Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 3

Book Review

Most of the reviews were positive. A POV critic has plunked one of two negative reviews out of 20 in my entry. Here are some others that are more typical:

"In its scope and breadth of coverage, Berlet and Lyons' book is particularly ambitious and impressive, and the events discussed in the book range widely....the book will serve as an important resource for those whose interests and viewpoints are largely consistent with left-wing methodologies, while simultaneously provoking much necessary debate and argument from those whose methodological orientation is grounded toward the political center or right-wing. Of particular interest is the fifty page bibliography contained in the book that serves as a valuable resource for locating additional materials related to populism in all its varieties and expressions. Strongly recommended for college and research libraries, although its primary audience will be upper-level undergraduates, graduate students and faculty in American political and social history, political science and sociology."--Counterpoise

"...an interesting, informative book. Berlet and Lyons have forgotten more about right-wing politics in America than most of us know to begin with, and they put that knowledge to good use....a good book that merits close attention from scholars of the Right in America and of social movements generally."--Contemporary Sociology

"...right-wing populist movements in the United States have long been part of our nation's social fabric, and they have influenced our values and policies to a much greater extent than most people recognize. Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons argue this case persuasively in their illuminating new study, Right-wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort....according to the authors of this important book, right-wing populism reinforces existing ills by deflecting attention away from the structural causes of economic and social injustice."--Southern Poverty Law Center

"Right Wing Populism in America challenges activists to be aware of broad movements for change that are repressive. It provides activists knowledge of the roots of these movements. Instead of scapegoating the right or dismissing them, people on the left need to start challenging the inequalities that provide fertile breeding ground for repressive movements."--Z Magazine

"Rather than dismiss right-wing populist movements as 'lunatic fringe', the authors contend that we should consider them complex and dangerous: complex because of the way they blend issues, and dangerous because they lure and channel people into misguided efforts that 'only serve to heighten inequality and oppression.'"--Briarpatch

"The history of the evangelical entry into politics is fascinating and complicated. There is an excellent account in Right-Wing Populism in America." --The New York Review of Books

"...two leading political analysts provide the background and insights on conspiracy theory, ethnic scapegoating and other movement trademarks. From the Ku Klux Klan to nationalist cliques, this provides an important consideration of sentiments and motivations." --The Bookwatch

"Berlet...and Lyons...do not see the racial, religious, social, and economic ideas of the Far Right as strictly marginal. Rather, they argue, right-wing populism is deeply rooted in American history. This detailed historical examination...provides a theoretical basis for understanding the actions and ideas of these movements....This work strikes an excellent balance between narrative and theory....Recommended for all public and academic libraries." --Library Journal

Perhaps someone could add some NPOV balance?--Cberlet (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

updating

1. Are there any publications after 2005 by the subject to add?
2. The article frequently uses the word "now" or implies as much. since it covers a span of years, it should be specified to just what period it is referring. . DGG (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacking Wiki entries out of spite

I reverted an edit by an editor involved in a dispute with me who came here and attacked this page out of spite. Arbcom has ruled this practice is not acceptable.--Cberlet (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please identify the edit where you say you reverted? I was unable to locate it. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by an administrator as a violation--Cberlet (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistency in the story here. Time to call in an IP check? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using this discussion page for sly personal attacks. Please stop using my entry to vent juvenile angst. Please stop being tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to add material that may violate wikipedia's standards for biographies would do well to visit WP:BLP and WP:RS, Biographies are held to a higher standard and material that "is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Any editors who persist in vandalizing this or other articles in such a manner will quickly find extra scrutiny from admins with little patience for such abuse. Benjiboi 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo is a notable commentator, and his views are typical of many of Berlet's critics. To claim that the inclusion of his quote is "vandalism" seems irresponsible. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotation

This is a biography of a living person, where we err on the side of careful writing and "do no harm". We don't put in sensationalist attack quotes, unless the quotation is essential to understanding a notable dispute. I've removed it per WP:BLP please do not replace this.--Doc^g 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Material removed citing BLP concerns shouldn't be re-inserted unless there is consensus it is fully compliant with the policy, which clearly isn't the case here. Since the removal has been reverted multiple times, this page has been protected until the issues are resolved. henrik•talk 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The BLP tag at the top of the page says Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. The quote we are talking about is perfectly sourced; we even have articles on the person who gave the quote, and his website. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea that you can exercise a veto over the insertion of inconvenient material by expressing specious BLP concerns is itself specious. The Raimondo quote could use more context to show how it is representative of a strain of criticism of Berlet, but it is in fact representative of such a strain, and WP is a work in progress -- there is no requirement that a subject be fully formed before elements of it can be inserted in an article. You begin by beginning. JR is clearly expressing an opinion, and he is a RS for his own opinion, so there is no verifiability problem. Nor is there a libel issue. Andyvphil (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP goes way beyond that. Articles on living subjects need to be measured, fair and balanced. We're writing an encyclopedia not a tabloid. An rhetorical attack quote by some opponent should only go in if it is justified by the narrative of the article and there's reason to believe the quote is in itself notable. Is there any discussion, or particular significance following the quote? Did it have a particular impact? We don't just find nasty quotes, stick 'em in, and then provide a sentence of sourcing and context to justify it. We are not wikiquote. It looks to me like there's some agendas here. (PS I've never edited this article before, and I have no opinion of the subject either way).--Doc^g 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Docg is right --the inclusion of a quotation like this is bias, and deliberately sensationalist reporting. We have sufficient balance with a strong negative quote immediately following. DGG (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some admins who have sharply different interpretations of the BLP policy.[1] --Terrawatt (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to this reasoning, but only if it were applied to all bios of controversial figures, instead of just this one. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is applied to all (living) bios. That's the very purpose of WP:BLP. (As with a couple others commenting here, I have no particular opinion on this particular person.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have little investment in the subject of this bio but if the quote or the subject's notoriety of such statements is notable then it's likely a WP:RS can back up the point rather than wikipedia coming off as smearing someone. We're aiming to be dispassionate and neutral. Benjiboi 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to provide some context for the quote. Berlet is on record as having labeled many, many political figures as proto- or crypto-fascists, including individuals who have run for President such as Ross Perot, Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Buchanan. If the reader is aware of this, then the quote from Raimondo is perhaps not so shocking. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is not only BLP, but NPOV, with its demands for balanced coverage.(BLP is best seen as a special additional requirement beyond that). This is a core policy, and there is no compromise possible with it: if we do not have NPOV, we are no better than such places as Conservopedia. Positive and negative material about any subject is balanced--in proportion to the amount and nature of the material existing. BLP says we do not even insert balanced material, if it is controversial and not supported. DGG (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Balanced coverage", and NPOV, requires all significant points of view be represented. Right now the Crit section only includes Churchill and Horowitz, and Berlet's critics seem to be a much wider group than that. I've seen criticisms of Berlet very similar to Raimondo's deleted from this article before (several times, I think) and though I haven't much sympathy for either side in this squabbling-among-the-far-left finger pointing, it seems it ought to be mentioned. Andyvphil (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet is is easy to find criticism on my work, primarily among conspiracy theorists and right-wing pundits. In real life, among journalists and scholars, my work is much more respected. Not that you would know it from this entry. The book on right-wing populism got far more critical praise in serious reviews, but on this entry the only lengthy quote is negative. I do not object to criticism in my entry page, I object to unbalanced criticism, and drive-by grudge insertion of text out of spite. This page already fails a POV test. It is a toilet for every crackpot and POV warrior who dislikes me, my editing, my politics, or my published research. I am tired of it. Someone needs to clean out the latrine and start over and be fair minded.