlet 06:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My search of the Weekly Standard site shows only one article that mentions Chip Berlet.[3] The quotes from the article are accurately copied above. Therefore I agree that the content that editor user:cberlet removed was spurious. The mistake is so pronounced that I question why user:Weed Harper composed it in the first place.-Willmcw 09:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found one other example[freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088682/posts] that the Standard didn't archive. It appears that Continetti does talk to Berlet occasionally, but I think Weed may be making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. --HK 14:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky Interference

Herschelkrustofsky's reversion is unfair and creates much repetition. This page was over length. The discussion of the Train meeting belongs in the United States v. LaRouche page because the LaRouche people themselves claim it is central to his prosecution, a claim that is disputed. It makes no sense to have the same material on two or three pages. My edit included a mention of the Train meeting and a link to its new location United States v. LaRouche. This is blatant pro-LaRouche propaganda and interference; not fair and accurate editing. I protest. --Cberlet 16:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This material belongs on the Chip Berlet page; it is the clearest example of why Berlet has as many critics as he does. Despite Berlet's frequent attacks on prominent leftists whom he accuses of fraternizing with rightists, Berlet himself did not hesitate to collaborate (although Berlet prefers to characterize it as "debating") with Richard Mellon Scaife and John Rees, when it suited his purposes. And although Chip may wish to dispute it, what reputation he does have is largely the outcome of his high-profile campaign against LaRouche, which was promoted by influential circles and gave Chip access to an audience outside of his previous, rather small domain in the student Left.

This article is a bit messy and certainly needs work, but I would argue that the Train material is essential. I am posting a Request for Comment, in hopes that some relatively neutral editors can contribute to the discussion. Chip's motives for wishing to exclude the Train material are somewhat transparent.

--HK 22:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The simple fact that, as you note in your edit explanation and in your above, this train meeting bit is "essential to understanding how Berlet operates" shows that you are not approaching the article with an unbiased mind and are not serious about painting a fair picture of the subject. I will say that given the fact that the article is about a Wikipedia member actively taking part in the article means that we have a pair of mutually-exclusive extremes here — however, your edits, and the fact that in explaining them you personally address the article's subject as though it was a personal dogfight, invalidate any sort of encyclopedic intent that you may or may not have.

The train meeting, I feel, should be cited within the article, as it is a significant event relating to the subject. The length at which it is cited, however, including the recitation of the various characters present, is an attempt to smear the subject in view of the company he may or may not have shared on this one occasion. If no one can defend this inclusion - which has been repeatedly objected to and removed by a number of users - within 12 hours, I will remove it. This is coming to the point where measures need to be taken to ensure this page does not become a model for distortion and argumentum ad hominem - measures beyond requests for comment. Wally 22:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally, what you refer to as "the recitation of the various characters present" is not there for, as you suggest, guilt by association. In fact, that rather astonishing conglomeration of leftists, rightists, government operatives and media figures indicates that Berlet was involved in something far bigger than simply running his website or writing articles.

However, I agree that the discussion is overly polarized and dominated by partisanship, which is why I posted a Request for Comment. --HK 22:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point, however. You seem to be more concerned about proving a conspiracy than finding the truth. Just because the meeting was populated by people of a number of people with vastly-differing politics does not mean that it was a conspiracy to bring down Lyndon LaRouche. The fact that we spend so much time talking about it lends the article that notion - it's not just about unbiased WORDS, but unbiased TREATMENT, and proportionality. I would be fine if we excised everything after "Berlet has stated repeatedly the meeting that he attended was a debate where left-wing critics of LaRouche were asked by right-wing critics to present and defend their claims about LaRouche's spying and fascist tendencies..." The rest is barely-pertinent, and the meetings should probably have a page of their own for a more in-depth discussion. Any other setup is not appropriate. Wally 23:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is: if the Train meetings were so important, how come there is no reference to them in the articles on the other participants? If it shows that Berlet has a special bias then doesn't it also show that the Wall Street Journal, NBC, Richard Mellon Scaife, etc., share the same bias? -Willmcw 04:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw's point is well taken, although it could be argued that the "Get LaRouche task force" was the high point of Berlet's career, which cannot be said of Mellon Scaife (who played an equally prominent role in the "Get Clinton task force", the Iran-Contra affair, and other capers) or the various press that were involved.

With respect to Wally's comments, at one point it was indeed suggested that there being an article on the John Train Salon, which I thought was unnecessary, although in the last 24 hours Chip has been busily deleting and moving the Train material all over the place, and it may be that a seperate article is going to be the compromise solution. It really makes no sense to discuss the meetings without mentioning the participants; Berlet clearly wishes to downplay the significance of the meetings, but the list of attendees (and particularly the host, who hasn't been discussed much here, but who is a real behind-the-scenes mover and shaker) tells the real story. --HK 16:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, speaking for myself I don't much care about "the real story". I care about writing an unbiased, or, failing that, nonbiased article. Either you have something concrete or you don't. If you don't, it gets passing mention as a suspicion held by some. If you do, it is reported based on its importance. Had you any concrete information, it would be quite important. However, at present the "concrete information" seems to be a following:

• There was a meeting at which Chip Berlet was present.
• Various figures — some major, some really not — from both the left and the right were present.
• Lyndon LaRouche was the topic of discussion at the meeting.

That's it. I couldn't falsify a respectable conspiracy out of that if I tried. The idea that out of only this information we are going to get the origins of a massive anti-LaRouche offensive — especially when the courts couldn't prove it — is a little silly. Frankly I'm doubtful a page about the meeting is necessary. I just want a solution that stops this... discussion here. Precious little of that Train meeting is worthy of note here, and it hardly seems to have been the pivotal event in Berlet's life that your revision makes it out to be. You've added this before, it's been removed before. What solution is to be got from all this? Wally 18:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertion of HK, all I did was to take repetitive information on the Train meetings from two pages, one of which was already too long, and consolidate the material into a section of an already exisitng third page where is was appropriate to the specific (and disputed) claims of the LaRouche supporters about the criminal cases. I actually think the Train meeting should simply be a pro-LaRouche link on some page other than mine. The meeting has been blown out of proportion by LaRouche supporters. The new page created by HK on the Train meetings now contains false information, and HK has deleted some specific criticisms of LaRouche and rebutal to LaRouche claims. --Cberlet 18:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Things We Forget...

I've just noticed that something crucially important is missing from this page. Cookie to the first person who finds it. Wally 18:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Birth year/place? -Willmcw 00:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm . . . let's see . . . Could it be: Truth? Facts? Sources? NPOV?  :-) Slim 00:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Slim, it's much more embarassing — Willmcw got it. We are so bloody busy haggling about notions tangental to this page that we, myself included, have failed to endow it with what even the most puerile biographies have - birthdate.

Perhaps this — and I think it's quite mortifying — will inspire all of us to work at improving the article rather than our own rhetorical skills. Mr. Berlet, could either you or HK (who seems to know you quite well himself) kindly fill in the missing information? Wally 01:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL There's a lesson in that.  :-)

I found a couple of points on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page that might help with the further editing of this page. (1) "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." And (2) "Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates."

I feel that the dispute is being "engaged in" on this page, rather than being "characterized". I also feel that the views of Berlet's LaRouche critics are in a minority, and probably a tiny minority, and therefore should not be represented as though those views represent a large or mainstream minority position. Slim 02:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, dear boy! :) Wally 05:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally, you're welcome to join in. :-) Slim 23:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I'd like to use the photograph of you at http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg Do you know who owns the copyright and how I can get permission? Slim 00:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chip has agreed to my proposal that he, Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper should stop editing this article, but Herschelkrustofsky does not agree, and Weed Harper has not responded. Nevertheless, Willmcw and I are going to try to edit Chip Berlet and make it NPOV. Herschel, that is not an article "closely related" to LaRouche within the terms of ArbCom, so you are not allowed to engage in an edit war by reinserting LaRouche material. The fact that Chip has been a LaRouche critic will not be left out but it is not his only defining feature. Chip, can you direct us to any published material about yourself, good or bad, apart from LaRouche publications? Herschel, can you direct us to any non-LaRouche published material about Chip?

Slim, your proposal is meaningless unless you also offer not to edit LaRouche related articles, because you are an anti-LaRouche editor. Also, you do not propose that Berlet stop editing articles on LaRouche. Also, there is no LaRouche-sourced material in the Berlet article, so what are you going to remove? Weed Harper 01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, PRA owns the copyright to the photo, and you have permission to use it on Wikipedia as long as you preserve the copyright notice and say used by permission. --Cberlet 03:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. Slim 04:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I plan to have a look at this more thoroughly before the weekend is out, but on the face of it this seems a vast improvement over the previous version. Great job thus far, all. Wally 05:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Wally. Feel free, of course, to make changes as you see fit. Best, Slim 05:51, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Problems

The ArbComm ruling on LaRouche related submissions was quite specific that LaRouche supporters shouldn't be inserting LaRouche related info (and particularly not LaRouche "original research") to non-LaRouche articles. While I know Chip Berlet is a huge hate figure in the LaRouche cosmology he really is not a LaRouche related figure. There can be a passing mention of his LaRouche work but it shouldn't be a major part of the article. Criticism of Berlet's LaRouche related work really belongs in the LaRouche articles themselves, not here. As well, it is not the role of wikipedia to be the vehicle for smear jobs of LaRouche enemies. I'm going to re-edit the article. If LaRouche material reappears I will take it to the ArbComm for enforcement of last year's ruling. AndyL 18:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite of this page to make it conform more to Wikipedia style on biographies. A couple of editors have looked at it already. One feels that the Criticism section should not be separate, but should be incorporated into the main text. I have no problem with that, though I would prefer it to be separate. I've yet to write a References section, which I'll do within the next few hours so long as I can get pages to load. I deleted the Laird Wilcox criticism, as it didn't amount to much (it seemed to have been taken from a blurb for his Watchdog report, and not from the report itself, and so it promised that there would be criticism, but then didn't say what it was); I'll look for a better Wilcox quote and insert that instead. I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something. I've mentioned the LaRouche publications, but haven't overplayed them, as LaRouche was a very small part of what Berlet has done. I have yet to edit the external links section. If any of the links are to dodgy websites, I intend to delete them. I'll do that when I write the References section.

I retained the photograph with Dennis King, and also that Berlet and King were celebrating LaRouche being taken to jail, but I don't know whether that's correct or was a LaRouche insertion. It should be removed unless a non-LaRouche published source can be found for it. Regarding the King photograph itself, I'll leave it to others to decide whether it has a place here.

Also, other editors may feel I've left too large of a reference to LaRouche. I'm sure if we went into the websites of some of the other groups Berlet has criticized, we might find anti-Berlet material there too, but we haven't done that, and I hope wouldn't, so arguably there shouldn't be much of a reference to LaRouche either. But I'll leave that for others to decide. I'd appreciate it if the LaRouche editors would step back and allow others to edit this page. This is not a "closely related" page within the terms of the ArbCom ruling, and so the insertion of more LaRouche material or editing the article to conform to the LaRouche point of view is not appropriate. Slim 00:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the article. I haven't gone over it closely yet, but it is much more readble than then old version. Articles can get that written by committee feel. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I appreciate that. I made a few changes tonight. I've added a References section so it's clear what I referred to while writing it. I also added a quote from Laird Wilcox, a researcher who is critical of Berlet, and a reference to criticism of Berlet stemming from an article Berlet wrote in the New York Times about the Anti-Defamation League.

I also deleted the reference to LaRouche's conviction, as I couldn't see the relevance of it. Berlet and King wrote an article in 1982, as I understand it, alleging that LaRouche might be fundraising illegally, and seven years later, LaRouche was convicted on a similar charge. The way it was written, it sounded as though we were claiming there was a link between the article and the conviction. Similarly, after thinking about it again, I removed the photograph of Berlet and King and the reference to them celebrating LaRouche's conviction, as I've so far found no reliable published reference to this. If you disagree with me on that, feel free to put the material and the photograph back in. Slim 07:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Father Strykowski

Current text: "Wilcox has also criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest, who was forced to resign after Berlet identified him as having attended an anti-communist meeting at which a former Klan leader spoke. The Rev. Strykowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was. [4]."

