Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 2

message: I note that there has been a minor fuss in the article over the use of the word "fringe." I would propose that in the interest of compliance with Wikipedia policy on weasel terms, the word "fringe" should simply be eliminated from this article (which has been dominated by Chip's POV posse if not Cberlet himself.) It could certainly be argued that a number of chip's perennial targets enjoy more respect and support around the world than Chip himself does, so for the article to routinely brand all of Chip's opponents as "fringe" this and that, without making a similar observation about Chip, is unacceptably POV. Better to just drop the term altogether. --HK 14:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about "convicted crook and neofascist" instead of fringe for LaRouche? --Cberlet 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum, so your flippant comments are not helpful. In any case, writing one article for a magazine hardly qualifies a writer as an employee. Was he a staff writer? -Willmcw 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Washington, D.C. bureau chief. --HK 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got a source for that we should include it in the article. -Willmcw 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is HK meant to be posting here? I thought he was banned from talk pages as well as articles, though perhaps this one isn't included. Chip's name is well known among journalists, who make up a large percentage of the people who use Political Research Associates as a source. He's not seen as a fringe journalist at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly fair to say that Chip Berlet hails from the far left wing of the political spectrum, so if coming from an extreme such as that makes one "fringe" the term is just as fairly applied to this article's subject as it is to anyone he criticizes. HK and DannyZz are correct on this one regardless of what one thinks of the LaRouchies - abide by NPOV and that means dropping the weasel terms unless you're willing to apply them to everybody. As to Berlet being "well known" among journalists, a Lexis-Nexis search of full texts for major U.S. newspapers in their holdings over the past two years shows his name appearing in a grand whopping total of just 11 articles. One of them is an opinion piece he himself co-authored and submitted to the op-ed page of a paper. In the remaining 10 his name is regularly qualified by the terms including "progressive" and "radical left wing" and descriptions of his group as a liberal organization that monitors the right/conservatives/christian fundamentalists etc. A search for "Political Research Associates" over the last two years similarly produces only 8 articles, most of them the same ones pulled up by the Berlet search. As a point of comparison, the SPLC's hit count for the past two years in the same database is 307. For SPLC's main spokesmen Mark Potok gets 58 and Morris Dees gets 60. Elsewhere in the political left's "civil rights" crowd Julian Bond gets 400, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton each get over 1,000, Kweisi Mfume gets 443, and Louis Farrakhan gets 324. For that matter even Quanell X of the neo-Black Panther party outnumbers Berlet's cites some five times over with 56 hits in the last two years! If anything Berlet's a minor figure in a big pond of liberal "civil rights" activists. To pretend that he's some sort of widely respected and quoted mainstream journalism figure is simply a delusion. That's not to say that he shouldn't have an article - only that the article should not exhibit a pro-Berlet POV and should not be a case example of a "legend in his own mind" syndrome. Rangerdude 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms]]

message: It seems Mr. Berlet said publicly, "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter"; can the allegation of not being ethical be substantiated.  nobs 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoted in published article by Robert Stacy McCain, "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat," THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 9, 2000, http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/wilcox.html. That took 30 seconds on Google, Nobs, this is just petty harassment.--Cberlet 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Berlet said it; the question is what evidence is there (a) to support the statement (b) to republize it.  nobs 20:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're quoting Chip Berlet. It's a quote. I hope you're always this meticulous, Nobs. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Laird Wilcox