--Cberlet (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo is a somewhat inflammatory political commentator who is the dominant personality at Antiwar.com. Chip Berlet is somewhat inflammatory political commentator who is the dominant personality at Political Research associates. There are many other parallels between the two of them, even that they both changed their given names. So it seems to me that if a caustic comment from Raimondo should excluded on BLP grounds, the hundreds of comparable comments by Berlet that have been inserted in articles about living persons all over Wikipedia should also be deleted on the same grounds. I have started a discussion about this at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Give the full references to serious reviews of your work Chip and if I can access them I will add them to the article. Niels - if you think there are comments sourced to Berlet that are not reliable, i.e. from blog posts rather than independently published articles, then it will be more logical to remove them or find better sources rather than add a load of equally unsatisfactorily sourced comments by Raimondo in a vain hope that balance will thereby be achieved. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either Antiwar.com or PRA could be considered blogs. But what are they? --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of a continuum. Antiwar.com is pretty much a one-man operation?, PRA is a bit bigger?, David Horowitz Freedom Foundation a bit bigger still?, MMFA & FAIR pretty much the same...none of the insiders are likely to get much internal review, but the subject here is bit- or more-than-a-bit- outside-mainstream politics, and relying on what makes the NYTimes isn't going to give you much detail. Not that the MSM can be relied on to get it right, for all of Wikipedia policy enshrining it as RS. I've wandered into editing in the area of coverage of Barack Obama's Muslim background and MSM with very few exceptions has carried the deserved minimization of the significance of it overboard into outright denial of facts, or misrepresentation of other facts, all without any contrary influence from the supposed editorial review. Andyvphil (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The only person at PRA who has any name recognition is Berlet. Compare AntiWar.com, which has Scott Horton, Ray McGovern, Norman Solomon, Jude Wanniski, Karen Kwiatkowski, in addition to Raimondo and numerous others. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice collection at Amazon.com. The one from the New York Review of Books is sweet, but your choice. The ones from Pharr, Sklar, Shanks-Meile, and Reed are back cover blurbs, so although they are nice, they should not count as real reviews. Thanks for considering doing this. I appreciate it.--Cberlet (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Berlet and his followers would prefer an article where he is presented as a staid, scholarly type, and the only criticism comes from his friends. In the real world, Berlet has a reputation as an irresponsible attack journalist who is quick to label all and sundry as fascists and Nazis, so Raimondo's quote is quite apropos. Berlet is often referred to as a poison pen[2][3]. At present the only criticism in the article comes from David Horowitz, which reinforces the misleading impression that Berlet is a leftist. The Raimondo quote and the quote referenced by AndyPhil[4] are far more representative. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo is very notable person and his criticism of Chip Berlet is also notable. OK, some people at Wikipedia don´t like Raimondo, but it isn´t good reason for censoring his criticism Berlet. --Dezidor (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is some middle-ground and clearly some boundaries have been crossed. What would probably be most constructive to reintroduce some content, in my opinion, would be to start a new talk section like "proposed text for criticism section (December 2007)" and do your best to write something that dispassionately describes what critics have stated about the subject and/or their work leaning toward a conservative approach per WP:BIO (avoiding tabloid and weasly words etc.) Include wikilinks and references so everyone is on "the same page" as to who said what and how it adds to the article. Then dialog shifts from how notable a particular quote is to what is the best content to include. We're not in a rush here so let's get it right toward building a better article. Benjiboi 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip, the Amazon page is not a lot of use to me, as there are only excerpts from reviews and only the names of the publications are given, with no dates. Unless I am to spend many hours trawling through I need a list of some important reviews in independent sources with dates. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I need to dig the original reviews out of an archive. Might take a week. All boxed up and off-site. Thanks for pursuing this.--Cberlet (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