Wilcox says a lot of things about me that are dubious.

Current text: "an anti-communist meeting at which a former Klan leader spoke."

Actually, while the meeting was indeed antiommunist, it was also run by a group denounced by the Catholic Archdiocese as antisemitic. Their slogan was "Communism is Jewish." Here is how one library describes their newsletter "photocopied newsletter of the Anti-Communist Confederation of the Polish Freedom Fighters in the U.S.A., mainly the product of the anti-Semitic and racist mind of Jozef Mlot-Mroz" [5].

Current text: "The Rev. Strykowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was."

Actually it is spelled Strykowski, and he attended a speech by Bob Miles at the home of Jozef Mlot-Mroz in Salem, MA. Miles is "Described as former KKK leader from Michigan (Jewish Advocate, Boston, 6-12 Nov. 1992) who spoke at a 1988 white supremecist meeting, also attended by Rev. Francis Strykowski, who was forced to resign as pastor of Boston's St. John the Baptist Parish, effective Feb 2, 1993 as a result of his attendence at the meeting" [6].

Miles was a former Klan leader, but at the time he was also one of the best know neofascists in the U.S., and a leading figure in the neonazi version of the Christian Identity religion [7]

Strykowski had attended and participated in these meeting before, and been exposed in the local media; and the Catholic Archdiocese had already once accepted his claim that he did not know the group was antisemitic. Strykowski was warned to not attend again. I wrote about the Miles speech in a local weekly ("Inside a Fright-Wing Cell," Boston Phoenix, August 19, 1988), but the part about Strykowski was cut for space.

Years later, when a critic of mine made false claims about my attendance at the meeting and my sources of information, there was a public discussion of the 1988 meeting, and when it came out that Strykowski had attended, it again became a media issue, and the Catholic Archdiocese asked him to resign (his parish wa actually in Salem, MA) to avoid having to discipline him formally, which might have resulted in Strykowski losing the equivalent of a pension. I will provide cites for these matters on the PRA website, and then ask for a discussion of the Wilcox criticism. --Cberlet 17:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will corect the spelling of the Rev.'s name, but as far as the rest, I don't think this article needs to go into that level of detail, and if we did we would need to be very careful not to overemphasize your POV. The situation of you being an editor here, while a positive one, is a potential source of concern and conflict on this article.

A similar circumstance has occured on Kevin B. MacDonald, wherein Prof. MacDonald has taken issue with various criticisms of his theories. It is important that a similar policy of interaction take place with your opinions being respected, but understood as neccesarilly biased. I hope you can understand that. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do understand that. I have promised to only engage in discussion on this article. Please look at the text on the page, and then compare it to the article cited, which has more detail.[8]." The text here has been sanitized in a biased way to obscure what really happened, which involved antisemitism, not just anticommunism. Here is what a really NPOV text would look like:

"Wilcox has also criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest.[9]." Strykowski was forced to resign by the Catholic Archdiocese after Berlet identified him as leading a prayer blessing a meeting of white supremacists where a leading national neonazi figure, Robert Miles, gave an antisemitic speech. The Rev. Strykowski maintained that he had not realized what kind of meeting it was, but the local media pointed out that Strykowski had been previously warned by the Archdiocese not to attend any more meetings of the group, since it was considered antisemitic."

I plan to post the published cites for my claims on the PRA website on Monday.--Cberlet 18:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Robert Miles isn;t a leading neo-nazi figure, unless your refering to this Robert Miles. ;) He certainly seems to be less famous than you, we have dozens of wiki articles on neo-nazi's great and small. Maybe you might like to write up an article on him, if he is of such a level of signifigance? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I am very sure that the late Robert E. Miles (of Michigan) was a leading white supremacist and antisemite who worked closely with Aryan Nations. He was convicted of conspiring to blow up school buses in Michigan to stop integration of the public schools. We can quibble over the term neonazi. But please tell me if there is some special way to create a page for a name that duplicates another in the Wikipedia collection? --Cberlet 22:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI, if a subject has the same name as another subject, the alternative is to add a jobtitle, locality, or other npov identifier after their name in parentheses. Thus, an alternative might have been "Robert Miles (pastor)". -Willmcw 02:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I did a little research I discovered he generally called himself Bob Miles, but his real name was Robert E. Miles. I could change the entry to Bob Miles if you think that is better. I am still trying to learn the intricacies of style here. --Cberlet 03:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three Catholics rob a bank...

Is the Three Catholics rob a bank simile relevant to Berlet specifically? Reading the article it sounds to me as if Wilcox is referring to others besides Berlet, namely commentators on the Oklahoma Bombing and the militias. -Willmcw 18:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems relevant, if barely. It illustrates the guilt by association fallacy which Berlet appears to make, at least in the accusations against him. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I'm going to reword the intro to the remark to make it clear that Wilcox is speaking of watchdog groups in general when making that criticism. -Willmcw 18:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took out "watchdog" for being POV. Can you think of a better term to describe them? (I admit I could not) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I used it because it is Wilcox's term: But Mr. Wilcox says what most watchdog groups have in common is a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups. "It's kind of like three Catholics hold up a... -Willmcw 19:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I don't think that "Mr. Wilcox says Political Research Associates and other "watchdog groups" have a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups:" is a correct characterization of the quote. Wilcox does not mention PRA specifically in that context or regarding the Oklahoma bombings. He is quoted as saying "most watchdog groups", not "PRA and other watchdog groups." If it is a quote, it should be accurate. -Willmcw 20:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I tried to clean it up a bit. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the PRA over to make it a little clearer that the quotations don't refer specifically to it, but to "watchdog" groups in general. -Willmcw 20:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...also criticized for accusing the ADL...

I followed the link in the footnote of this sentence:

Berlet was also criticized for accusing the Anti-Defamation League, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times in 1993, of down-playing the right-wing threat while focusing on left-wing groups. [17]

The only person who seems to be criticizing Berlet for the ADL attack is the piece's author, William Norman Grigg. If so, we should characterize the speaker. The implication otherwise is that Berlet is being criticized by the "left", while Grigg is definitely on the "right" (I believe he is senior editor of the John Birch Society magazine, among other things). Whether the critic is Grigg or not, whomever it is should be identified. -Willmcw 19:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, this Chip Berlet seems to get it from al directions. Perhaps we can provide some better understanding (neutral of course) as to why he is so broadly contentious? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee, do you think it's a mystery why the John Birch Society would criticize Berlet for criticizing the ADL for not going after right-wing groups? I think the real question would be why there is so much discord between Berlet/Brande/Wilcox/et al. But I doubt we'd be able to answer it. Folks in politics often seem to get into the biggest fights with those who seem to be the most closely allied. In any case, until someone discerns another critic of Berlet vis a vis the ADL, I've added JBS as the critic. -Willmcw 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red links

I like the changes to this article, particularly the Criticism of the left and Criticism of Berlet separate sections, and the new Resum? section. I added another quote from Wilcox, which explains why there is discord between these researchers. That quote is also in The New American journal, which I added is published by the John Birch Society. And I found a link for the Daniel Brandt quote, which I've added, inline and in the References section. I saw someone had added a lot of red links. I've removed them because it made the text overwikified and hard to read; and it's also unlikely that most of the red-linked groups or people will ever have a Wikipedia entry; if they do, we can come back and wikify then. Hope the changes are okay. Slim 21:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I take it you havn't seen my note on your talk page yet? I added, and replaced the red links. These links are very important, they let other wiki's know what articles need created. there is a even a "most wanted" listing for potential articles w the most red links. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam, sorry I haven't seen my note. Wikipedia is very slow for me today, and I haven't seen able to get my Talk page to load yet. Please don't keep adding red links. They make the article hard to read. Very few, if any, of the phrases and groups you're linking will ever have an article. Also, over-wikifying (whether red or blue) is generally discouraged. If you look at the Featured Articles, you'll rarely see any red links or too many blue links in those.

I saw Chip's comments above about the Rev, and so I have added his rejoinder, as follows: "In response to Wilcox's comments about the Rev. Strykowski, Berlet said that Wilcox had mischaracterized PRA's activities. "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter," Berlet told the Washington Times. "He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field." [17]

You may feel it's not appropriate to have a rejoinder from Chip in the "Criticism of Berlet" section, because otherwise we could have rejoinders of all the criticism, then rejoinders of the rejoinders . . . So feel free to take it out if you'd rather. Slim 21:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objection about the rejoinder, nor your other edits, but we deeply disagree about the red links. I feel that removal of red links of this sort, links which both have bearing on the article and use to the reader, and which I feel quite strongly do merit articles written, is in direct opposition to both the spirit, and the policy (unspoken or otherwise) of the project. If you saw something written somewhere which you felt encouraged such actions, please alert me to its location so that I can change it forthwith. Don't get me wrong, I perceive your positive intent, but I profoundly disagree with your reasoning on this matter. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FWIT, I agree with Sam. I guess it's another category of editors: redlinkers versus bluelinkers. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hunt down some pages about red links. It may not be today however, as one of the LaRouche activists is busy reverting and Wikipedia is very slow for me. But as soon as I've found something, I'll put it here. There may be something in the Featured Article standards. Part of my objection is that these are very obscure organizations. If one of you wants to go and write the articles, then the links wouldn't be red anymore, which would be a solution, but my guess is you wouldn't want to because some of them, at least, are so obscure and may not exist anymore. Also, I wonder about the point of wikifying words like "photojournalist," because everyone knows what that is. Also, wikifying FBI twice in successive sentences is unnecessary. Anyway, I will look for pages about this and we can discuss further. Slim 23:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

What's the critisism bit for?

Berlet is journalist. Journalists tend to critisize people It's their job. People critisized will defend themselves saying the critisism is unfair. That's obvious. Why is it interesting? I'm new to Wikki so maybe there is something I'm missing. Dejvid 22:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism provides balance. Why even have an article at all, if its going to be onesided? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That reads to me like you are saying that ballance requires that anything positiv be balance with something negativ. I suspect that's not what your mean but then what? But my real question was why are these details of impotant? A journalist critisizes a public figure. Public figure answers back. Both one and the other are behaving exactly as one might expect.Dejvid 23:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, this article was developed after a protracted discussion about how it could be presented in a fair way. The previous version was very biased against Chip Berlet, because it was written by some of the people he has criticized during his career as a journalist. For that reason, it was rewritten to make it more neutral. However, that doesn't mean that all criticism can be deleted. Wikipedia policy is NPOV, which means a number of different points of view should be represented: not all (e.g. very minority views need not be mentioned), but all majority and significant minority views have a place. See Wikipedia:NPOV. Best, Slim 23:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I think I understad the score a bit better. I'm here because of the Request for Comment so forgive me if I'll need a little time to get ajusted. I will read up the orginal versions but I'm still skeptical as to whether this sort of thing will be of interest beyond the people Berlet has critisized.Dejvid 00:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, see [10] for the version before the clean-up started. Slim 01:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

high times placement

An anon. moved Berlet's stint at High Times out of the investigating-government-abuse section, which Wally reverted. I have retained Wally's revert on the reasoning that, most likely, Berlet's work in Washington for High Times included a fair amount of investigation into government abuse, so it seems like fine placement to me.

Hi Dan, an IP address only one digit away from that one has been used before by a LaRouche editor. Could be a cooincidence, of course. I saw you wrote something on your edit summary indicating maybe you had trouble saving, though I can't get in to check because the page won't load. Just so you know: there is a software or server problem causing some saves not to "take" and sometimes only partially to take, which is weird, but several users have reported it. It's slow as treacle for me today. I think I may have to give up shortly. Best, SlimVirgin 21:18, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The edit by 198.81.26.73 was not mine, but it looks legit to me (see also below under "Neologism".) Let's face it -- Chip was not just writing stories for High Times, he was bureau chief. And High Times is a magazine for dopers -- I mean, it is a magazine that caters to proponents of recreational drug use. You don't lump it in as a apple attempting to blend in with the oranges. If Soldier of Fortune publishes a recipe, it doesn't become Better Homes and Gardens. Weed Harper 02:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup. High Times caters to recreational drug users and, best I know, Berlet was bureau chief. Generally speaking, recreational drug users are particularly concerned with civil liberties and abuses by law enforcement, as these are issues which affect them directly. If anything, the fact that it was High Times and not the Podunk Review reinforces its grouping in that paragraph. Why shouldn't it be there? DanKeshet 00:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Neologism?

