Talk:Political Research Associates/Archive 1

message: This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--Cberlet 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on this whole matter is that it's generally inappropriate for persons and groups that are the subject of an article to be active in editing that article for reason of an obvious conflict of interest. That PRA has "discussed" its wikipedia article and deems its content problematic is not a basis for rewrite as we are not here to accomodate what PRA, a highly politicized POV-pushing organization, thinks wikipedia should say about it or what PRA believes to be a problem. That would be accepting PRA's POV about itself. Rather, our mandate is to present the organization from a neutral perspective and neutrality means showing both the good and the bad - the praise and the critics alike. That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia beyond accurately presenting both those critics and PRA's counterviewpoint, should they offer one in their own publications. That said, I would not object to the addition of favorable sourced material here so long as it is done with neutrality and is done by parties that are not conflicted in their interests. According to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, articles that are believed to "omit important points of view" or have another similar imbalance "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Rangerdude 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am precisely suggesting that material be added to the page, and that you and a handful of other POV critics of PRA stop implying that in the real world the criticism of PRA outweighs the positive accomplishments and praise. So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right. Hardly fair, balanced, accurate, and NPOV.--Cberlet 16:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flinging ad hominem attacks at one's critics is not a way to obtain neutrality in this article, Chip. I have not seen many LaRouche advocates on this article of recent & the remaining sources you mention are non-LaRouche political think tanks and figures. They're certainly from the different end of the political spectrum as your own, but that is no basis in itself to discredit a source. One could similarly respond that this topic is being controlled "by fans of a small uber-leftist think tank (PRA)" or dismiss its members, yourself included, as "leftist conspiracy theorists" and "carnival geeks of the ultraliberal political left." But stuff like that adds nothing to the political discourse, whereas sourced praises AND criticisms alike give us a complete picture of the controversy surrounding your group. Like it or not, figures such as Horowitz have made substantive criticisms of PRA, its politics, and its research methods. You are free to disagree with or respond to those critics with a counterviewpoint, and you've certainly made more than your share of political criticisms against Horowitz and LVMI. But you don't have a right to screen out their criticisms of you or your group because you don't like what they say. Again - if there is favorable material about PRA to add, then by all means it should be added. But per wikipedia stipulations, "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." IOW, why don't you spend less time whining about the people who have criticized PRA and focus more on those who have praised it, using the latter as counterbalancing material in the article itself while also allowing the critical viewpoint to be fairly and accurately presented. Rangerdude 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, dude, I am not supposed to edit this page for major content.  I work here.  I generally only do housekeeping such as changing staff names and fixing the image copyright notice.  Unlike some Wiki editors, I try not to edit the page for myself and my employer.  :-)  Calling for comments is hardly screening out content.--Cberlet 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just jumping into this without to much information on the history the disputes here.  This organization has been active for a number of years, has achieved prominence on a number of issues, and I am sure it has many "accomplishments" (depending on one's perspective) that are not listed on the site.  In my view, the addition of material is generally preferable to deletion of content.  I will try when I have the time to post material regarding the accomplishments of the organization.  I would recommend that other editors add content.  The inclusion of criticism's of right wing "intellectuals" such as Horowitz's is not inappropriate.  Horowitz's allegations reveal much about him and about PRA.  PRA might consider it a badge of honor to be criticized by Horwitz. If the addition of information concerning "accomplishments" of PRA were to be reverted in an effort to skew the article, a POV problem could be a serious problem.  The article as I read it at this moment doesn't look like it terrible.   --Whitfield Larrabee 15:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness and Balance 

message: Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition, Herschelkrustofsky, and Sam_Spade for their participation in edit wars over this page and page entry on me: Chip Berlet. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Do I sue for defamation for calling me a Larouchie, or is this just another of User:Cberlet's conspiracy theories, "acting in concert"?   nobs 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration filed concerning this page

message: The director of PRA is Katherine Hancock Ragsdale. So the claim that PRA "Led by Chip Berlet former head of "Friends of Albania" " is false. I was never the "head" of the, "Friends of Albania" so that, too, is false. And what does it matter that I was involved with a group 20 years ago?--Cberlet 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ColonelS, your contribs show that you're a newly arrived single-issue editor. Please take a look at our editing policies, particularly WP:LIVING, which says that biographical material about living persons must be handled with sensitivity. You're giving the impression of being here to smear someone and that won't be allowed. Please also read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which have to be understood in conjunction with one another. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to assume good faith and approach this as though you really are a new user. There were recently two arbitration-committee (Wikipedia's ruling judicial body) cases that touched on this issue, one of them in some detail, and the bottom line is that we don't tolerate attempts to smear people, or to add conspiratorial allegations about them to articles or talk pages, and that includes no guilt-by-association claims. If you continue to do that, you're likely to be blocked from editing, and it won't be a liberal plot but an enforcement of our rules. If you're new here, please take the time to familiarize yourself with our polices. My advice is that you should start out by editing some pages you don't care about for a few weeks until you have some editing experience under your belt. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't say that he is a lawyer and so there's no need to point out that he isn't, and in addition your positioning of it in the intro was bad writing. I'm not going to carry on arguing. This article has developed over time with input from editors of all political persuasions, has been the subject of one arbiration case, and was examined during a second. Your edits are not acceptable and your talk page comments are verging on trolling. If you really are a new editor, and if you want to stick around, my very strong advice to you is to let this go until you have more experience of dealing with articles you have strong feelings about. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More biased and false material