proposed text for criticism section (December 2007)

I propose simply re-adding the quote by Justin Raimondo [5] which is very brief and highly representative of criticism of Berlet. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please post the quote here along with the hyperlink so there is no confusion as to your proposal or the source. Benjiboi 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[6] --Terrawatt (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that editors such as Terrawatt who promote Lyndon LaRouche--a convicted felon widely described by the mainstream press as a neofascist and antisemite--are unbiased editors. This Raimondo quote appeared here after a fracas at a LaRouche-related page. Arbcom has already ruled that coming to my entry to add critcism out of spite during an editing dispute is problematic. You simply cannot pretend this is a fair criticism being innocently suggested. As for the claim that the current entry "reinforces the misleading impression that Berlet is a leftist." Please. I am a well-known progressive writer, scholar, and activist. A handful of right-wingers, conspiracists, or those who defend uncritically working with antisemites and neofascists in coalitions, have suggested otherwise.

How about balancing the current entry with some of the positive critical reviews of Right-Wing Populism in America? The positive reviews far outnumber the negative reviews in real life.

My entry suffers from being used as a toilet by my political critics. I am tired of it. I do not object to negative material being in the entry...I object to the page being unbalanced and constantly under attack by editors seeking to settle political scores or punish me as a Wiki editor for disagreements arising from editing discussions on other pages. Please do not reward Terrawatt for pissing on my page.--Cberlet (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I've got this straight: Mr. Berlet strongly objects to the claim that he calls his opponents "neo-fascists," and he's sick and tired of all of those neo-fascists who say those sorts of things about him? --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not reward Terrawatt for pissing on my page. 1. It is not your page, but Wikipedia page. 2. I don´t know whether you are really Chip Berlet, but whether is this style of Chip Berlet, I clearly understand how reliable author is that man. --Dezidor (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay focussed on content rather than the poster/editor and WP:AGF all around. If they post some proposed text then we can deal with it. If it violates WP:BLP then please (briefly) ask for assistance on the admin board with a link showing the edit made and who made it. In this way any violating policies can be held accountable for their edits. Benjiboi 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... any proposed material should stand or fall on its own merits, rather than the supposed agenda of the person who proposed it. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not when Arbcom has ruled that pro-LaRouche editors should not come to this entry and insert negative material. Furthermore, I already did complain and the entry was protected due to a BLP violation. The specific Raimondo quote was found to violate BLP by several editors. It was removed. I have no idea why so many editors now want to facilitate further vindictive vandalism and POV disruption that violates BLP and NPOV. The page is already biased and POV with too much fringe material inserted by critics. I am just asking that existing Wikipedia policies be enforced.--Cberlet (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If an editor is violating an arbom ruling then immediately address that on an admin board this talk page is not the best venue to address that. If there is other specific items that violate WP:BLP then those too need to be addressed piecemeal so admins can verify the material violates policy and deal with it. I'm only here to help steer discussion towards content consensus as uninvolved party. I have no knowledge, interest (or time) to personally dig through items but I do know that as frustrating as it seems wikipedia's processes are not always as quick as we would like and WP:CIVILity needs to be followed even when someone seems to be blatantly violating the processes and policies. Benjiboi 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue, Benjiboi, simply cannot be ignored just because you lack the time to do the proper homework. It is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to edit pages to make a point, since it is disruptive and a form of ideological vandalism. What we have here is a tiny group of POV warriors with a long history of attacks on me based on my editing here on Wikipedia, or my political writing outside of Wikipeida, who are violating BLP out of spite. There is already a long section of criticism on this entry page, without sufficient balancing material. Why add another redundant personal attack on me without any context, when there is no positive review of the book Right-wing Populism in America? The entry is already unbalanced with negative criticism. --Cberlet (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel someone is doing such a thing, again, this talk page is not the best place to resolve that, take it to the admin notice board of incidents or, if appropriate the arbcom folks. As of yet no proposed text has been posted here for vetting so, to me, there is no proposal as of yet as there is no content to reach consensus over. If someone is posting a link or text that violates WP:BLP policy or an arbcom ruling then address that to appropriate admin boards. I'm only here to offer an outside voice in hopes that anyone whose intent is vandalising wikipedia will be discouraged from doing so and help the process of writing a better article in regards to this flare-up. If my assistance is disparaged or otherwise deemed unhelpful then I'm happy to excuse myself so others may persue constructive editing. Benjiboi 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your offer to help, but I am suggesting that there is more here than a simple edit dispute, and to be really helpful just reading this entire page seems not too much to ask.--Cberlet (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I was suggesting this was a simple edit dispute but was attempting to unravel content dispute from POV agendas, which are, of course, often intertwined. From an outsider's perspective I can share that BLP and Arbcom violation are serious and this talk page isn't the best place to get resolution. I will hereby remove myself as I'm not an admin and I really don't have the time o fully vet this talk page or any of the disputed content, nor was I stepping up to do that, simply trying to offer constructive suggestions in hopes that civil dialog could flourish and focus would return to content not contributors. I wish you all well and hope that the article does indeed improve. Benjiboi 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a "pro-LaRouche editor", so it won't be a Arb violation for me to add this "negative material". And I have "found" no BLP issues in noting Raimondo's opinions, which, as I've said, seem to be part of a significant body of opinion that has been kept out of this article. I'm open to proposals for adding context to Raimondo's words, or equivalent texts, but complaints about Terrawatt aren't going to keep me from restoring fully cited relevant material. Andyvphil (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, Andyvphil, you have repeatedly been admonished on your user talk page for violating BLP and edit-warring in your attempts to insert biased negative critical material about me into various Wikipedia entries. --Cberlet (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to correct your misrepresentation of the record, CBerlet, you have been mentioned on my talk page exactly once, when the infamously overagressive-in-the-use-of-her-admin-powers SlimVirgin inserted the following: "Andy, you're in violation of BLP by restoring an unknown source from a dodgy website. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)" And, as I said, LaRouche has never been mentioned at all. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Andy, quit the insults. The page had to be protected before because you were trying to add material from someone's personal website as I recall, or something along those lines, in violation of policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your memory is about as good as Chip Berlet's research on my user page. You chose ("had to", you say) to "protect" this page in support of the aptly-named "Hipocrite"'s campaign to delete all citations of David Horowitz's websites from Wikipedia. More on this below. Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

<----------Well, just another correction, then: From Andyvphil user page, joining an edit war attacking the work of Political Research Associates where I work as Chip Berlet:

I've started RFCs on some of the articles that Hipocrite likes to censor. If you feel up to it, please join in.