Of course, the fact is, LaRouche is simply wrong. Neither Dennis King nor I invented the word "conspiracism," which has been used in scholarly writing for decades.

Regardless of whether you agree with LaRouche, that is the only quote I have ever seen where he specifically mentions Chip Berlet in print. If LaRouche is to be mentioned in this article, a quote would be appropriate.

It seems odd to me that Berlet wants to downplay his role as a LaRouche critic in this article, and meanwhile constantly inserts his name in all the LaRouche articles, presenting himself as the fearless leader of the crusade against LaRouche. Weed Harper 02:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I have this thing about facts. LaRouche has mentioned me in print repeatedly, and his publications have attacked me dozens of times. This particular quote just happened to appear to be based on the faulty notion that the term conspiracism is new, or that King or I invented it.--Cberlet 03:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The LaRouche quote was "LaRouche has commented on 'a fruity neologism, conspiracism, now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet.'" He doesn't say that you invented it; he says you adopted it. And, the Merriam-Webster definition of "neologism" is

1. a new word, usage, or expression
2. a meaningless word coined by a psychotic

--HK 15:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Mintz, "conspiracism" denotes "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history" (1985: 4). "Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere; it identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology" (1985: 199).

Mintz, Frank P. 1985. The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

--Cberlet 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK, that attempt at an insult was uncalled for.

I did notice a couple of things about the article, which might bear fixing. Firstly, there's no note in the background or resume whether Berlet ever received a degree, or what he studied during college (in addition to what he received a degree in if he did so). Also, I'm not sure "trade unionist" is an appropriate word to have in the article — I've never heard it used in an American context before. Although I may well be wrong.

One final thing: do we really need so many links and citations and etc.? Part of me wonders if you can't be too thorough.

Otherwise, I would like to add my opinion that the article is a ton better after Slim's and Willmcw's reworking than it was before. I will pitch in where I can as soon as I am able to clear my computer of a rather nasty bug that inserts hyperlinks to vendors for certain keywords whenever I try to edit an article (which I first discovered attempting to fix a typo in this article two days ago, which Willmcw thankfully reverted. If anyone knows of such a phenomena and knows of a way to clear it, such knowledge would be appreciated. My anti-spyware and anti-virus programs have been ineffective. In sum, a bang up job. Wally 22:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't take credit for either the editing (Slim) or the revert (Dankeshet). But I agree that it's a better article now, and would be even better with more basic biographical info. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally, thanks for the kind words. I wondered what that odd hyperlink was that Dan reverted. It seemed to be an ad for something to do with Amazon. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix such things.

I agree that more biographical info would improve it, and I also wondered about the degree subject or studies, but couldn't find anything online, and we're not supposed to take information directly from Cberlet unless it's published somewhere (original research). By all means, ask him if you want to, because there might be something published he can refer you to. I wasn't sure what you meant by the list of links and citations. If you mean References, these were all used in the creation of the article and so are supposed to be listed in a References section according to Wikipedia policy. I used more than I normally would have in case the contents were challenged. If you mean the Further reading list, I agree that these links are unnecessary. They were in the previous version and I didn't want to be accused of removing them for no reason. I think I may have removed one or two of the dodgier ones, but felt I should leave most of them. I would not object if you were to delete them.

The word "trade unionist" I took from a published source about Berlet. I have no problem if you change it to what you feel is the more common expression in America. Best, SlimVirgin 00:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good work

I restored a number of important wikilinks that had been removed, and read the article. It has much improved since my last reading. I think it provides not only more well rounded information, but also a greater degree of balance on the subject of controversies surrounding this man. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sam. It's been a useful collaborative effort. We feel there should be a bit more biographical info, but hopefully we'll find it soon. I did find the policy page about red links by the way. It's Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and the policy is below for future reference. SlimVirgin 02:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true (with the exception of dates, which should always be linked):

10% of the words are contained in links

it has more links than lines

a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps) of text that appears in paragraphs.

more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist.

Geez, how much more biographical information do you need? I confess. I was an Eagle Scout and Order of the Arrow Lodge Chief. I have a small pond with Shubunkin goldfish. My wife and I go fishing for bass and I go fly fishing for trout. I build my own computers from parts. And for those waiting for this tidbit, I have no academic degree, but began writing scholarly articles in the late 1990s at the invitation of sociologists studying neofascist and fundamentalist movements. Oh, and an article I wrote about LaRouche won a journalism award. --Cberlet 03:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say what you studied, which article won the journalism award, and which award it was. I think we can probably leave out the Eagle Scout and goldfish . . . :-) SlimVirgin 04:18, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we could put in the thing about Eagle Scouting. It is a major American pasttime for kids. Wally 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And a Shubunkin gold fish pond? Thats clearly noteworthy ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Studied sociology with a journalism minor. Award:

The Free Press Association, Mencken Awards, For outstanding journalism in support of liberty, Chip Berlet, 1982 Mencken Awards Finalist in the Best News Story Category, "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," High Times.

Transcribed from the framed award on my wall.--Cberlet 23:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. I've added that information, and also removed the word "trade unionist" which someone felt was not a commonly used expression, so it now just says "shop steward". Anyone who wants to should feel free to change it back again. SlimVirgin 00:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Trade unionist is way better than shop steward IMO, but its not something I am motivated to tangle about. Who thought trade unionist was uncommon? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wally felt it wasn't a common expression in America. I have no problem with either term. SlimVirgin 00:45, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche quote

Since LaRouche is listed as critic, there should be a quote from him. If someone would like to propose a representative quote from him as an alternative to the "neologism" quote, fine. Otherwise, the "neologism" quote should be used. Weed Harper 01:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do we need another Larouche attack on me here? Just link to one of the many attacks on the LaRouche pages. (p.s. National Lawyers Guild internal link requires removal of the apostrophe).--Cberlet 02:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that another quote isn't entirely needed. Which one did you have in mind tho, just to be fair? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er, I had in mind the "neologism" quote, because it is the only quote I have ever seen where LaRouche personally mentions Berlet. Maybe there is another that I am not aware of.

Now, I just looked at the "LaRouche" articles to find all those attacks on Berlet that Berlet says we could link to, and I don't find any. There is a mention of Berlet's participation in one of the John Train meetings, but nothing that could be considered an "attack." Is Berlet referring to the LaRouche pages on Wikipedia, or more generally those on the web? Weed Harper 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

need to add a cite & link

I think the mention that Bellant, King and I issued a statement about the LaRouche organization belongs here, but it very much needs to be cited to balance the LaRouche cite/link in the lines below it. This would provide balance and evidence of a source. Could someone consider adding it please? I swore I would not touch the page itself.--Cberlet 17:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Bellant_Berlet_King.html

Chip, I'm pondering the wisdom of that. It's relevant and it's cited, so it can be added, but the more you add about LaRouche, the stronger the argument the LaRouche editors will have that they should be allowed to rebut. As this page has settled down, I'm wondering if it's worth disrupting it. Let me know what you think.

On another note, Wally was saying that the Eagle Scouts could be added to your article (I think he meant it as a joke) because they're a big thing for kids in the States. I just noticed, in fact, that there's been a call for page protection for Eagle Scout because of an edit war. [11]. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze . . . :-) SlimVirgin 19:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, on the LaRouche stuff, out of fairness, if Wiki is going to say the three of us accused the LaRouche people of something, it should be be cited so people can see what we said. Then, after the line:

The political movement headed by controversial American fringe politician Lyndon LaRouche has also published material critical of Berlet.

A critical quote from LaRouche would be fair, but try to find one that does not contain easily refuted claims such as the neologism quote. Mintz apparently coined the term "conspiracism", not me. Otherwise, just edit out the reference to the group statement, and say I am a critic.--Cberlet 19:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I count 5 individual attacks attributed to Berlet on the two main LaRouche pages, and most of them were put there by editor CBerlet (i.e. Berlet). He accuses LaRouche of being a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a neofascist. Compared to that, LaRouche calling Berlet a "crony of Dennis King" and a "denizen of the internet's left bank" is pretty tame. And as Herschel already observed, LaRouche's quote does not say you coined the term; it says you adopted it. Here's the quote again:

LaRouche has commented on "a fruity neologism, conspiracism, now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet."

Weed Harper 21:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're looking at the current versions of these articles. Go back into the histories and read the versions, including Chip Berlet and Dennis King, that you and Herschel wrote, if you want to see unverifiable attacks. Then go back into the archives and check out all the insults produced by you and Herschel on the Talk pages, and I mean all of them, going back months before Cberlet became an editor. These are cached by Google and therefore "published". There are personal attacks aplenty there, on Cberlet, on King, and on other editors. SlimVirgin 00:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "closely related" article

From what I can see, the consensus is that a LaRouche quote is appropriate. Weed put the quote in this morning, and Slim reverted it, citing "the reasons already discussed at length." I am restoring Weed's edit, and I welcome further discussion. --HK 22:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Cberlet asked someone to add a sentence about his LaRouche statement . I advised that if we did that, the LaRouche editors would want to add a LaRouche quote, and we'd be back to square one with unverifiable nonsense. The first quote has not been added (at least not by me, and I believe not at all), so there is no need for a LaRouche quote. As this is not a "closely related' article, please abide by the ArbCom ruling and stop trying to add LaRouche material. SlimVirgin 23:28, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

In this case I must agree with HK that some rebuttal quote from LaRouche is appropriate. Clearly, journalist Chip Berlet has written on LaRouche a great deal and even if LaRouche responded by saying Berlet is "full of BS" then it would be appropriate to at least allude to that response (without repeating a libel). I would think that Berlet would take an attack from LaRouche as a sign of respect. The quote from LaRouche that HK wants to put in is really minor, which indicates LaRouche's either disinterest or inability to find a more serious criticism. I recommend that the "fruity neologism" quote stays. If someone finds a source to show that it isn't a neologism at all, then that can be appended as an aside. I will rewrite the sentence. Reading the original, it appears that the neologist in question is Pipes, not Berlet. -Willmcw 09:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, why have you re-added the LaRouche quote? LaRouche publications are not supposed to be added as sources to articles unless the articles are "closely related" to LaRouche. This is not a closely related article. Any editor may remove them on sight, which is why I did. Even the fact that the Larouche movement criticized him was a concession to Hersechel, because many other organizations that Berlet has criticized as a journalist have probably criticized him back, but they have not all been mentioned. SlimVirgin 10:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. It seems reasonable to me to allow the subject to respond, but I suppose the ArbCom decision trumps my view. I'll remove my dis-allowed addition. -Willmcw 10:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The pararaph you see about LaRouche was already the concession to Herschel and Weed. Had it not been for the incessant complaints, I would likely not have mentioned LaRouche at all in this article, because LaRouche is a very small part of Berlet's work. It is appearing to loom large at the moment because of the work Cberlet is going on the LaRouche pages here, but when you look at his bibliography (and I only posted a portion of it), LaRouche is not a dominant subject. SlimVirgin 11:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns, but I think that for an encyclopedia entry, a critical quote from the LaRouche folks is appropriate. I just thought the "neologism" quote was not typical and slightly askew. So, although I said I would not edit this page during this discussion, I figured it was OK if I posted a negative quote from the LaRouchians.  :-) This is a far more representative quote. --Cberlet 14:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MK Ultra?!