message: The color photo and the B/W photos were taken about the same date, and the publicity shot is clearer and a better photo.  The color photo is not fair use.  It has been filshed without permission or proper credit. It does not belong on Wikipedia.  The B/W photo has an explicit permission for use on Wikipedia.  Please stop playing these stupid games with the photos. It is childish.--Cberlet 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Age of Aquarius" studio shot that presently graces this article, makes the article look like a commercial promo for Chip's business venture. I think it would be more encyclopediac to use this candid shot. --HK 21:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about Berlet, and we have a photograph of him on the page already. No need to replace it with one of your propaganda shots showing him with someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Propaganda shots"? Please explain. --HK 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to make some kind of point, just as Cognition did when she uploaded the distorted photo. You're both arguably disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and it's tiresome, so please stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, Slim, as WP:FAITH requires of you. It's one thing to politely explain why the old photo should be kept, but another to berate people who disagree with you and continuously accuse them of bad faith, so please stop the latter. Rangerdude 23:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you by any chance wikistalking me, Randerdude? I sincerely hope not, given your reputation for activism on that front. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've apparently forgotten that your effort to prevent me from editing this article  failed, I'll simply remind you that I've been a participant in editing here for some time now, Slim. Nor do I intend to abandon this article, thus when you or anybody else starts harassing other people who are editing it you'll likely find me commenting here and directing your attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Few people familliar with the facts of the case would see it as harassment, I wager. HK's et al. RfARs and related policies have long been institutionalized into Wikipedia. I would advise avoiding further (unresearched) conforntations while your own Arbitration case remains ongoing —to avoid the appearence of these being seen as provocations— as ultimately in your best interests. Thanks. El_C 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny you mention the link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, El_C, given its following finding..."6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Passed 5-1-1." Perhaps she's not the only one who's forgotten that of late. Rangerdude 04:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the photo was distorted to make Berlet look obese "in good faith" but I doubt it. I'm surprised to hear an editor here saying that everyone is required to assume good faith about the deeds of others, as that same editor has frequently complained about the bad faith of other editors. In fact, ew can only assume good faith until bad faith has been proven. Uploading a distorted photo of a political opponent is a strong indication of bad faith, and given the history of the editor who did so, the assumption of good faith may be misplaced. -Willmcw 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! Rangerdude, that arbcom ruling has become something of a personal logo for you, hasn't it? I wonder how many times you've quoted it in the last few months. Never mind, you'll soon have one of your own to replace it with. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Slim: read all the material, digest it, examine Mr. Wilcox presentation of Mr. Berlet's somewhat checkered background (sentiments aside).  Then you may see what now exists is fair and NPOV, and only a fraction of what is presented.  Look at the record: you objected to a twenty-four year old citation -- documentation was then added to prove (1) The Public Eye was an organ of NLG (2) Mr. Berlet was managing editor at the time.  I was happy with the simple citation, but you demanded the second footnote.  Moving the goal post isn't gonna work.  Again, I recommend some effort be made to examine The Watchdogs, and let's not allow personal sentiments to obscure objective reading.  Thank you.  nobs 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, I've no idea what you're talking about: the second footnote, moving the goalposts. I asked you maybe four times for a link to the source of your claim, because I couldn't find it, and you eventually provided one. It's a self-published book, which I didn't realize until I looked it up. We can't use it. Secondly, the source it quotes (McCree) is himself not a good one. So we have one poor source quoting another poor source, self-published by the first poor source, and yet the claim being made is a very serious one. I repeat: if you believe this is not a tiny-minority view, then please produce a more mainstream source. If you can't find another source, it means it's a tiny-minority view, and publishing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. This is a question of policy and trying to do responsible research, not a question of "allow[ing] personal sentiments to obscure objective reading." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information. "
This can be done without the link to a controversial site, and if some defamatory "link or tie" is alleged against Mr. Wilcox because others have posted his material on their site, we can deal with whoever wishes to defame Laird Wilcox when it happens.  Thank you.  nobs 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have material from Wilcox, and we can't quote from a self-published book on a Volksfront website, for the last time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you misrepresent "self-published book on a Volksfront website", which given the evidence I've presented, may be construed as a defamatory smear against Mr. Wilcox.  Can you clarify.  nobs 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website, or it isn't.  What's the problem here? --Viriditas 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who republishes Wilcox where is not the issue; implying Wilcox is a white-supremacist fascist skinhead neo-nazi may be defamatory.  nobs 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so do you admit that it is a self-published book on the Voksfront website?  You said it was "republished", so I'm not sure what you mean by that.  As for implications, I'll address those after you answer my question. --Viriditas 04:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, read Wikipedia:No original research. We publish material that has been published by credible sources. The Volksfront website is not a credible source, and a book that has otherwise been self-published by a single individual also doesn't count as credible, because there has been no oversight, no fact-checking, and perhaps no legal input. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas & Slim: I'll admit the United States Army recognizes Wilcox as "foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism" in its publication Racial Extremism in the Army, Pamphlet No 27-100-159, available in The Military Law Review http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf, published by the  Department of the Army; can you suggest a better source the United States Army should be using to deal with racial disharmony in the ranks?  nobs 05:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why he has to self-publish his own book? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut out the middle man.  nobs 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But this is not material he has written. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the self-publishing foremost recognized analyst of political extremism in America has one of the largest political research University Library Collection's in the country named for him (which he started); he eacks out a living selling his writings to a limited market.  nobs 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

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 the page of my employer:  Political Research Associates. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. I have posted my response, requesting the Arbcom to dismiss this matter as frivolous insofar as Mr. Berlet's allegations pertain to me. If anything, my posts in the most recent dispute here have been aimed at finding a compromise and urging tempers to be restrained via a good faith assumption. Please note that if the Arbcom does decide to take up this case, I will be requesting that they investigate Mr. Berlet for violations of WP:OWN in attempting to assert ownership and exercise content control over articles pertaining to himself and his organization. Rangerdude 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration filed concerning this page

message: Please do not edit this article pending the arbitration. (unless it is of vandalism or spelling etc.) Olorin28 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, that Wilcox book is on the Volksfront website. You're going too far. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not denigrate the substance of the material, or the source.  nobs 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Nobs! This page is not your personal garbage dump. I have filed an arbitration naming you.  Have the common courtesy to stop piling up more and more outlandish guilt-by-association trash on this page and await the vote on whether or not the arbitration will proceed.--Cberlet 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Ok; say, I was trying to get that report on "Eco-Racism" from the PRA site.  What happened to it?  nobs 02:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobs! Desist!