• Talk:Paul Booth (SDS activist)
• Talk:Lynne_Stewart_Trial#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Request_for_Comment:_Validity_of_sources
• Cheers. L0b0t 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<nowicki>

== Final Request ==

This is my final request that you stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my final request that you establish the good faith of your deletions, if you can, by responding to the questions I and others have put to you with something other than obstinate repetition of your assertions. Start with this question: Why did you nominate the David Horowitz Freedom Center article for deletion (on the grounds that it is a "Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)") and have not nominated the Political Research Associates article on the same grounds? If there is some explanation other than your POV, please supply it. Barring an answer you will continue to have exhausted the assumption of good faith, and I will continue to revert your apparent POV vandalism wherever I find it. Andyvphil 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So we see a history of personal and political attacks launched by [User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]], not one mention.

The issue is adding negative criticism to this entry in violation of BLP and other Wicki guidelines as part of a vindictive campaign of personal attacks, disruption, tendentious editing, etc.--Cberlet (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to justify your misrepresentations are pathetic. You wrote, "Andyvphil, you have repeatedly been admonished on your user talk page for violating BLP and edit-warring in your attempts to insert biased negative critical material about me into various Wikipedia entries." This is simply false. Then you advance my suggestion that Hipcrite was being hypocriticial in nominating DHFF for deletetion but not PRA (note that I did not suggest deleting PRA!) as evidence of a "history of personal and political attacks". This is simply stupid. Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of digression here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember that this is a place to discus this specific article, not the person it depicts. Andyvphil, since you seem to have prior conflicts with Cberlet, perhaps it would be best if you refrained from editing his biography here? henrik•talk 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that I had any conflicts with Cberlet prior to editing his biography. I have said, rather, that his asserting so is false. You apparently are choosing to believe him without examining any evidence. Your suggestion therefor reduces to the assertion that no editor who has conflicts with Cberlet over editing Chip Berlet should refrain from continuing to edit that article, a suggestion of hegemony that I suggest you reexamine. Andyvphil (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to review your edits to Political Research Associates.[7] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have. My first edit there was 1/28/07, my first edit here was 12/21/06. So, again, I repeat, any assertion that I came to this page to add "negative material" to Berlet's biography in retaliation for previous edit conflicts is nonsense. As it happens, my first edits on Wikipedia, before I even registered, were to David Horowitz, and one of the first things I cleaned up was a highly inaccurate and anti-Horowitz presentation of Berlet's slander of him as an apologist for racism. The same inaccurate presentation appeared on this page in virtually identical words, so my first edits on this page were to replace that here as well. That got this page on my watchlist. My first conflict with Berlet, I think, was over his desire to scrub mention of his connection to the Hoxa-era Friends of Albania from his biography, but since he'd written about it himself he did not prevail on that. And when Hipocrite was running about Wikipedia scrubbing all links to Horowitz sites (but, hypocritically, not to MMFA or FAIR or PRA or other sites with equivalent editorial processes but opposite POV) I noticed the excision he performed here (as I said, this article had made my watchlist) and reverted it, which brought me into conflict with SlimVirgin, who has never let awareness of hypocrisy get in the way of scrubbing an article under her protection of inconvenient facts. Now if there is anything in the above recited history that should disqualify me from restoring Raimondo's criticism of Berlet to a Crit section that is, as I have noted, impoverished, I'm missing it. I have very litte interest in Berlet, freely admit that his slander of Horowitz did not recommend him to me, and my opinion of him has not been improved by this exchange or the ones that have preceeded it, but I have no COI, stand by the NPOV of my edits, and insist that he is not entitled to have his biographical entry solely in the charge of his admirers. It seems the threads of criticism of Berlet represented by Raimondo and Larry Chin ought to be in the article. Address that subject instead of trying, speciously, to disqualify me, and others, from the discussion. Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I was "trying" to do was correct a mistaken assertion you made. I think it would be incorrect to represent yourself as an uninterested or neutral editor. Being non-neutral doesn't disqualify an editor, but it does mean that the editor has to be doubly careful to make sure that his edits are neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been made aware of having been mistaken in any assertion I have made, or of having misrepresented my POV. I am not a pro-LaRouche editor nor am I editing this page because of prior editing conflicts with Cberlet, which were the two reasons advanced for why I should refrain from editing this page. And there are several opposing editors who have taken written notice of the fact that my bias against concealing material from Wikipedia's readers on the grounds of what I deem specious complaints about sourcing is not constrained by my political POV. That said, I appreciate your acknowledgement that I'm not disqualified from editing this page. And the edit I propose to make when the page is unprotected is restoring the Raimondo quote, preferably with exegesis of what his exact complaints are about from another editor who is more interested in and familiar with them, but beginning with the quote, as a start, in any case, for the reasons I've already expressed. Andyvphil (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It would make just as much sense for Cberlet to refrain from commenting here. But I would really like to see someone discuss the gosh-darn text. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there are longstanding prior conflicts with Andyvphil, Leatherstocking, Terrawatt, Niels Gade, MaplePorter, NathanDW, and Masai warrior. These are the same editors who come to this entry and attempt to add negative criticism that unbalances the entry and makes it POV rather than NPOV. The issue is partly the text, and partly the fact that certain editors come to this entry out of spite to settle scores and use the entry for personal attacks.--Cberlet (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited this article. I don't believe I have ever edited an article that you have edited. What is your "longstanding prior edit conflict" with me? Is this what they call "drama"? --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts at Dennis King and Lyndon LaRouche. Also, at the king page, this charming personal attack: "The majority of this article is still written by King and his pal Berlet. It's a vanity article." Also, for several months,Leatherstocking, you went sytematically through numerous entries removing or altering criticisms of LaRouche. This is what they call facts.--Cberlet (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what you call facts? What a bizarre fantasy! I have never made any edits concerning Lyndon LaRouche. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has tools rendering it uniquely easy to refute Mr. Berlet's invention of "facts".[8][9] Leatherstocking has made no mainspace edits to Lyndon LaRouche at all, and I'm not awaiting with bated breath Berlet's evidence (diffs, please) that he went "sytematically through numerous entries removing or altering criticisms of LaRouche". Doesn't look like a sockpuppet account to me, either. Andyvphil (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, for the factual record, that MaplePorter, NathanDW, and Masai warrior, have all been blocked for improper editing conduct related to LaRouche. Everytime a LaRouche sockpuppet is banned, a new one appears.--Cberlet (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, laying aside the question of whether the abusive admin, SlimVirgin, or her crewe were involved in unjustified blockings, none of the individuals you name seem to be involved in this dispute. Exactly whom are you accusing of being a sockpuppet? Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort of a: "when did you stop beating your fife?" Not very well constructed, however. Maybe a C+ in veiled personal attacks, but B- for extra effort...shows room for improvement.--Cberlet (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it was "Exactly whom are you accusing of being a sockpuppet?" You get an "F" for plausibilility of pretended incomprehension, btw.Andyvphil (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! "Make my day?" Is this part of the cliche contest? Dtobias and I are using movie cliches. Join in the fun!--Cberlet (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Does pretended silliness usually work for you when you are caught out?Andyvphil (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is boring. You plop a huge pile of nasty and falacious material crafted by the right-wing Horowitz and his POV spawn on the discussion page and now you want to have a converstaion? Deal or no deal? I never slandered Horowitz...I don't have to, he does a much better job on his own. You pretend there is no history of animosity when that is patently false. Move on. I am not going to stoop to your level of personal attacks. If you don't have a sense of humor, then we should return to editing text. At the very least, however, you owe an apology to SlimVirgin for the vicious and false personal attack. That is common courtesy. --Cberlet (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First you went silly, and now you're bored. The one thing that doesn't stop is the flow of untruth. Exactly where has the "huge pile of nasty and falacious material crafted by the right-wing Horowitz and his POV spawn" that I "plopped" on the discussion page gone? I don't see it anywhere. And, no, I'm not particularly interested in having a conversation with you. You clearly implied that someone opposing you on the Raimondo issue was a new LaRouche sock puppet. This is not a conversation. You are being grilled. You are evading the question: "Exactly whom are you accusing of being a sockpuppet?" Andyvphil (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

...and an angel gets his wings. No, wait, that's when a bell rings, isn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

...no, it's the scene in Mars Attacks! when some admins "Enthusiastic humans who eagerly await the aliens' arrival" are subsequently "mercilessly slaughtered in the initial attack." Wait, that was Independence Day (film). It's both! So, is it true that if you capture a LaRouchite Martian and make them listen to Led Zeppelin their brain implodes? Or was that just science fiction? Bach to the future? :-) --Cberlet (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What text would make the page more NPOV and balanced?

I have no problem with the inclusion of the Raimondo quote as long as it put in context of my numerous articles suggesting that kissing the political butt of antisemites, racists, homophobes, sexists, