Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Dennis King

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anti-Berlet statements

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Really? How would you describe it? --Herschelkrustofsky 06:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Task force

message: 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)
thread_title: Note from Chip

message: 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)
thread_title: Train meetings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Award information deleted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another note from Chip

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Who is Mark Evans?

message: 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)
thread_title: The Herschelkrustofsky edit is biased

message: 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)
replies: text: I have moved the details of the Train meeting. United States v. LaRouche--Cberlet 16:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Moving Train Meeting Info?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heads Up 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: My search of the Weekly Standard site shows only one article that mentions Chip Berlet. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Biased Misrepresentation

message: 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)
replies: text: It seems relevant, if barely. It illustrates the guilt by association fallacy which Berlet appears to make, at least in the accusations against him.  18:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I took out "watchdog" for being POV. Can you think of a better term to describe them? (I admit I could not)  18:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: OK, I tried to clean it up a bit.  20:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Three Catholics rob a bank...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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?  20:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ...also criticized for accusing the ADL...

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What's the critisism bit for?

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Vfd

message: Is this the right place for this? Chip, is this you they are talking about? Please refuse these charges! NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not the right page, and I do "refuse" the charges, thanks. See: --Cberlet 00:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftist Lie Factory? 

message: :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)
thread_title: This is Wikipedia's article on Chip Berlet, not "Chip's Article"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An Outside View 

message: 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)
replies: text: Purportedly? Insinuations are easy; listing a request for unprotection on WP:RFP, also easy. El_C 08:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection Abuse

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improper. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.. I did not add my name to the Conspiracism page, that was done by someone else. . 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)
thread_title:  Not just the talk page, but the article itself!