message: If this article is unprotected, I plan to introduce a much shorter version that avoids most discusions of the subject's views and the views of those critical of the subject.  Berlet is an author, and his words on various issues speak for themselves.  I don't see a need to rehash them or criticize them here.  
I did some research on how articles concerning how other political commentators are handled on WP.  Here are five well-known commentators that contribute to NPR, among other places, and links to their NPR bios.  
E.J. Dionne 
David Brooks 
Andrei Codrescu 
Daniel Schorr 
The four WP articles combined have fewer words than the current Berlet article.  On a notability scale of 1 to 10, if Daniel Brandt is a one and the five commentators above average a ten, Berlet, imo, is around a three, and the article should be edited with that in mind.  FRS 21:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I oppose the arbitrary comparison of articles, since different articles receive different amounts of attention from different editors for different reasons which usually have nothing to do with the notability of the subject.  Usually, the answer is to expand the shorter articles, not shorten a longer article.  However, in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree, but only if we can condense the existing material instead of chopping out whole sections. Gamaliel 22:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see that the comparison tells us anything, especially when three of the articles chosen are just not very good, and that they're too short is part of that. This one's under 32K, I believe. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a model article you'd prefer this one looked like?  Preferably of someone that that takes controversial positions on  political subjects,  but is a non-public-figure?  FRS 15:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Giving Berlet a "three" is something of a stretch. In light of Cberlet's recently filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others, one of the issues which will be increasingly under scrutiny is the propriety of using Berlet as a source on Wikipedia; since, in my view, the current use of his views as source material is wildly out of proportion to his notability, it is probably appropriate, for the time being, that this article be out of proportion to a similar extent, so that the Wikipedia reader may know something about this obscure individual who is so often quoted at Wikipedia. --HK 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make a proposal, as time allows, on three different quotes from the Wilcox Report.  The subject of Berlet's unsubstanitated attack on Wilcox as "unethical" also needs to be addressed.  And then I will present a case for listing this article in :Category:Notable Wikipedians, given the connection to the Guardian as outlined by Wilcox, and in fairness to the families of 15,000 Korean War MIA's who perished in Soviet Gulags.  This directly involves the name of Wikipedia in this instance and should be examined.  nobs 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."
*Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), p. 161.  nobs 17:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the elephant in the living room, the above wiki link (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) leads to a brontosaurus hiding under the rug.  nobs 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a New Approach 

message: Here are three quotations from the Laird Wilcox Report which can be excised to give context to its entirety:
*"There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information."
*"Unlike the far right, where alliances are difficult and unstable and individuals tend not to work well together, alliances and linkages among certain elements of the extreme left appear common and more enduring, even when they have the effect of destabilizing U.S. government operations against terrorism, domestic and foreign."
*"Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to promote real racial understanding and dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [PRA] have compromised this goal."
All quotations are directly attributable to Mr. Wilcox, none reference Mr. Chip Berlet directly.  All accurately reflect the detailed examination Mr. Wilcox did of Chip Berlet & PRA's links and ties over more than two and a half decades.  They may seem on the face of it, 'inflammitory' to some, but it is really spoken from a source regarded as one of the foremost experts in studying extremism from an NPOV, who began his career in a public debate with George Lincoln Rockwell on the University of Kansas in 1964, on the subject of extreme views and political action.  Mr. Wilcox is the sort of voice Wikipedia needs to promote moderation and understanding of views.  nobs 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 quotes 

message: If the reference to "past" NLG associations is to remain, this relevent context in appropriate:
:"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."
*Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), p. 161.  nobs 17:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the elephant in the living room, the above wiki link (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) leads to a brontosaurus hiding under the rug.  nobs 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof. [[Harvey Klehr]]

message: I stumbled upon this article and it is ridiculous.  
The above user said it best:
::Meaning no disrespect to the subject of this article, but its length and tone are out of proportion to his limited notability and that is probably why it has attracted opponents who feel compelled to balance its PoV with their own. The article reads like a c.v., not an encyclopedia entry.
All this article is, is a resume.  I have never seen a single other wikipedia article start out with the entry: "resume".  This article should be deleted and started from scratch. Travb 00:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness to the subject of the article and to the editors who imported in or defended the resume-like portions of this article, the article was started as an attack piece against Berlet, and still contains considerable criticism of him, some of it from dubious sources.  In shortening the article, I hope to remove a lot of that stuff as well as the hagiography.  --FRS 16:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For new land founders, I say that I agree with FRS -- Svest 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This wikipedia article is ridiculous

message: As per the Proposed remedies, and on the advice of the presiding Arbitrator, I wish to appologize to Mr. Chip Berlet aka User:Cberlet, fellow Wikipedian, for the manner in which I have acted.  nobs 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wish to appologize on behalf of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee for reading thier newspaper outloud.  nobs 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remedies and note

message: The Arbcom remedies are about to become official, so hopefully the edit warring will cease. I will unprotect for now. I'm also putting this on my watchlist. If this page goes back to excessive edit warring, it'll be protected in a heartbeat. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to try unprotection

message: OK, I took a shot at weeding out what I considered excessively resume-like language and personal factoids, as well as shortening the criticism section significantly and taking out the marginally sourced stuff about Albania.  --FRS 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FRS: I thought you mentioned something about reducing the self-promotion & sales brochures for PRA materials. Also, is there a problem with including something from the Laird Wilcox, the "foisting on an unsuspecting public", or "nothing scholarly"; if we have a problem verifing Wilcox, I could bring more qualifications to his expertise forward if necessary.  Thank you.  nobs 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you first start an article on Laird Wilcox, so his notability/credibility, third party supporters and critics can be discussed by the WP community at large (and in the proper place, rather than in this article.) --FRS 19:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May I say sir, your level headedness has prevailed once again.  There is a foundational article Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe, which interested editors may wish to start from.  Thank you.  nobs 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New approach implemented 

message: I am raising an objection and notification for the record that the deletion of discussions in Archive 2 were improper.  nobs 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others and found that there are not yet any injunctions, temporary or otherwise. Yet SlimVirgin notes that she is deleting material from this talk page "per ArbCom ruling." What ruling might that be? --HK 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "body count" allegations were a personal attack on Chip Berlet. It doesn't take an ArbCom to determine that. Personal attacks do not belong in Wikipedia and may be removed by any editor. -Willmcw 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The "links & ties" material posted by Nobs01 on Talk:Chip Berlet or any other page may be removed by any user as personal attacks."  SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I managed to miss Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision. --HK 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection 

message: If any of the papers or articles are in peer reviewed journals, It think it would help if they were in a separate section, to make them easier to find amid all the opinion pieces, and collections of essays.--Silverback 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are any of the papers or articles in peer reviewed journals? 

message: I saw that there is tons of criticism from Chip Berlet on the LaRouche articles, but no criticism from the LaRouche group on this article, so I am adding this one line: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have charged that Berlet participated in a campaign, organized by individuals from the intelligence community,  to defame LaRouche (see John Train Salon.)" 
--NathanDW 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took this out, as inadequately sourced, because the only link was to another WP article.  Looking quickly at the LaRouche links found at John Train Salon, it seems Berlet is reported to have been at a meeting where some kind of media campaign to criticise LaRouche was supposedly discussed.  I don't see anywhere a claim that "Berlet participated in a campaign...to defame LaRouche."  --FRS 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, NathanDW has put up a new variant of the criticism that says "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have charged that Berlet participated in a campaign, organized by individuals from the intelligence community, to discredit LaRouche."  But the link actually only says that CB attended a meeting (in 1983!) with "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. "  According to the LaRouche page, this meeting led to a smear campaign against LLR, but the page doesn't claim that CB participated in the campaign, and, anyway, why is this claim about a 22 year ago incident relevant to the current article about Berlet?--FRS 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also covers an award Berlet received for an attack on LaRouche in High Times magazine in 1982. One is as relevant as the other. It's a biographical article, and almost all criticism has been deleted since the last time I read it. --HK 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: From my PoV, this article is neutral enough.  What are the objections to taking down the PoV marker?--FRS 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that, FRS. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Let's take it down. BCorr|ÑAÑÇÑpÑzÑuÑ~ 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to take down PoV flag? 

message: I am getting complaints that I am posing as an attorney, so I added "a paralegal investigator" as in  "Berlet, a paralegal investigator, is a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild." Also, I cited a quote to Namebase but removed the URL link because Namebase is now on a spam filter here at Wiki and the page could not be saved otherwise. I hope this is considered general non-controversial housekeeping.  In another matter, is it really necessary to note that some critics consider the NLG to be a communist front?  I would also object if editors started to add to the article on Horowitz that he is a fan of the "Republican Party, which some critics consider a fascist front..." :-)  --Cberlet 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing complaints

message: Removing unsourced criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has to be written in accordance with WP:BLP, which I suggest you review. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably wrote that policy.  Tell me, does WP:BLP apply to Daniel Brandt too, or is he an exception? 70.108.136.19 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an informal committee that decides which biographical articles are covered by WP:BLP. It is commonly referred to as "the cabal." --207.200.116.130 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, thanks for tipping your hand. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a relevant section from WP:BLP. "Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material."  Problem is, how can we include this material without overwhelming the article?  I would suggest paring down the criticism from David Horowitz to 2 or 3 sentences and limiting the criticism from each of the others to 2 or 3 sentences.  Berlet's criticism of the left isn't really criticism of Berlet but a core part of his bio so it wouldn't count toward "overwhelming" the article to begin with. 70.108.136.19 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, selective reading of WP:BLP. Read it again in light of the section directly above this one, Talk:Chip_Berlet#False_and_biased_claims_abound, and explain how it's accurate relevant material from reputable sources again. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the anon's unsourced criticism from here per BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. FeloniousMonk 14:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated removal of sourced critical material

message: I still don't see a source for this statement either here on in the Daniel Brandt article. Can you post it here for everybody to review. Thanks --Tom 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion on the Brandt page where the relevant text from the Lobster article by Brandt is posted.  This is properly sourced.  Not all text is for free on the Internet.--Cberlet 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw what you posted from the Lobster article and it said you resigned, not that you were removed? Can you source that you were "removed"? Thanks. --Tom 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already responded to this on the Brandt page and accepted "resigned." Please stop chasing me around Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you accepting this. I did confirm the Lobster article with the editor Robin Ramsey by e-mail. Thanks --Tom 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Berlet, resigned or were removed

message: The criticism section mostly consists of one person's disparaging comments, which compromises the article's neutrality.  Some of the content is not even criticism.  For example: 
:During the 1996 U.S. Presidential election, Berlet published another adapted version of this article in which he characterized as "antidemocratic forms of populism" the movements in support of Perot, Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. He described them as "three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse". 
-- WGee 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous.  What if someone is dead and unable to respond?  No critical views should be heard?  --TJive 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of a dead person is not exempt from Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight.  If the person is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, chances are he/she has supporters to offer rebuttals.  Wikipedia policy states: "At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available."   And in this case, I believe rebuttals are available. -- WGee 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are available, by all means cite them.  I do not see that this is an issue.  --TJive 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue because to exclude rebuttals is to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states: "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints."  Currently, the article represents only the anti-Berlet viewpoint. -- WGee 00:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is relevant "pro-Berlet" material, include it.  You aren't going to use specious pedantry in order to delete swaths of material.  --TJive 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I returned the Horowitz criticism to the amount that was agreed a few months ago. I still think it's too much, but it was agreed as a compromise. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me.  --TJive 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue amount of critcism from David Horowitz 

message: The purpose of a criticism section in an article, as I understand it, is to provide notable criticisms, ones that are either held by a significent portion of the population, factor into the public view of the subject in some significent manner, or otherwise tell the reader something important about the topic.  By comparison, the criticism in this article seems to be nothing more than a laundry-list of such-and-such a newspaper editorial criticised him.  Certainly, it isn't encyclopedic to note each and every person who was criticized in an editorial by the John Birch Society or David Horowitz; if we did, roughly half of our U.S. political articles would have to focus on such criticism! Is there anything that makes those criticisms particularly significent in this case?  Finally, the second criticism listed, from Larry Chin, appears to be from a private email; while I'm sure Mr. Chin feels strongly about his views, they're not encyclopedic on their own. --Aquillion 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should keep a few sentences pointing to the Horowitz criticism, though there is no need for the elaborate detail.  The links are useful if they include my rebuts as well. The Horowitz matter is probably the best know criticism outside the 9/11 "Truth" movement, which also deserves a sentence and pointers to critics and the PRA page on 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Cberlet 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section lacks weight 

message: I see that SlimVirgin has deleted a mention of Berlet's Albanian group that was sourced to a David Horowitz site, with the edit memo "not a reliable source for a BLP." I am not a fan of David Horowitz, but it seems to me that he and Chip Berlet are in fact very similar: they both operate small research and propaganda shops, funded by foundation grants. Berlet's web articles are widely used as sources in Wikipedia BLP articles. It seems to me that both Berlet and Horowitz should either be included or excluded. Could you please comment on this and explain, as specifically as possible, what the criteria are for a BLP source? --NathanDW 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of RS. SlimVirgin seemed to be suggesting that there were special criteria for BLP articles. I would like her to specify what they are. I would also like some discussion on the suitability of Chip Berlet and David Horowitz as sources. Are they equally suitable? If not, why not? --NathanDW 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't leave  tags on article of living people. We just remove the information pending source. Self-published material outside of that published by "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist"  are never acceptable. If you have examples of such, please remove the poorly sourced information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the face of it, judging from the Wikipedia article on him, David Horowitz would seem to be an adequate source. This was, however, disputed by SlimVirgin. I'd like to hear her rationale. I hope you understand, Hipocrite, that I am not asking you what the Wikipedia policy is, I'm asking for a discussion on the particulars of how it is being applied in this instance. --NathanDW 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, I've re-added the Chicago Area Friends of Albania (CAFA) involvement, citing Berlet himself, and an article already cited for other purposes as an example of the resultant (in Berlet's words) "red-baiting", moving it from the Biography to the Criticism section. It won't work, but I have no objection to bending over backwards to be fair to Berlet and his zealous defenders. Berlet claims to have been a minority voice against "enforce(ing) conformity of action through democratic centralism" in a "democratic mass organization", but CAFA is quoted in a number of places (FPM, DTN, a number of others) as being an organization, apparently self-identified, of those who "are friendly and supportive of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania", and as having "sent out a letter to its members and fellow travelers asking for "condolences" to be sent to Hoxha’s elderly widow, Nexhmije Hoxha" (here ), and since Berlet claims he was one of the few non-Stalinists that doesn't seem too surprising. This material seems to come originally from a booklet by one Laird Wilcox called "The Watchdogs: A Close look at Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups", probably based on material he has in a collection at UKansas, but SlimVirgin wouldn't let it be cited even if you had a copy. And digging up the documents would be OR... What Hipocrite deigns to notice is an unreliable source is fairly inexplicable. DTN is no good, but National Review is. Go figure. Andyvphil 11:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I had cited the article you ask be cited, as well as moved the note on your CAFA membership from Biography to Criticism. You explain in "Bad Sects" that you got involved with the CAFA founding for reasons other than its subject matter and, if I understand you correctly, remained a member to thumb your nose at "democratic centralism" and perhaps for social reasons (I think I saw ~"Some of my best friends were Communists ;)"~ or somesuch just a second or so ago, but can't immediately find it). I then cite the Albania article as an example of what you characterize as "red-baiting" criticism of you. My guess is that Arabia is relying on material in the Wilcox archive and cited by Wilcox for the activities and declarations of CAFA, and that since the CAFA membership was mostly Stalinists of various stripes, by your own statement, those activities and declarations presumably had a pro-Stalinist tinge. Since you remained a dues-paying member until you left Chicago there is a rebuttable presumption that you approved, and you can't expect much benefit of the doubt in a polemical exchange. I assume none of this will have been covered in the New York Times and, given SlimVirgin's interpretation of BLP, the one sentence I've put in pretty much exhausts what will be allowed to be said sans wheelwar. Andyvphil 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP Sources