message: This group is not financially independent. If it were, it would have its own endowment. It depends on the Public Welfare Foundation and the Ford Foundation for financial support. It is not politically independent. The grop only publishes criticisms of right-leaning groups. The claim of independence is opinion, or worse, misrepresentation by a paid employee of the group that is the subject of the article. It stands just as well to state that it is a non-profit without advancing the claim of a paid adovacate that it is independent. Moneytrail 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, some editors have recently presented references that claim PRA is a gatekeeper that fcriticizes groups on the political left. I suspect that "independent" may have been intended to convey "non-partisan" and "unaffiliated". It may not be finacially independent, but it is not tied to any other organization that I know of. -Will Beback 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed opinion from intro: "independent"

message: Some material on the PRA site contradicts itself, while some sounds unmistakeably similiar to material on the Institute for Historical Review.  For example, IHR site has "Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel" by Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings. 
:"President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area." 
:"Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic."
Jean Hardisty writes in Thoughts on Militarism and the Bush Administration
:"...will the U.S. shape the world, preventing the rise of a competitor nation, determining how nations are ruled, and controlling who is allowed to exert international influence? 
:"...the events of September 11 have opened the door for the new post-Cold War doctrine – a policy of U.S. global domination."
:"the foreign policy doctrine gaining ascendance inside the administration is frighteningly coherent.  But it can be stopped if public opinion strongly opposes it. Mobilizing that opposition public opinion is crucially important work in the coming six months. In the short term, opposing an invasion of Iraq may be the most urgent task. 
Berlet writes in ZOG Ate My Brains,
:"There is an appealing simplicity in dividing the world sharply into good and bad and tracing ‘all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents’
:"Why would progressives embrace conspiracism? In the 1980s, isolationists on the Right, and anti-war activists on the Left grew suspicious of President Ronald Reagan’s support for covert action overseas and political repression at home. As they interacted, some progressive groups began circulating allegations about ‘Secret Teams’, ‘Shadow Governments’, or ‘The Octopus’, that echoed historic antisemitic conspiracy theories found in rightwing publications. With the collapse of communism in Europe many rightists shifted scapegoats to claim a New World Order conspiracy was manipulating the US Government. Again, some leftists adapted this rhetoric. During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a ‘Jewish Lobby’ in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism. 
Hardisty writes,
:"the foreign policy doctrine gaining ascendance inside the administration is frighteningly coherent.  But it can be stopped if public opinion strongly opposes it. Mobilizing that opposition public opinion is crucially important work in the coming six months. In the short term, opposing an invasion of Iraq may be the most urgent task."
Berlet writes,
:"For conspiracists, ‘the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions’.
Hardisty writes,
:"...a little-known group called the Defense Policy Board, a shadowy military/foreign policy think tank..."
Berlet writes,
:"conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others".
So with two clicks we read George Bush is both an Isreali stooge and a neo-nazi.  Perhaps Berlet can articulate clearly his stance on the anti-Iraqi War movement -- is it lead by a bunch of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists or not?  OC5 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OC5, on Wikipedia article talk pages are used to discuss improvements to the article, not for debate about the subjects of the article.  If you have a suggestion to improve the article please offer it here, but this is not the place for debating your opinions about the PRA. Gamaliel 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ZOG & the anti-War movement

message: Someone just pointed this out to me:
: The Public Eye is, according to Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, a "spawn" of the original CounterSpy magazine.  "
Political Research Associates bought the rights to the name "Public Eye magazine" in 1992. This bibliogrpahy refers to the earlier publisher.--Cberlet 21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Eye magazine name 

message: Discover the networks is not a reliable source - it is self published. Self published sources cannot be used in articles that are not about themselves, in any circumstances. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll provide the link, since you didn't: wp:v#self. DTN isn't "self-published" in any meaningful sense, and even if it were your second sentence is flatly wrong. But before we even go there I want you to start with this: Explain to me why, in your view, MediaMatters isn't "self published". Or if it is, surprise me by beginning to delete citations of that source. Andyvphil 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for missing this before. Could you provide examples of it being used as a source, your attempt to remove it, and my reversions of you? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're missing the point. I do not wish to remove citations of MediaMatters. My first substantive edits of this encyclopedia were in the Criticism section of David Horowitz where I added cited rebuttal to material sourced to, I think, MediaMatters. I did not merely delete the criticism on the grounds that MediaMatters is not a reliable source. My question is why you are not deleting material that meets your overbroad criteria for deletion. I asked you a question that would give you the opportunity to to demonstrate that your deletions are being made in good faith, not merely to push your POV. Please answer it. Andyvphil 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discover the networks