Wow, MKULTRA is trying to legalize drugs, and this berlet guy is a govt. operative working for them? Thats amazing! Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 01:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Cberlet and Herschelkrustofsky are going to edit this article, and try to turn it into a pro-LaRouche or anti-LaRouche platform, I'm taking it off my watchlist. SlimVirgin 01:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to resolve a controversy in the face of numerous others we are contending with. If folks want to invite others to the discussion for input, that's fine with me. I thought I was making life easier. I wasn't trying to be difficult.  :-( --Cberlet 03:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chip, you're not being difficult, and it's not a question of that. It's just that I don't like to extend the LaRouche's platform in the Wikipedia any more than the arbcom has explicitly allowed, because there are already far more references to them in Wikipedia than their influence in the "real world" can justify. But no matter: I don't own this article, so anyone can edit it. I just don't want to be mopping up again, that's all. You should also bear in mind that a lot of this stuff gets cached by Google; it can take weeks for it to turn up, but it often does. Although it's nonsense to link your name to that operation, anyone stumbling on this Talk page as a result of a Google search will read about that link, but without knowing the context. SlimVirgin 05:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is always the possibility of applying for page protection, should unwanted, slanderous or misleading edits continue. Wally 20:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip evidently prefers the MKULTRA quote to the Neologism quote. I won't object, although I prefer the Neologism quote, and what Weed is saying is correct: I don't recall ever seeing LaRouche personally mention Berlet in print with the exception of that quote. The MKULTRA quote comes from Barbara Boyd, who I think has worked as paralegal on some LaRouche legal cases. She may have had some sort of personal contact with Berlet. --HK 16:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As an outsider to this article, I offer my comments:

In general I think the current version is better than one. On the other hand, the current article needs to include some more of the removed Larouche material. Also, the Laird Wilcox extended critique (which includes the Fr. Strykowski bit) needs to be compressed to one quote. One critic shouldn't get an entire paragraphy. Bacchiad 14:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check-up

Hello hello all, just wanted to check back in and see the article. Looks great overall; good information and plenty of fair coverage of the LaRouche business. Heard HK left — fun while it lasted. One thing though; isn't the picture a bit campy? Wally 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit campy. As for the photo, according to our organizational bureaucrats, I needed to add a linked copyright notice with permission for use on Wikipedia. Same with chart. Otherwise I am resisting editing.  :-)

Why is this Web site here????

This whole article just seems to be a vanity page. IMHO, Mr. Chip Berlet is a extremely minor figure in the extremely minor area of fringe journalism. No great accomplishments, etc. Just a self-promotion site.-----Keetoowah 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keetowah, it's no vanity page. Berlet is well known among investigative journalists, and as the article states, he's appeared on ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today show, CBS' This Morning, Oprah, and CNN, and has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe, and the Columbia Journalism Review. Those are all reason enough for him to have a Wikipedia entry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not create the page, and have agreed not to directly edit it. I do sometimes ask editors to review my complaints about innacuracies, and I only did this after some LaRouche fans filled the page with false claims and defamatory statements. I did adjust a copyright notice for the photo. Nice to know that Keetoowah thinks so highly of me....and clearly his views have no relation to our disagreements on the Ward Churchill page.  :-) --Cberlet 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche is NOT "fringe"

He in fact advises the second most senior member of the U.S. House, John Coyners. And you don't have to read about it on webpages affiliated with the LaRouche movement. You can read about it on Conyers' own webpage. [12] Cognition 2 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Please read your talk page. Editors are not allowed to act in a way that appears to promote Lyndon LaRouche. You're likely to be banned from editing if you continue inserting LaRouche propaganda into pages not directly related to LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 05:42 (UTC)

I am not promoting LaRouche. I am promoting the TRUTH, and encyclopedias are supposed to be accurate, aren't they? The truth is that LaRouche's movement is not fringe, regardless of your personal feelings, and that my edits make the article more factual. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Further, I am not using LaRouche sources. I am using Conyers sources. I am allowed to cite John Conyers, right? Or do you have "arbitration cases" blackballing Conyers too? Cognition 2 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

If you can produce an authoritative source that says LaRouche is not a fringe politician, then we'll have something to discuss. In the meantime, stop inserting LaRouche propaganda into articles, unless you have credible, third-party sources to back up what you write. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 06:07 (UTC)

Check out Milan Nikolić: "Russia and the IMF: Pseudo Lending for Pseudo Reforms," an academic article citing LaRouche. Sorry, you lose. The claim that LaRouche is fringe is not universally accpted, and thus POV and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

LOL! Good source. Look, I can't spend any more time arguing with you. If you're editing in good faith, you'll abide by the arbcom rulings. If you're not, there's no point in debating with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 06:16 (UTC)

Yes, University College London and the UK University of Surrey ARE good sources. LaRouche is not fringe. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

Well, can you retort that? I'm still waiting 'cause this looks like the kinda admin abuse I was suffrin' from. BrowardPlaya 2 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

The best route is for Cognition to seek out clarification from the Arbitration Committee, and build up a case in favour of un-fringing LaRouche with them, since they have for the moment overided the debate in their decision. El_C 2 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Not needed. I am not citing LaRouche. I am citing Congressman Conyers. Or is he also blackballed on Wikipedia? Cognition 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

You should direct this question to the Arbitration Committee. El_C 2 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

I don't need to. NPOV applies to all articles. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

The Conyers reference is to a Comment post from a "LaRouche Democrat" reader on the Conyers blog. This has been totally misrepresented here.--Cberlet 2 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

How about the Wikipedia article on John Conyers as another source? Do you deny the fact that Conyers spoke at at LaRouche PAC event, in front of a podium that said "LaRouche PAC?" Cognition 2 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

I just reverted for a fourth time inadvertently, so I reverted myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Offical response from Conyers' office regarding LaRouche:

"we went to your suggested links and pulled up the LaRouche quotes that were, to say the least, antisemitic and racist. We brought them to Mr. Conyers attention. He was shocked and surprised. On his behalf: he unequivocally condemns these statements, and he will not speak before any group he knows to be associated with LaRouche unless they renounce these views. If he knew about these sickening quotes, he would not have spoken before the group. That is intended to be categorical. If you feel there is an wiggle room in it, I would welcome the opportunity to make it more clear." [13]

I have no evidence that you didn't just make that quotation up. Rep. Conyers spoke before LaRouche PAC and that is a fact that you cannot deny. Cognition 2 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Other than the link he provided. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that Conyers' is being misrepresented by Cognition.--Cberlet 2 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Vfd

This page is also a candidate for VfD, since it's clearly a non-notable neologism. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

A person is not a neologism. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Cognition, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

The writers of this article were the ones to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by including an entry on some non-notable yellow journalist just to slander LaRouche. Cognition 2 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

On 6 Jul 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chip Berlet for a record of the discussion. —Theo (Talk) 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

May I also just note that describing someone as a "yellow journalist" seems like a personal attack on that individual. —Theo (Talk) 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Leftist Lie Factory?

Is this the right place for this? Chip, is this you they are talking about?[14] Please refuse these charges! NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No it's not the right page, and I do "refuse" the charges, thanks. See: [15]--Cberlet 00:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Volkov & Wagner

Cberlet: Using SPLC research methodolgy, should Soviet spy Anatole Volkov likewise be placed in Category:Neo-Nazis, Category:Ku Klux Klan, and List of White supremacists, based upon evidence presented the geneological chart [16], i.e. Volkov was a Wagner enthusiast. Evidence suggests he picked up his musical interests from Lud Ullman, as well as an interest in amateur photography and maintaining a darkroom in his basement. nobs 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Chip Berlet? This question seems more appropriate on the Volkov talk page. -Willmcw 18:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The copyright Geneological chart specifially lists Wagner Operas as some sort of clue to anti-Semitic, white supremacist & fascist leanings, and point to Hitler, Mein Kampf, etc. Anatole Volkov's obit states how he loved Wagner's pagan teutonic hero-myth piece Ring of the Nibelung; historically this presents a problem. Volkov, according to the various sources now, was both a Communist and perhaps a Neo-Nazi. Somewhere, I suggest, there may be a flaw in the reasoning. nobs 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So your point is not about Volkov at all, but questioning the rationale of the "genealogy" chart? -Willmcw 19:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The problem may be the association of persons who appreciate the works of Richard Wagner as being anti-Semitic, white supremacist, fascists. This association has a long, and controversial history. My instinctive sense is, that the holder of the copyright material, or its original creator, could not cite one (1) single line of Wagnerian text from Wagner Ring Opera's to support such a broad based allussion to Wagner's work, or the many Wagner enthusiasts over the past 160+ years, not without having to dig some alluded to source text, which he himself is not familiar with. nobs 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

We should perhaps add Stephen Hawking to the list of anti-Semitic, white supremacist & fascists, seeing he, like Hitler, also loves Wagner. I could make a genuine, extensive list, if the SPLC & PRA research methodology is the standard. nobs 20:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the chart, it links the concept of Nordic hero warriors, to Wagner, to Mein Kampf. That is a clear and uncontroversial connection, I would think. The chart does not directly connect Wagner to anti-Semitism, though others have discussed such a connection. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make about this article. -Willmcw 20:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The chart draws a link from "Myth of Aryan Race" to "Wagner Ring Cycle"; it was Friedrich Nietzsche who coined the term Ubermensch which was applied to Siegfried as a model of the "Aryan Superman" after Wagner's death. Yet there is no Nietszche-Hitler link (Nietszche, the most downloaded author from the Gutenberg Project). To illustrate the mindless brainwashing derived from perpetuating poorly researched items like this, the BOT in MSN chatrooms will eject you for typing in the word Wotan, a mythical god, the same way you get booted for saying "fuck". It will not do so for Parsifal, or Siegfried, were researched sources claim some ideological Nazified connection. Yet as I have illustrated, here and below, this is wholely counterfactual, and all in the name of fighting neo-fascism. It would help to begin with (1) understanding the problem (2) having some facts. nobs 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The chart, labelled "Genealogy of White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", specifically points to "Wagner Ring Operas". As a longtime student of the subject, I can specifically state the controversy has always been in Wagner's Prose works [17], although Robert Gutman made a case for Parsifal in his book written in the 1950s. From Der Ring, best your gonna find is in Act II of Siegfried, "No fish ever had a toad for a father", which evidently inspired Hitler to commit genocide. This on its face shows sloppy research. So if the conclusion is, that we are to hold playwrites responsible for the words spoken by fictional characters, what's the big bitch about the Hollywood blacklist then. nobs 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

How does all of this affect the article? If you can find a critic discussing the chart then we can post the criticism. Whether the chart is right or wrong is not for us, as encyclopedia editors, to decide. -Willmcw 21:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong about that, Will. If a chart conveys factually innacurate information we - as editors - have the responsibility to seek a better source. Similarly, if a chart conveys a strong partisan political POV we - as editors - have the responsibility to seek one that is more neutral and to properly contextualize that chart as strictly the viewpoint of its author. See WP:RS. Rangerdude 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't "contextualize" with original research. If there are critics then cite them. This is the same as any piece of work by a subject, whether art, fiction, or research. We don't critique, we report. An arrow pointing in the direction of a box labelled "Mein Kampf" from a box labelled "wagnerian Opera" is hardly a "fact" that we can say is accurate or inaccurate. -Willmcw 22:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

From WP:RS - "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." Chip Berlet is a partisan political writer with extreme beliefs on the far political left. His material is accordingly subject to this stipulation and should be explicitly identified as a matter of his personal opinion. Anybody can draw a chart, post it on the internet, and grant copyright permission for its use. That doesn't mean the chart is of encyclopedic value though, or that we have to accept it into an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing Mr. Berlet's chart and finding several faults both in its POV and content I am of the belief that it does not rise to a level of quality that justifies its inclusion on Wikipedia as anything more than an assertion of Chip Berlet's personal opinions on the Chip Berlet article alone. Rangerdude 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is free to their own opinions. However this chart is not here as a source, so WP:RS dosn't apply. It is here as an illustration of Berlet's work, just like a photo of a painting would illustrate a paitner's bio or quote would illustrate an author's bio. And just like those, we wouldn't critique it by saying, "Those colors don't go together", or "that arrow shouldn't point there." If you want to discuss it as a source for Roots of anti-Semitism then we should discuss it at that page. -Willmcw 23:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nobs - I believe that the chart contains a severe POV as well as extensive innuendo about the groups it links, making it largely unencyclopedic. It is also very unscientific and appears to be constructed for political rather than sociological reasons. There are many simple errors in Mr. Berlet's associations, among them timeline faults and a complete disregard of the socialist influences on the nazis from the political left. For example - Berlet's chart places Oswald Spengler AFTER, and seemingly as a product of, Hitler and Mein Kampf to facilitate his grouping with Francis Yockey's 1940's book Imperium (which was influenced by Spengler's Decline of the West). Yet Spengler actually published Decline of the West in 1918 - well before Mein Kampf - and died in 1936 when Hitler's regime was still in its infancy. It also tends to neglect, perhaps intentionally given the author's political persuasions, the many leftist influences on nazis antisemitism such as the overtly Marxist Werner Sombart's Haendler und Helden and Die Zukunft der Juden. Considering that this chart also comes from an extremely partisan political source on the far left wing of the spectrum (see WP:RS), it should probably only be included - if at all - as an explicit representation of Chip Berlet's personal opinions. Rangerdude 21:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Without comment on the accuracy of the chart, I thought that presenting it as Berlet's work (or at least PRA's) was precisely the point of having it on this page. The arguments would be very different if we were to include the page on anti-semitism, etc. DanKeshet 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It may even be original research. nobs 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