message: I've removed the material sourced to Larry Chin at Online Journal. Larry Chin is a red link. The Online Journal is a red link, and there's no information on its website saying who runs it. Leftgatekeepers also has no information on its site saying who runs it, so these are anonymous sources, possibly personal websites. Also, there's no reason to quote Online Journal and yet cite another website, given that Online Journal is presumably ... online. All in all, this is not a reliable source for anything, and particularly not for a BLP. If I'm mistaken, please explain why here, but do not keep restoring it. Editors who continue to restore material in violation of BLP risk being blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Andyvphil and NathanDW are reverting, I've protected the page per this section of WP:BLP until the issue is settled on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Horowitz matter is probably the best know(n) criticism outside the 9/11 "Truth" movement, which also deserves a sentence..." --Cberlet 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you gave to Chip talking about Horowitz, above, didn't show him arguing for the Chin quote, which is what we're discussing. In fact, that link shows another editor objecting to it because it's a private letter from an unknown person. If you want to keep it, please say who Larry Chin is, who is behind Online Journal, and link to his views in a reliable publication, not in the form of a letter on an anonymous website. Alternatively, please confirm that you won't restore the material so that I can unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title you chose for this section is not "Larry Chin Quote", but "Larry Chin Edit". That is what I'm discussing. nb: the subject of the sentence I quoted is not Horowitz, but the "9/11 'Truth' movement. Chip Berlet says it "deserves a sentence". Why don't you provide one? I might want to edit it, but I am unlikely to replace it with the Chin quote. Andyvphil 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the section I linked to above from WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I see that it provides for protection by an involved editor under these circumstances. --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin is just trying to apply Wiki policy here. I do think that the constant attempts to add more and more dubious criticism to this page are problematic. For example, the critical review of the Populism book is not balanced by positive reviews, which outnumber the negative reviews by 10 to 1 in published sources. Hardly fair or accurate. When I said the 9/11 Truth movement criticsm deserved a sentence, I was not endorsing the insertion of material that falls outside of Wiki standards, and SlimVirgin is doing what an admin is supposed to do--enforce these standards on a WP:BLP page.--Cberlet 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chin quote isn't an example of "attempts to add more and more dubious criticism", since it's apparently been on the page for more than six months, which makes it presumptively true that there's been a consensus to keep it that SlimVirgin is trying to overturn. And her arguments for doing so seem disingenuous, or are simply false. Larry Chin is indeed a reliable sorce for his own opinions, and contrary to what SV says, Online Journal is not being quoted but is merely referred to to establish which Larry Chin is being quoted on the other site. And he's not anonymous, he's...Larry Chin, Associate Editor of Online Journal. The only arguments remaining to remove this quote would be if it appeared to be fabricated or if Larry Chin is non-notable. A quick Google of his name and yours indicates it is entirely consistent with his usual take on you, so it does not appear to be fabricated. And while I have no independent opinion as to his notability the fact that the quote was discussed and retained leads me to believe that that objection was overcome. I would not have added the quote myself, but I did revert in support of NathanDW to put him on the right side of 3RR becase SV's pretense that she just noticed this twice-red-flagged sentence is absurd, and that taints her attempt to delete. I've offered her a reasonable way out. You've said that a sentence on this conflict is desirable, and I don't doubt her familiarity with the subject of Chip Berlet. So all she has to do is write that sentence and if it is NPOV I will have no reason to support restoration of the Chin quote. Andyvphil 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry Chin edit

message: An editor just added ":Category:Conspiracy theorists" to the Chip Berlet article; I removed it. Chip Berlet is not himself a conspiracy theorist, i.e., one who speculates about conspiracies to act or conceal actions; he studies conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.  More of a conspiracy theorist theorist, but let's not get too meta; I've removed the category. --lquilter 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A second editor has now added the category, stating "restore -- he advocates the "Jeremiah Duggan" conspiracy theory, which is on Wikipedia's list)".  This isn't documented anywhere in the Berlet article and should be removed, at least until and unless it is documented; and arguably until it is one of the major things he is known for. (Categorization shouldn't be used for relatively minor aspects of someone lest it lead to category bloat. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Overcategorization.) However, in the interests of harmonious editing, I'm raising it here rather than reverting again. --lquilter 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the documentation, and it was immediately deleted by Tom Harrison . --NathanDW 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am insufficently familiar with Duggan case to characterize CB's involvement as making him a "conspiracy theorist", but Nathan's actual text seems unexcptionable. It doesn't have to be "one of the major things he is known for" to justify a couple lines. Anyway, investigating LaRouche and publishing a report on him seems notable (and more power to him).Andyvphil 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone can check my German, but I don't think the source says 'conspiracy theory:' "Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise" I think is "Four years after the suicide of Jerimiah Duggan, the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents, but no new evidence."Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is probable (for the sake of argument) correctness of theory a bar to being a "conspiracy theorist"?... And the Wiesbadener Kurier is clearly saying "the murder conspiracy theory continues to find new adherents" even if Mordverschwörung could be translated in some other context without that word. It's not a cabal to kill Duggan thats getting new Anhängers, after all, but a theory of the LaRouche group's responsibility for it. Andyvphil 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue here is original research. Please note that I have published only a few things about the Duggan case, and I pick my words carefully.  Wiesbadener Kurier does not claim I am a conspiracy theorist regarding the Duggan matter. Only the LaRouchites rant in print about my connection to the Duggan case.--Cberlet 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How does what the Wiesbadener Kurier says about Jeremiah Duggan tell us anything about Berlet? While the last sentence belongs in Jeremiah Duggan's biography, I'm not sure it belongs in Berlet's. If it does belong here, maybe what other news organizations have said about Duggan should also be presented, for balance. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a problem here with a category being used as a slur. "Conspiracy theorist" sounds bad, "Believes LaRouche thugs may have played a role in the death of Jeremiah Duggan", not so much. There's a problem with the way the category is set up that needs addressing... If the Wiesbadener Kurier is taking about "Justice for Jeremiah"'s allegations, and if CB associates himself with JfJ's allegations, then it's perfectly appropriate to quote the WK dismissively on JfJ's position here. If you asserted that Oswald probably didn't act alone it wouldn't be wrong (or WP:OR) to quote the Warren Commission dismissively on that theory merely because the WC didn't mention you. ... But I'm on board for an offsetting quote, showing support for JfJ's plausinbility, as TH suggests. Andyvphil 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a printed cite from a reputable source demonstrating that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations." I have been asked by Jeremiah's mother to provide two written statements for her use.  I have done so.  Please read them. They exist on the JFJ website. I have made other statements to reputable newspaper and magazine reporters. I have written a paper for a scholarly conference on antisemitism where I talk about LaRouche's antisemitism and the Duggan case. Feel free to cite them.  The claim that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations" is false and original research.--Cberlet 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now it's my turn to insist that I picked my words carefully. In particular, "if". There were several "if"s in my last post. I already said I was not an expert on the Duggan case. But neither is TH, and I did not have to be an expert on the case to see that his reasons for removing mention of your association with JFJ didn't hold water. As your reason for removing mention of WK's comment does not. What JFJ's exact assertions may be and the degree to which you have in fact associated yourself with them is something about which I claim little knowledge at this point. I did not revert WK's comment back into maintext for that very reason. But the actions you declare and the text at the cite clearly indicate some degree of association. Which doesn't seem disreputable to me. OR has nothing to do with this. Gotta run. Andyvphil 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Harrison added the word "new" in front of evidence. There is no basis for this. "keine Beweise" means no evidence, period. I translated this headline for the other articles. I agree with Andyvphil that it makes no sense at all to say that the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents. The English term "conspiracy theory" is clearly what is intended. --Masai warrior 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor has objected to your translation of that, though (see Talk:Jeremiah Duggan), arguing that the English "conspiracy theory" is stronger than the phrase used by the newspaper. We should err on the side of caution, especially in a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consulted with you before posting my translation. And here is my response to Mr. Diderot on the Talk:Jeremiah Duggan page: "I am an experienced translator. I would always use a cognate when appropriate. However, an important feature of translation is to take into account the context. That is why Babelfisch and other translation programs produce such comical results -- they simply attempt to translate word for word. I invite you to translate this headline into something that makes sense in English: Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben - Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise. If you come up with something better than what I have done, then by all means we should use your version." --Masai warrior 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It corroborates what was already pretty obvious -- that Berlet was promoting a conspiracy theory about Duggan's death. --NathanDW 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What source does it corroborate? Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It corroborates the conclusion that may reasonably be drawn from the material in the article Jeremiah Duggan. The police rule the death a suicide. Additional investigations by German authorities arrive at the same conclusion. Despite all this, a group of people refuse to accept these conclusions, and began to suggest other scenarios, including suicide caused by "mind control" (see Schiller Institute) and also murder. They also theorize about possible motives. Compare this to one of the classic conspiracy theories, that of the JFK assassination conspiracy, which follows the exact same format: the official explanation is rejected in favor of alternate theories (usually with some kind of political agenda.) --NathanDW 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely the type of bogus faux logic employed by conspiracy theorists. See Conspiracy Theory. The source corroboration here is interpolated from existing anecdotal information in a manner that implies logic yet, if diagramed, reveals itself to be a disconnected fallacy. Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism!--Cberlet 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When some reliable source draws that conclusion, and applies it to Berlet, you may have something that doesn't violate policy. From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! That's what I said, only in plain English.  No fun at all.--Cberlet 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd have been a fool to try to beat Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism. Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just coined the phrase.  Now I just have to find a way to use it in a reputable printed published source...--Cberlet 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CB has, by providing two written statements to JD's mother "for her use", associated himself with the claim that his death was improperly investigated. WK says this is a crackpot endeavor. Ergo, WK is commenting on CB's actions. Which answers your question. Andyvphil 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also refutes the edit memo on SlimVirgin's latest revert: "(that has nothing to do with this article)". --NathanDW 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, both the above claims by Andyvphil and NathanDW reflect original research, as patiently and pecisely explained by [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]. No original research -- not a steep learning curve.--Cberlet 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. In order to be OR, by the quote TH has provided, there has to be a "position C". (a)To quote SV, "Berlet has lent support to a campaign run by relatives of Jeremiah Duggan...". (b)For context, WK is quoted saying the campaign is based on myths without evidence. I've already stated that I'm in favor of a second, contrary quote, assuming a suitable one can be found. (c) There is no (c). Andyvphil 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theorist

message: "The British student was ruled to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. The conclusion by law enforcement authorities is being challenged by Berlet and others."
The text above is biased and misleading. The following is factual and NPOV:
"The British student was ruled by German authorities to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. A British coroner rejected the suicide ruling."
I hope this can be changed, and hope the constant attempts by LaRouche apologists to add misleading and POV material stops.--Cberlet 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet's prefered version doesn't mention Berlet. There should be some mention of the role Berlet has played in the affair, and the specific accusations he has made. --NathanDW 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that he has made any. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased language

message: Noticing how a prominent contributor to the Norwegian Wikipedia, the late Tron Øgrim, who was also a somewhat noted public figure has his Wikipedia effort mentioned, shouldn't the same be allowed in the case of Berlet. At least it is my impression that his Wikipedia efforts have been considerable. __meco 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against that unless there are reliable sources who talk to that point. Anyways, --Tom 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention in article of prolific Wikipedia contributions 