DanKeshet - the chart is currently used at the Roots of anti-Semitism article, and I consider its placement there problematic since it is a very partisan source and this partisanship appears to be present, as noted above, in the chart itself. As such it probably should be removed from the other article. Keeping it here on the Chip Berlet article seems fine by me as long as it is clearly identified as a work of Berlet and a representation of his opinion, rather than anything authoritative. Thanks Rangerdude

Well, perhaps this conversation should be taken to that page then. This is not a user page, it is a discussion toward improving the article Chip Berlet. I don't think anybody has a problem with the chart being here, right? DanKeshet 02:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Chart is published on the PRA website. The Spengler reference is part of a larger list that shows how Spengler was repackaged AFTER WWII by Yockey in Imperium. The Wagner reference was supposed to be a bit cute (its in a ring, get it, but refers to the larger issue of romantiziced Nordic myths, not anything else. I note that Rangerdude has now pasted a BLOB of highly personal attacks on me on my Wiki entry. This concerted effort to attack me and my work is disgusting. --Cberlet 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yah but you're not making the connection between Der Ring des Nibelungen, or the Volsunga Saga, or the Nibelungenlied, the foundational works, to "Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", the charge to which anyone who openly expresses any admiration for Wagner's work exposes themselves to from the PRA or SPLC. nobs 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

One would think under "Generalized Influences, White Supremacy, Eugenics, and Scientific Racism" the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life could be documented to have had more influence over the rationalistic based democides of the 20th century, but you pass over this. nobs 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who inserted the chart into the aricle. I don't find there is a need to debate its merits in great length and detail in an inter-editorial sense. It is a useful scholarly "opinion," which of course, may be disputed and contested by other scholars. Wikipedia can and should accomodate such a discussion. That said, if Chip wishes to discuss it, that is his prerogative. El_C 03:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Wagner borrowed from Nordic mythology but he transformed it so that in the Ring it exists as its own complete mythological world. It has been fascinating to delve inside that world." [18]--Cberlet 03:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: The chart labels Christianity as among the "Genealogy of White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", yet does not show Christianity's geneology. Please explain why this should not be considered another McCarthyite smear against the whole of Christendom for which the PRA is gaining a reputation. Thank you.nobs 13:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Notation: There has been no substantive response to any of the issues raised in subsection. nobs 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like the chart then you don't have to look at it. If you can find a notable critic addressing it then you can quote them. But this is not the place to critique the chart, which is presented here as a sample of Berlet's work. -Willmcw 20:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issue; no one offered a personal view as to whether they "liked" it or not. Some of the problems have been stated here. nobs 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that in this article the chart is presented as an example of Berlet's work. It is just as improper for us to critique it here as it would be for us to add our own critique's of Guernica to an article on Picasso's article. -Willmcw 21:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Painting Stephen Hawking, Anatole Volkov [19], and the now it appears Kim Philby of the KGB as well (see List_of_secret_agents#Soviet_Union_.28KGB.29) with the broad swath of "White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism", or for that matter anyone who enjoys the Operas of Richard Wagner, and calling it "cute", IMHO is unresearched, unscholarly, and inappropriate. nobs 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Depicting the influence of Wagner's Nordic heroes on Hitler is not the same thing as calling everyone who enjoys Wagners' music as White Supremacist. However, even if it were it wouldn't matter for this article. If Picasso depicts the citizens of Guernica as gray people, when we "know" that they were acually white, brown, or pink-skinned, then that too would be unresearched, and unscholarly on the part of Picasso. Bad Picasso! But it would be highly inappropriate for us to add that criticism to the article, or to demand that the "inaccurate" painting be removed. -Willmcw 22:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I can speak as an eyewitness to accounts of persons over many decades who are "closet Wagnerians", afraid to openly confess an admiration for Wagner, or hide Wagner CD's at home from guests and visitors, for the fear of being called a Nazi. nobs 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe it isn't inaccurate after all, if it depicts a commonly-held cultural belief, as exhibited by your closted friends. -Willmcw 23:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Stephen Hawking must be an racist, anti-Semitric neo-fascist skinhead [20], according to the PRA and other groups that publish materials, make "hate-group" lists, since Hawking says this,

It was in 1963 that I first developed an interest in Wagner, or "Wag-ner" as my speech synthesiser pronounces him. Wagner more than any other person before or since had the ability to compose music that has an emotional effect. It reaches a level no one else does. nobs 23:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Most-edited_talk_pages, Talk:Richard Wagner is the 17th most edited page in Wikipedia; must be either a lot of Opera lovers out there or anti-Semitism is on the rise. nobs 01:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page

Excuse, me, but is this fair? After Rangerdude files a complaint against me that goes nowhere, he comes here and plops a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry. A link would be sufficient. Most of the claims are absurd.--Cberlet 03:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Chip, I encountered the Horowitz material and your controversy with him while researching the Southern Poverty Law Center. It was around this time that I also discovered that you have written extensively for the SPLC, including some of their most controversial material to appear in recent years. Since the controversy involved Horowitz not only denouncing the SPLC in a letter to Dees but also making specific complaints about you - the author of the SPLC's hit on him piece that prompted his response - I felt it perfectly proper to add pertinent material here as well. You *did* engage in an attack on a high profile conservative writer that was published by a high profile liberal organization. That conservative writer also responded to your attack at length, and an ensuing exchange included both a subsequent rebuttal by yourself from the left and another rebuttal by the conservative. It is not a reasonable request to expect that an exchange of this sort should be overlooked or minimized. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia with a mandate to give balance, not puff pieces about Chip Berlet that show only the good but ignore the bad because he personally thinks the bad is "absurd." Also since the dispute transpired over at least 5 different articles and responses, a simple link alone to one of them would not suffice and would probably violate NPOV by giving favor to that link over the 4 others. You will also note that in the interest of neutrality and a balanced representation, I also quoted your responses and linked to your rebuttal of Horowitz. It is also properly designated in the article's criticisms section, and as a whole serves as a counterbalance to the lengthy and generally positive biographical information at the top of the article. Rangerdude 06:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at this, but I agree that there's too much detail. I'll take another look tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

For the record: the section I added on the Horowitz-Berlet dispute is a total of 3 paragraphs. Berlet is quoted expressing his POV at length twice, and Horowitz is quoted twice (one more person - Chris Arabia, writing for Horowitz's organization - is also quoted criticizing Berlet and I would be more than happy to quote the SPLC's Mark Potok defending him to counterbalance this if anyone thinks it is proper) By comparison of length the section of Laird Wilcox criticisms takes up the equivalent of 3 detailed paragraphs when the blockquotes are included. The section on Berlet's criticisms of people on the left entails 4 detailed paragraphs and also spills over into a fifth at the beginning of the next section. Considered in the perspective of these comparable sections, devoting 3 paragraphs (the majority of which are direct quotes that are shared between both the critic and the accused) is entirely appropriate. As User:Slim Virgin has also repeatedly and publicly declared her personal friendship with and admiration of this article's subject elsewhere on Wikipedia, I will ask her to avoid reaching any conclusions on the appropriateness of critical material about Mr. Berlet that are influenced or distorted by this stated personal allegiance. Thanks - Rangerdude 07:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop trying to argue that I'm biased. I don't know Chip outside Wikipedia. I admire him because I think he's a good editor and writer, and I trust his judgment. I also trust myself to be neutral, and I wish you'd extend that courtesy to me and stop trying to undermine people who disagree with you.

It's not so much a question of length as of detail. There's too much he said/she said without the relevance of it being clear, and it's written in journalese. I'm going to take a closer look at it tomorrow. Perhaps in the meantime, Chip could say which parts he feels are wrong/unfair/unnecessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - as long as you respond to Wikipedia policy and guideline cases about any of your editor friends' behavior with the stated equivalent of "I know editor X, and he's a good editor so the complaint against him must be wrong" - as you have done more than once - I have no alternative but to conclude that a biasing personal attachment to editor X both exists and induces you to assert the aforementioned non-sequitur as your stated basis for dismissing the case. Given that this has occured more than once in my interaction with you, raising your awareness of it (and you will note that I addressed it to you in a manner that was perfectly civil, even if you do not like me criticizing you for non-neutrality) has become a necessary response. Regarding the Horowitz section, the majority of the detail you describe comes in the form of quotations from all involved parties. I did so intentionally for the purpose of attempting to present the dispute in a neutral manner, as quoting participants directly is the only sure way to avoid being accused of misrepresenting one or both. As noted I also attempted balance by allotting these quotes to both participants (2 Horowitz quotes, 2 Berlet quotes) so that each has space to state his position in the included text. Reducing this, IMO, will only serve to bias the section in one way or another, add confusion as to what the positions and responses were, or both. If you have a suggestion of particulars that you believe we should clarify and can offer them with neutrality I will welcome them. Thanks Rangerdude 07:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note from the outset that the length, detail, direction, etc., of claims will be determined according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines; namely, WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. Thanks. El_C 08:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Rangerdude: "I also discovered that you have written extensively for the SPLC, including some of their most controversial material to appear in recent years." This is a total fabrication. It is not true in the slightest. List the articles I have written, please, or correct the record.

As for length, it is way too long for what was a tempest in a teacup. All of the material can be linked if people want details. It comes down to a disagreement. SPLC article appears[1], Howoritz writes "Open Letter" [2], Chip responds with memo [3], Horowitz responds again [4], Arabia hit piece appears [5], Chip responds to Arabia [6]. It should take a paragraph.

I do think that it is significant to note that both Rangerdude and Nobs have started attacking me and my work on several pages after I began challenging their edits on Wiki pages. So let's not call SlimVirgin biased folks. Or I will just hold up a mirror.

The "Albania" link, if it remains, should include mention of the actual story of my involvement which is in an online article I wrote. I put one paragraph here to show that the current sentence misrepresents what happened:

"In Chicago in the 1980s I was asked by friends of my spouse to be parliamentarian at a founding meeting of a national US/Albanian Friendship Society. At the time, I was still collecting hours of such work needed to become a certified parliamentarian. I turned out to be one of the few attendees not in one of three competing Stalinist cadre organizations. Everyone was on their good behavior, however, and over several days we actually managed to draft principles of unity and a constitution and by-laws. I had quipped that if this group somehow managed to come up with democratic guidelines that didn't require supporting the government of Albania or its political system, that even I would join. They did, so I paid my dues and have been red-baited ever since."[21]

And I am red-baited again here on Wiki. If the issue is discussed at all, it should not be placed where it is, but placed in the context of examining how the Arabia article for Horowitz presented a highly POV attack by twistuing facts.--Cberlet 13:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

From the Southern Poverty Law Center's website:

1. [22] - 17-part feature article authored by Berlet for the SPLC's magazine
2. [23] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
3. [24] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
4. [25] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
5. [26] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
6. [27] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
7. [28] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
8. [29] - Berlet quoted favorably as an "expert"
9. [30] - favorable review of Berlet's book by the SPLC

I'll accordingly stand by my characterization of Berlet as having extensive connections to the Southern Poverty Law Center. And yes, I do contend that a 17-part feature article in the SPLC's magazine is more than enough to qualify as an extensive contribution to them. That feature also provoked hostile responses from many of the 17 groups he did hit pieces on in it (the Horowitz incident that he is currently attempting to expunge from this article about him among them), so to characterize it as falling among the most controversial pieces done by the SPLC in recent years is also accurate. As to the Albania story, if the material Mr. Berlet has requested is added it should be done so with due note that it is his personal explanation written some 16 or so years after the fact according to the date on that article (and coincidentally around the same time he started taking heat from the political right for being involved in that group). Rangerdude 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Horowitz an "extreme political partisan"?

On a related page an editor objected to using "extreme political partisans" as sources, offering the deifintion of "partisan" as "a fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea". The consensus on the other page is tending towards the position that the term only applies to highly "extreme" individuals or groups. But if a different standard is agreed on then Horowitz may qualify, which could result in the removal of his criticisms from a number of articles, including this one. Food for thought. -Willmcw 22:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Aside from reminding the above editor to make his long-overdue visit to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I need only note that Horowitz's quotes here are explicitly attributed to him as a representation of his opinions regarding Berlet and the SPLC controversy, to wit: "except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." As such, quoting Horowitz to represent Horowitz's clearly identified opinions meets the stipulations of WP:RS for cases in which a partisan source may be used. Rangerdude 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The opinions of Horowitz are relevant to the Horowitz article. But are the opinions of someone who may be considered an extreme political partisan relevant to other articles? As for the guideline you reference, a simple discussion is not a disruption. Actually demanding that sourced informaiton be removed in order to prove a point, as is happening on another page, might be considered differently. -Willmcw 23:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the exception is "in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." It does not say "in articles about themselves." It says "in articles discussing the opinions of that organization" - meaning any article where that opinion is deemed relevant by Wikipedia's other content guidelines and policies and by WP:NPOV. The editor is once again reminded of WP:POINT. Rangerdude 23:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the title of this article "Opinions of David Horowitz"? No? Hmmm. It sounds as if you're saying that the guidline means that any article in which a partisan is mentioned becomes an article discussing that partisan's opinion. That seems like a stretch, especially since we aren't even discussing Horowitz's opinion, just quoting it. As for WP:POINT, what's the disruption? -Willmcw 00:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT? Hardly. I think the phrases "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" or "hoist on your own petard" are more apropros. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Horowitz Section

I've reduced the Horowitz criticism to one paragraph, pasted below. Keeping it short meant deleting Chip's response, but as there was a response to the response, I thought it best just to describe the basic dispute, and people can click on links if they want to know more. Any views? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist David Horowitz over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Berlet wrote that right-wing think tanks like Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and made allegations of racial insensitivity against the CSPC. In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged him to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears ..." [31] Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations, as well as a response from Berlet. [32] [33] [34]

I strongly disagree with this shortening and believe it removes far too much of the material on what was a long and drawn out dispute. It also removes stronger representations of Horowitz' views as stated in his own words and replaced it with a half-line mid-sentence excerpt that fails to convey his protest to Dees. There were also specific critiques of Berlet's style and techniques that were removed entirely. Arabia for example has argued that Berlet's approach has the undesirable effect of squashing free speech and debate - a serious charge that should not be ignored. This reduction in material appears to have been conducted primarily for the purpose of accomodating Cberlet's request that unpleasant sourced criticisms be removed - a request that was inappropriate in the first place. As I noted previously, other existing sections in the Chip Berlet article devote 3 and 4 paragraphs to single topics, making the complaint that the 3 paragraph Horowitz section was too long patent nonsense. While I would be more accomodating to a compromise that slimmed down the Horowitz material, this edit essentially obliterates two thirds of it and does so for reasons that are not in keeping with Wikipedia's autobiography and NPOV provisions. Rangerdude 03:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Which parts specifically do you think should be reinserted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The following things need to be retained:

1. A fuller quotation of Horowitz that conveys his charges and stated implications to Dees.
2. In fairness and to accomodate NPOV, a balancing fuller quotation of Berlet would also be needed.
3. Reference to the allegations by Arabia against Berlet's style of argument - e.g. critique for guilt by association and critique for squashing free speech.
4. Specification of how the dispute actually concluded - not simply "see here." For example, it should be noted that SPLC stood by Berlet and Berlet responded, plus Horowitz's counterresponse. The fairest way of doing this is again to give both Berlet and Horowitz a representative quote in their own words. Rangerdude 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's quite normal for people who are criticized by journalists to write letters attacking them, so there's no need for so much detail, in my view, and the Horowitz quote gives the flavor of what he thought of the piece. I see no need to go into the Arabia article. The link is there if people want to read it. We should wait to see what the others think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving out the Arabia article is effectively suppressing critical material about Berlet. As for the quotes, their very purpose is to accurately portray what the quoted person thinks about the subject he is writing on and the best way to do that is to quote both sides fully and responsibly. I don't trust that your representation of Horowitz fully conveys his position, which included a very explicit message to Dees asserting that Berlet's hit-piece and guilt-by-association styles were discrediting to the SPLC as an organization. While I also await other editor commentary on this, it is also worth mentioning that genuine outside commentary made with an aim of producing a neutral quality result will carry greater weight in my mind than that from editors (and a certain clique of self-insulating editors) whose main purpose here is to protect an ally from valid sourced criticism. Rangerdude 03:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You must stop the ad hominem attacks, and try to concentrate only on content and not who's writing it. Otherwise, I could just as easily ask you to stop editing this piece because you display such hostility toward the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - If there wasn't a serious personal bias problem toward the subject of this article in the edits of yourself and certain other editors who share your mutual sympathies, I wouldn't need to lodge a grievance about it. But as I have addressed to you both here and on your talk page to little avail, that bias is evident and it continues to be problematic within your edits. As long as it remains an obstruction to developing this article, I can and will address it before you, all the while urging you to cease. You direct me to focus on "content" now rather than who's writing it, yet amazingly for the past several days you've been basing your arguments against the extensively documented content I added to this article upon your personal allegiances to User:Cberlet, who you have incessantly assured all of us is too good of a guy to ever do anything wrong or meriting of criticism. You are correct that my politics are opposite of this article's subject and I have made no effort to hide this, but as any reasonable and objective editor would concede I went to great lengths to ensure that the Horowitz section was presented neutrally and in a balanced manner that also quoted Chip Berlet's responses to his critics at length and in fairness to him. There are plently of balanced and reasonable revisions that could be made to that section, but plowing through and gutting it in a manner that outright removes two thirds of the material and snips away all substance that criticizes the article's subject - who you have repeatedly pledged your allegience to - is just plain unreasonable. If you were here to make honest content edits and revise this section in a way that improves it but does not remove valid and sourced material simply because you don't like who it's critical of, I look forward to your contribution. If, on the other hand, you are going to continue to use this discussion and editing process as a medium to insulate your editor buddies from criticism, and if you're gonna appeal to talk page consensus only to round up an editor's clique of similarly aligned contributers to support your efforts at insulating him, I'll have no part of it. Rangerdude 06:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You've developed a strong personal bias against Chip, particularly since your failed RfC against him, and you should probably stay away from him and his page for a couple of weeks at least. Your edit was long-winded and seemed designed to get digs in, which is why I shortened it. All the links remain in the text, so nothing's being hidden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly view RfC's as nothing more than a contest for points between editors, Slim? RfC's are designed strictly to resolve disputes on articles themselves that are otherwise at a standstill on the talk page, be that dispute about the content itself (as is the case of a regular RfC) or about another editor's behavior (as in User RfC's). In either case, whether an RfC is a success or failure depends on the outcome it produces to the article and the RfC you mention succeeded in attracting a new breath of participants to the subject article who then labored extensively to bring it into NPOV compliance. That new breath resulted in reaching a consensus and removing the POV tags that were originally installed following the behavior that was subject of the RfC. I'll also note for the record that every mention of the unrelated LVMI RfC to date has been made by yourself, Cberlet, or another person supportive of his request to remove critical material about him from wikipedia's article on him. Given this circumstance, that you would purport the RfC to be _my_ object is an absurdity contradicted by your own lingering obsessions with it. The LVMI editing disputes were settled without your help, and indeed in spite of your presence. Time to move on, Slim.

On the subject at hand here, your characterization of the Horowitz section as "long winded" is farcical, as the majority of its text (and the part you removed) was nothing more than direct quotations of Horowitz and Berlet. As I have informed you many times, I did so for purposes of neutrality - the surest way to accurately represent somebody's viewpoint is to quote him directly and fully. That's why your slashing of Horowitz's quote into a carefully excerpted fraction of its full self is so problematic on NPOV grounds. Simply stating that all the links remain does not suffice either, as links are substantially less than content. Reducing a fully documented section of sourced criticism from a well known writer to little more than links conveys a POV agenda to diminish that criticism's presence in the article and hide it from the casual reader. Rangerdude 07:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's article on Chip Berlet, not "Chip's Article"

One more thing, Slim - this article is Wikipedia's article about Chip Berlet including all pertinent biographical material, be it positive or negative. It is not Chip Berlet's own personal property, as he insinuates when he refers to it as "my article" in his request for "help" in expunging criticisms of him. And it does not belong to Chip Berlet as you indicate when you describe it as "his article" in urging other editors to stay away from it. In fact, Wikipedia strongly discourages contributers with a vested interest in an article, as is inescapably the case in an article about yourself, from editing it at all (WP:AUTO) for the very reason that they might start thinking of it as their own personal domain and might start trying to control its content or exclude negative material from it. The fact that a contributer doesn't personally like it when sourced critical material about him is added to his biography is not a legitimate basis for removing that material. Neither is a friend's personal allegiances with that editor/article subject. Rangerdude 07:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

An Outside View

I see that a Request for Mediation has been posted. I think that this is the sort of dispute where mediation would be a good idea. It is unfortunate that there is a long backlog for mediation.

This dispute has a history which I will not summarize. It does appear to me that the amount of criticism of Berlet is disproportionate for the length of the article and causes the article as a whole to be a negative POV of Berlet.

I will say more, but not right now. Robert McClenon 11:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

As always, I look forward to further comments from you, Robert McClenon. Thank you for taking the time to look into this dispute. El_C 12:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You request is my command

Just saw this on the article RFC page: "a sourced and documented criticism of this article's subject by another was added to the designated section. The article's subject, who is also a wikipedia editor, then posted a message to the talk page asking for "help" in removing the critical material from "my page." Several subsequent attempts made by this editor's supporters to expunge the critical material per his request."

And given the request for comments, my comment is that someone needs to drop the 'tude, stop harrassing other editors, and either find an article they can contribute to neutrally, or leave wikipedia. I'll leave it as an excercise for the readers to decide who would best benefit from this comment. Please let me know if this nonsense continues. FuelWagon 14:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"my comment is that someone needs to drop the 'tude, stop harrassing other editors, and either find an article they can contribute to neutrally, or leave wikipedia." -- Do I take it that you're going to do this voluntarily, FuelWagon? Rangerdude 18:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You can take it anyway you wish, Rangerdude. FuelWagon 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I support FW in his comment, and will be watching and editing out any unsupported or blatantly pov content. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A good place to start may be the introduction of this article itself. Much of it is lifted almost directly from a POV biography of Mr. Berlet on the website of the liberal think tank he's with. Rangerdude 21:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reading both versions objectively, the one supported by consensus, and the one being promoted by you, the only content I'm finding that does any ideological ax-grinding is in the version that you seem bent on forcing into the article. Sorry, but that's how I see it. That the consensus-supported, NPOV bio borrows from non-copyright protected source in irrelevant, that the source is Berlet's place of work is equally irrelevant. What is relevant here is factual accuracy, relevance/notability and NPOV. These are the only criteria I will consider moving forward. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, there is no "consensus" here and it is not a requirement for changing a particular passage which does not amount to "major content changes" in the first place. --TJive 22:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi TJ, there was a consensus about this page and it's been stable for months as a result, until Rangerdude added several paragraphs of Horowitz criticism, thereby changing the balance of positive/neutral material and critism. Journalists get attacked just about every time they publish criticism of others, and letters to editors/publishers are commonplace. There's no need for more than one paragraph, and in fact there probably isn't even a need for that, but I reduced it to one paragraph as a compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it appears to me that the context with respect to "consensus" is specifically in regard to the new additions of Horowitz-related material. Hence what consensus existed prior to these additions is not relevant in establishing what is proper treatment for our immediate purposes.