message: I restored some criticism from Leftists, since the present criticism section makes it appear as if Berlet only has critics on the Right. Also, according to WP:LEAD, notable criticism should be reflected in the intro. Why is there none? --MaplePorter 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sourced you provided looks very questionable, wp:el,  imho. --Tom 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This suggests it was self-published. And if the best that can be said of a source is that he "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia," he's probably not appropriate per BLP. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it looks like a one-man show. --MaplePorter 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: SlimVirgin says that the PFP was "self-published." I don't know much about it. Is there evidence that it was self-published? In this cite a man named Per Fagereng is described as a senior editor at the Portland Free Press. In this cite Ace Hayes is also described as an editor. Likewise in the Willamette Week obituary for Hayes, which describes the Portland Free Press as "far-out" but says that Hayes "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia." --MaplePorter 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggests it was self-published. And if the best that can be said of a source is that he "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia," he's probably not appropriate per BLP. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it looks like a one-man show. --MaplePorter 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland Free Press

message: We should all certainly be careful with the reputations of living people. It's verifiable that Prouty has had certain associations. It's reasonably verifiable that the subject, Chip Berlet, objected to those associations. The article is about Berlet so we need to keep our focus on him. Berlet's departure from [the PIR board] was apparently related to Prouty's "objectionable" activities. If that was his reason, then we should report that in a way which conveys that his reasoning may not have been the obejective truth. That's what we'd do with any article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this small but very important correction above.--Cberlet 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The conflict between Berlet and Brandt goes way beyond this single incident; is documented both in places that Brandt would like to bury as he "reavealed too much about himself" and in places some people feel wikipedia is better off not naming; is something wikipedia perhaps should not go into due to BLP concerns as it fundamentally consists of mutual accusations of political immorality between two seminotable people who formerly found common cause in left-wing political activism; and therefore needs careful editing. While I prefer my edit to the paragraph, I feel Will Beback's edit is within the BLP policy and I will not revert it. WAS 4.250 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prouty 

message: The edit history of this article has been wiped clean from June 23 to July 22. Does anyone know how or why? --Don't lose that number 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the page protected or something? I know this bio is related to Daniel Brandt(sp) old article so maybe thats the rub?? I have NO clue but HATE when ANY history is removed. Thanks! --Tom 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsolved mysteries 

message: geocities links are garbage, and not appropriate for this project, period. Thanks! --Tom 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked an admin, Will Beback, about a similar situation, and he indicated that anonymous sites were still permissible under WP:EL (see .) --NathanDW 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I protest that gross mischaracterization of my response. All I did was direct you to the WP:EL guideline. Which, if you read if carefully, makes it clear that a one-person, anonymous attack site is inappropriate.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: geocities is still garbage and is still not appropriate for THIS project. Anything else? Cheers! --Tom 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: geocities external links

message: I see that the "further reader" section is all links. I would rather those get merged back into the main body of the prose as <ref> references.--SallyForth123 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consolidate 

message: Let's try to keep http and .com out of the visible text and the prose. Right now, the visible text is free of them and the external links section is short. Neato.--SallyForth123 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http and .com 

message: The only current review of Right-Wing Populism in America is a negative one:
:::Reviewing Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Robert H. Churchill of the University of Hartford criticized Berlet and other authors writing about the right wing as lacking breadth and depth in their analyses, failing to make contact with significant figures in the movement and conduct significant research on the Internet, and for providing analyses of far right movements that proscribe as "racist" a broad range of conservative political ideologies that are "driven more by the association of the author with various civil rights organizations and leftist political activists outlined in the acknowledgements than by the primary evidence presented in the footnotes."
Most of the published reviews were very positive. I think a little balance would be nice.--Cberlet 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews of ''Right-Wing Populism in America''

message: Might it be better to combine the sections Criticism and Political views into one section using his works in chronological order to present his views and notable criticism? Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Subject of article claims to have dropped out  Uncle uncle uncle 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Left vs Dropped Out

message: I don't think this is an accurate summary:
* In ZOG Ate My Brains, he warns of a "troubling resurgence on the political Left" of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a result of US military intervention in the Persian Gulf and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Berlet, Chip. "Zog ate my brains", New Internationalist, October 2004.
The point of the article is that conspiracy theories are not progressive, and antisemitic conspiracy theories undermine work that seeks justice for Palestinians. See the Rosenwasser quote. Also, the article ends with: "Fenster warns that if our ‘simple, populist narrative slips and becomes racist or antisemitic or exclusionary, then its power to affect positive social and economic change disappears’.  The current summary makes it seem as if I support the Bush administration around Middle East policies and its claims about 9/11--which I do not.--Cberlet 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with summary of article

message: I removed this:  McCain, Robert Stacy. "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat", The Washington Times, May 9, 2000. Maybe stick to "main stream" articles rather than self published stuff. If this was from the washington times, can we cite that instead? Thanks, --Tom 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find it at the WaTimes site, feel free to switch. But McCain should be a RS for his own article in the publication he edits (WaTimes). Not aware that this violates any policy. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to deal with real life right now. My problem is linking to a self published site. I will try to find the article or maybe we can just list it as a footnote? Again, I am not really disputing the content, I just don't like any links to self created web sites. Does that make sense? Thanks and cheers, --Tom 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I have no objection to your preference, so long as it is expressed by finding a better source rather than in deleting reference to relevant material. Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link in further reading section