In this respect I disagree with you. The material written by Horowitz is a very notable criticism which initiated not only a response from Berlet but wider contentions against the SPLC because of Berlet's piece as well as further Berlet detractors (even in passing) such as Chris Arabia. In any case it is unnecessarily sloppy to simply list three links in a row without contextualizing what was said and when. This is what I attempted to do in my edit while taking into account a balance of space, which was still to be had in the eight other criticism paragraphs.

Hopefully there will be an attempt to establish an agreement on the treatment of material instead of editors simply trying to outlast the other for the block and get the "right version" in on time. Comments from others which suggest certain users are simply not allowed to edit without explicit permission are not helpful to attaining this. --TJive 23:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to see a quote from the Arabia article, though if we're going to do that, we should probably also add a quote from the Chip rejoinder. But I wouldn't want to see it longer than that. Regarding consensus, I can only repeat, there was a consensus regarding the balance of positive/neutral and critical material, and RD's edit changed it. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could decide on this page how to handle the Horowitz material so we don't go back to edit warring. Do you agree with that approach? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite understanding the point. I would assume (perhaps unwisely) that we are not simply castigating Rangerdude's additions as not being valuable in principle. Then, if we recognize the merit of material related to Horowitz's dispute, we must also recognize that the article requires balance anew, not simply a return to previous consensus, which seems to necessarily lack this input. The question is then what is sufficient and appropriate to summate the material? Rangerdude's long version? A brief summation with multiple external links? Or a version which takes space into account but does not lose the full effect of what transpired? The latter was what I had in mind in attempting to compromise. --TJive 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Horowitz compromise

TJ, I did prefer your version to RD's, but still felt it was too long. Perhaps we can thrash out a compromise. I wanted this one:

In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist David Horowitz over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Berlet wrote that right-wing think tanks like Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and made allegations of racial insensitivity against the CSPC. In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged him to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears ..." [35] Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations, as well as a response from Berlet. [36] [37] [38]

You wanted this one:

In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. [39] In response, Horowitz wrote an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees in his Front Page Magazine, urging him to remove the article from the SPLC website, stating that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." [40]

Berlet responded to Horowitz in a manner which reiterated his initial assertions about the SPLC, accusing it of "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States." [41] Dees declined to remove the article; since then, Front Page Magazine has carried a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees as well as other critical pieces on Berlet such as the article "Leftist Lie Factory" in which Chris Arabia writes that, "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." He accuses Berlet of creating a "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and of attempting to squash "vigorous debate and discourse" even among the political left. [42]

So how about this one as a compromise between them?

In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist David Horowitz over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on right-wing think tanks, which he argued "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and allow "ideas that once were denounced as racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited [to] get transmitted into mainstream discussions ... " [43] In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." [44] Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [45] and an article by Chris Arabia alleging that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." [46]

Slim: The term "right-wing think tanks", is treated as a generic noun. I would suggest this can be improved to something less devisive and inflamitory. Thank you. nobs 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How about:

In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. [47] In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." [48] Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [49], a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, [50] and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." [51]

--TJive 01:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever we decide on we can probably copy into the Horowitz article without too much re-writing. It appears to be an argument between them, so it as relevant to one article as to the other. -Willmcw 03:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

TJive - I am supportive of your original two-paragraph version as an acceptable compromise. I do not see how it can be shortened any further though without cutting into the quotes and eliminating pertinent sourced material. I would rather have a longer section that accurately quotes both Horowitz and Berlet than a shorter one where we attempt to edit the quotes into a sentence, and in doing so increase the risk of misrepresenting their positions. I will also note that I find the decision by Jayjg - himself a non-neutral participant in this content discussion - to protect the page from editing at a time that preserves the contested revisions by SlimVirgin to be inappropriate. Rangerdude 06:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, a parallel discussion is going on at Talk:Political Research Associates, over the inclusion of Horowitz's criticisms. -Willmcw 23:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

TJ, I can live with your compromise (the one dated 01:50, August 6, 2005) though please note that it's closer to your original version than it is to mine. For that reason, I hope you'll agree to change the end of the last sentence to "and an article by Chris Arabia alleging that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." (The "harshly critical" is a POV). But I won't revert you over that one sentence, so either way you and I have an agreement about that section. Will, Nobs, Fuelwagon, El C, Robert, do you have a view?

I also think that 01:50 version is reasonable. (I wasn't much impressed by Arabia's article, but thought the earlier pieces by Horowitz and Berlet were quite illuminating, so I wanted to see them quoted at a bit more length, as they are in that version.) Noel (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we also have an agreement regarding the rest of the page, as someone (Rangerdude?) talked about rewriting the whole thing, and I would prefer to see that not happen, particularly if Rangerdude is involved. In particular, do others feel the balance of criticism to neutral/positive is okay as it is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how that small evaluation of the article's prose/intent is POV; it is indeed critical and very harsh in its assessment of Berlet.

Regarding the rest of the article I have no opinion as of now. If other editors feel that there are changes to be made these should be judged on the merits when and if it occurs. --TJive 04:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I won't argue over that one sentence, so that's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

How about "...Chris Arabia maintains that Berlet's work..." nobs 04:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, Nobs. I was hoping we could reach an overall agreement about the page (balance of criticism and the rest) before requesting unprotection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. An agreement on the Horowitz material is sufficient to unprotect as it was the subject of edit warring. Retaining protection until every other aspect of the article is hammered out strikes me as little more than an attempt to preserve what some editors consider to be the "right" version of the article at the expense of editing freedom and a true collaborative process in developing it. Furthermore, protections should not be applied by administrators who have been party to this talk page discussion as was the case with the last one. This is not a request - it's the rules. Rangerdude 04:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you about the Arabia quote, I do agree on your point here; the timing of the protection (two minutes after TJive's attempt at a compromise edit was wholly reverted, with no counter-attempt at a compromise) looks exactly like a transparent attempt to "preserve the 'right' version of the article". If we're done with the source of the edit war (how to handle the Horowitz blowup), it's time to unprotect the article. Rangerdude, since everyone else is OK with the 1:50 version (modulo a minor tweak as to how to characterize Arabia's article - although I agree it was quite reasonable to describe it as "harshly critical", because I thought it was a bit over the top), how about just letting it go, so we can move on? Noel (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive - The criticism by Arabia asserting that Berlet's tactics squash "vigorous debate and discourse" needs to be retained as this is one of his main arguments. The most 1:50 revision and all of SlimVirgin's versions that I'm aware of remove this substantive critique. They also remove the bulk of Arabia's quote. As I've maintained consistently from the beginning, we should not get into the habit of chopping up quotes as doing so makes the article prone to misrepresentation of their authors. The edits proposed by SlimVirgin were unacceptable to me because they heavily edited Horowitz's and removed Arabia's quotes into tiny mid-sentence snippets that removed the bulk of their critiques. To have a larger quote of each (and Berlet's response for that matter) is not at all unprecedented in this article, which already has several multi-line block quotes of other persons. In short, I'll agree to the 1:50 version provided that it restores the fuller Arabia quotes as my main stipulation. Rangerdude 04:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise version

Noel & others - I'd rather have the 1:50 version up there than the current revision, so I'm fine with adding it and unprotecting the page. I still believe that Arabia's argument will not be represented accurately unless due mention is made of his point about Berlet's style of argument squashing free speech and discourse. This is a very minor yet important addition for accurately representing Arabia's argument. It is also one that can be easily restored in quote form without significantly lengthening the Horowitz paragraph itself (it could be done in less than one additional line). I've made note of this request several times and have yet to see any of the proponents of dropping it give a reason why it shouldn't be included.

To that end I'll offer the following version, which is TJive's 1:50 version with the pertinent Arabia quote restored.

In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. [52] In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." [53] Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [54], a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, [55] and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.[56]

If this version is acceptable it should replace the existing version - which has been the source of far more disagreement anyway - as soon as the page is unprotected. Rangerdude 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read Arabia's complete article, and I'm unimpressed by it. Although he does produce some interesting data in parts of it, overall the general flavour of it is rather over the top (Berlet's "genuine affection for Stalinism"?). It also suffers from not providing sources for the quotations from Chip, which is always troubling (one can't read the original, to make sure the quotation is not being taken out of context). So I find the original 1:50 text about Arabia's article ('an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand."') much better. Noel (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Noel - Thank you for your comments, but it is simply not our place as editors to exclude Arabia's based upon personal disagreement with it. One could just as easily argue that Berlet's original race-mongering against Horowitz's group was "over the top," but it is not our place to remove it for believing so. The revision I offer adds the following half line quote for the purposes of fully representing Arabia's arguments: "and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left." Whether we agree with it or not, this was clearly Arabia's argument and it does not significantly expand the space devoted to the Horowitz controversy. Rangerdude 06:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Rangerdude's addition to my last version. --TJive 07:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

My problems with Arabia have little to do with where he and I stand on the ideological spectrum ("personal disagreement"), and a lot more to do with the fact that I think it's simply second-rate work, not worthy of being quoted. I like the one sentence I didn't object to, because I think it states very concisely the chief problem with the original column (the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand"), but I find the second quote just standard boilerplate mud. Noel (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Noel: my preference would be your 01:50, August 6, 2005, but I would like some discussion about the other sections too before we request unprotection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

...yet you state no substantive reason why the half-line Arabia quote - which is the only addition I request to the 1:50 version - is objectionable to you. What's wrong with fully representing Arabia's argument, Slim? He indisputably devoted a large section of his article to making the case that Berlet's tactics intimidate the exercise of free speech. Since this can be accurately represented in a way that adds a negligible amount of length to the paragraph I can see no reason why it would be excluded beyond those which are political, and as such not a valid basis for exclusion. I also disagree in the stongest terms with Slim's request to retain the page protection until unspecified agreements are reached on unnamed disputes pertaining to other sections of this article. Page protection was imposed, and under controversy at that, solely around the Horowitz dispute. Retaining it beyond that dispute only inhibits constructive editing to the article itself in other areas. There was no revert warring in those other areas - only over Horowitz and only after the article's subject himself requested that the critical Horowitz material be expunged from an article that he incorrectly claimed as his own property. I find it odd that one of the chief participants in the revert warring that supposedly necessitated this protection is now its strongest advocate (and coincidentally when her version is the one preserved by the protection imposed only 2 minutes after it was reverted to). Keeping this page protected beyond the Horowitz dispute gives credence to the suspicion that protection in this case is being used for the purpose of retaining what certain editors deem to be the "right" version of this article until anybody disagreeing with that version gets tired of waiting and goes away. Rangerdude 20:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rangerdude & TJive, and there is ample evidence to support Arabia's claim. nobs 20:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page. You've expressed strong personal hostility toward the subject of the article. It's one thing to feel political opposition to a public figure, but quite another to have developed hostility toward them as a non-public figure i.e. toward user:Cberlet. It's exactly the kind of situation that could cause Wikipedia a legal problem (regarding this and other pages), because it appears to involve malice, and I'm thinking of taking the issue further for that reason. I won't be discussing it any more on this talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the fact that you're engaged in personal attacks, Slim, to wit:

"What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page."

Before reminding you of the fact that you have been reprimanded before for making such attacks by the Arbcom, I'll direct you to Wikipedia's no attack policy, which explicitly states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Furthermore, since you are now invoking issues of legality as a basis of disputing my editing rights and making threats of "taking the issue further for that reason," I will remind you of Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:No legal threats, which reads "Don't make legal threats against other users of Wikipedia" and warns "A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing." Now, regarding your past behavior Slim, you are once again reminded of the Arbcom's decision: 6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Passed 5-1-1.[57] You have repeatedly violated this injunction in your recent comments directed at me and should accordingly be warned that you are approaching a situation where dispute resolution proceedings could be initiated against you and further sanctions applied. Accordingly please cease and desist in the behavior described above and return to the practice of responsible civilized editing in compliance with Wikipedia's mandates. Rangerdude 21:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not making a personal attack or a legal threat. I'm drawing attention to the problems you're potentially creating, and as I said, I'm not going to discuss it further on this page. I would say that, given the number of people you've recently tried to cause a problem for, any dispute resolution you started would go against you, as did the two recent RfCs you filed against Chip, Willmcw, and FuelWagon. I strongly encourage you to take a break from editing articles related to Chip, and to stay away from pages being edited by the other people you're in dispute with, even if only for a week to give yourself some distance, and then to return with a fresh eye. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Announcing your objections to a compromise edit by explicitly stating your intent to exclude me from this and other articles is a personal attack, Slim. It's also bullying and is quickly approaching the level of an abuse of your administrative powers. This is something that you do not have the right to do. I have just as much of a right to contribute to this article and any other article as you or any other editor and your cavalier disregard for that fact is evidence of a hostile personal agenda on your part. Making a threat of "taking the issue further" in regards to a legal matter is a legal threat. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats "you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article" - something you are doing at this very moment and something that could get you blocked from Wikipedia per that policy. As I have referenced and directed your attention to each of these policies repeatedly now, you have no excuse for violating them further and no basis to claim ignorance of them. I would prefer this not go to dispute resolution, but once again am prepared to take that step should you persist in this path. You should also be reminded that mediation and arbitration both have conflict of interest provisions, so rounding up the clique to insulate yourself from the repercussions of your policy breaches is no longer an option. If anyone should take a break from this article, Slim, it is you. Your strong personal allegiances to Chip Berlet, your repeatedly exhibited hostility towards myself, and your recent breaches of civility, personal attacks, and legal threats against me are evidence that your edits here are conflicted from content development and engulfed in personal matters, many of them in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Rangerdude 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem nothing to indicate that SV is abusing her admin powers. Saying she "strongly encourage[s]" you to act in a certain way is something any editor can say. She has a concern about you editing the article, and that concern may be excessive, but it in no way amounts to an inappropriate legal threat. You're reading a little too much into all this - chill out. Noel (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

RD, please stop provoking other editors. Discussing editor's behavior should be done on a user talk page, not in an article. -Willmcw 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw - as a non-neutral participant with demonstrated personal allegiances to SlimVirgin and with a lengthy dispute history against myself that includes, among other things, stalking me, I ask that you refrain from participation in this dispute. This request applies to any dispute resolution proceeding or other wikipedia administrator and policy provision where conflict of interest issues apply as well. The discussion of editor behavior was initiated not by myself, as you imply with your allegation of provocation, but rather by SlimVirgin in the post located here. That post, made in response to a message I had posted regarding the content of a proposed compromise wording, both attacked me personally and implied a legal threat. Per the letter and spirit of all wikipedia dispute resolution processes, my response of urging her to cease and desist and directing her to the applicable policies was proper. Rangerdude 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RD, please stop provoking other editors. Discussing editor's behavior should be done on a user talk page, not in an article. -Willmcw 22:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, please stop inserting yourself into editing disputes that do not concern you on behalf of editors with whom you have a personal allegiance. Behavior of this type is disruptive. Rangerdude 23:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record once again, and this definitely is the last time I'll address it, no legal threat was made against you. I'm considering taking this further within Wikipedia, not outside it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - If you insist it was not intended as a legal threat and do not make additional legal threats, I'll take your word that it was not. Whether intended as a legal threat or not though, it did come across as one. Even threatening the application of adverse legal consequences while not threatening a lawsuit itself can run afoul of Wikipedia's policy, as the section about POV pushing I quoted above indicates. I accordingly urge you to avoid making similar implications in the future and once again refer you to the Arbcom caution against making personal attacks. Rangerdude 23:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't we all get along? This wording is so close to resolution, let's get back to the subject of the article's contents. nobs 00:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice, Nobs. Again, I'm happy with TJive's 1:50 compromise suggestion for the Horowitz edits. But I'd also like to know whether there are proposals to change other parts of the page, and if so, what they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'm really an idiot. Can I see what the compromise draft looks like now where we stand, if it's not to much trouble? Thank you. nobs 01:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs - as noted I'm happy with TJive's 1:50 version plus the half-line Arabia quote. I saw that you and TJive were both okay with this one as well. Absent any substantive content based objections to this, I think we should find a neutral administrator to unprotect the page and substitute it. Any other changes can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through both edits and discussions as each arises. Also per your request here's the draft. Rangerdude 01:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In 2003, Berlet was criticized over an article he wrote for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) entitled "Into the Mainstream", which named conservative activist David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," for passages pertaining to Horowitz's writings against slavery reparations and affirmative action. [58] In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." [59] Dees declined to remove the article. Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [60], a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, [61] and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.[62]

I will object to any request for page unprotection until we discuss what you intend to do with the rest of the article. You've indicated that you intend to be some rewriting but refuse to say what you have in mind. Or if I have misunderstood you, please say so. As for neutral admins, Jay has protected it, Rama has endorsed the protection, and Noel is reviewing it. How many more do you want to involve? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think Jpgordon also offered to unprotect and reprotect if necessary, so that's four already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's neutrality in this article has been disputed, though the assistance by the other three administrators you named is appreciated. I even thanked one of them and discussed edits with another of them at length. You seem to have developed quite a chip on your shoulder over me, Slim, as my original request asked for nothing more than getting a neutral administrator to unprotect the page now that we're approaching an agreement. To respond in the combative tone that you did - and twice at that - is yet again indicative of the hostility you are employing towards me over everything from content and dispute proceedings down to the most minor details of a simple discussion with another editor. Chill out for a moment. Rangerdude 04:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim - I've got nothing specific in mind on what I "intend to do" to this article, so yes - you've certainly misunderstood something. In fact, before the article's subject summoned you here for the explicit purpose of expunging the critical material about him from Horowitz, I was not intending to edit much more on this article at all and only resumed it because you proceeded to gut the Horowitz material for POV and personal reasons. As for the future, I will participate in the editing process and discussions over its content if and when they arise with a mind towards moderating the extreme pro-Berlet POV's exhibited by some of the participants. As these edits proceed you should also be aware that you have neither a right nor a basis to prevent me from participating, nor must my contributions meet your personal criteria for editing when they exceed the standards required by Wikipedia policies and when they are applied arbitrarily on a POV basis. Rangerdude 03:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice: As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution on other pages, I will be abstaining from further input in this article or other articles directly relating Mr. Chip Berlet (until such a time as suspension of abstention etc.) Thank you. nobs 20:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That's very decent of you, Nobs. Showing such good faith and collaborative spirit, there's actually no reason for you to withdraw. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection Policy

The wikipedia policy on page protection WP:PP explicitly states "Do not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute." Administrator User:Jayjg imposed a page protection on this article that preserves a contested edit to the Horowitz section by User:SlimVirgin located here. In doing so Jayjg violated the protection policy as he himself has participated in the disputes on this article within the last 24 hours.[63] I accordingly request that Jayjg remove the protection he placed on this article in compliance with the policy cited above. Thanks. Rangerdude 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Posting a joke is not the same as being "involved in an edit dispute." User:Jayjg never edited the article. -Willmcw 06:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Protection_policy "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." (emphasis added) Humorous or not, Jayjg's comment on the talk page contained an opinion in the discussion on the use of partisan sources as applied to Berlet and Horowitz. He therefore is not permitted under wikipedia policy to protect this page. Rangerdude 06:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I expressed no opinions on about the article on the Talk: page; nor could I, since I have on idea what the contents of the article are. Rather, I expressed opinions about your interactions with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have endorsed the protection of this page, which I hope will be enough to lift these concerns. Rama 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of Page Protection

Thank you for assisting in policy compliance. Rangerdude 08:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg admits he has no knowledge or involvement but he flys-by and protects the page "to the last version by SlimVirgin". That's very common conduct from Jayjg, one Wikipedia's most controversial editors.69.209.206.199 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, we are buying your attempt to stain the reputation of a long-time editor by making general vague and groundless accusations, Mister... who ? Rama 06:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Cripes, he's not just an editor, he's maybe the 2nd most controversial arbiter. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea about the solution to the personal disputes ongoing here but I have a few comments:

1. I am fine with the proposed version with or without the second reinsertion from the Arabia article.
2. There does not appear to be anyone significantly disputing the insertion of this passage into the article, so compromise appears essentially reached.
3. Unless there is an explicit Wikipedia policy regarding the editing of subjects which are themselves involved on the site it is absolutely inappropriate to keep this article protected from unrelated and purely hypothetical disputes.

--TJive 04:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your third point, I'd normally agree, but if Rangerdude is going to immediately start rewriting the page, I'll request protection again, and there's no point in unlocking and relocking. So I suppose the question is: does Rangerdude, as things stand now, intend to make further changes? If so, could he indicate what they might be? It's perfectly standard to discuss whether everyone agrees with the general direction of a page before requesting unprotection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, he indicates above that he doesn't. So can we decide on a Horowitz version? I agree with Noel and prefer your 1:50 Aug 6 suggestion. Will RD accept this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I have noted many times, I'll accept the 1:50 version with the one previously discussed modification - the addition of the rest of Arabia's quote, which adds a sum total of half a line to the paragraph. IIRC two other editors in addition to myself have indicated that they do not object to this minor addition. While I know Slim has responded to this addition unfavorably on the basis of me being the one to propose it, it does not appear that there is any strong content-based consensus against adding the remainder of the Arabia quote to the extent that it would provoke a revert war like the original modifications did. Also, if we are to accept this version (1:50 + Arabia), I'll openly state here that I have no intentions of changing it any further except to restore it if it is vandalized, removed, or altered in a way that introduces POV or to update the article in the event that Berlet and Horowitz cross paths again at some future point. With that in mind unprotecting the article at this point is probably safe. To continue page protection on this article much longer will extend its use well beyond the supposed original intent of applying it. As I have no particular additional edits in mind for the time being, retaining protection on a basis of unforseen and unforseeable future events is self defeating and an inappropriate use of the protection power. Rangerdude 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems this conflict has cooled down enough and Rangerdude has stated above that he will change the article no further than the compromise other than to revert vandalism so I'm going to assume good faith here and unprotect the page (hoping that nothing flares up again). Sasquatch讲看 12:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection Abuse

This page has been protected since August 5th, purportedly over a revert war on the David Horowitz material . As far as I can tell, the disputed Horowitz material was largely resolved by August 9th yet this page still remains protected for unspecified reasons. No substantive disputes or even discussions have arisen since that date and no indication of intentions to resume the revert war exist, yet here we are the following week and the page remains protected. Is there any reason for this? If so it should be stated. If not, the failure to restore open editing gives credence to earlier voiced suspicions that protection is being retained by certain administrators for reasons having less to do with any legitimate policy concern and more to do with their personal and political POV's about the article's subject. Rangerdude 07:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Purportedly? Insinuations are easy; listing a request for unprotection on WP:RFP, also easy. El_C 08:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Improper.

Apart from the fact that I had never heard of this Berlet character until my attention was called to this article, and dare I say that the majority of the people aware of this fringe character are fringe leftists, I don't think it's proper that Cberlet makes comments on the talk page of this article! It is a conflict of interest.

He should have no influence what-so-ever in the formation of this article and he should keep his sticky fingers away from writing on this talk page even if Wikipedia allows such goings on. Frankly anyone with any integrity wouldn't even have considered writing on this page! Dwain 01:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not just the talk page, but the article itself!

Mr. Berlet hasn't just been making comments on this article's talk page, he's been editing the article itself - and numerous edits at that. Check the article's history. I also found that he'd been making extensive edits on articles like conspiracism, which discuss his own work in depth. I see this both as original research and conflict of interest. If someone's in the public eye ( no pun intended :-P )enough to have a Wikipedia article written about them, then I don't know that they should be editing Wikipedia at all, much less articles where a discussion of them/their work is integral to the subject at hand. Blackcats 07:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to stop editing the content of this page many months ago. I only began editing it when LaRouchites began filling up the page with factually false claims that were outrageous and defamatory. If you go back and check the history page, you will see that my most recent edits were exclusively related to fixing a copyright issue with the photograph, which was done to protect the photographer.[Chip_Berlet&diff=15281125&oldid=14593997]. The edit before that was my solving an editing discussion problem by inserting material that criticized me.[64]. I did not add my name to the Conspiracism page, that was done by someone else. [65]. I usually do not cite myself, but since I am so totally linked to the term "conspiracism" I did link to one of my articles. Most of the Conspiracism page discusses the work of Mintz, Barkun, and others. I did not invent the term, contrary to popular conspiracy theories.--Cberlet 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)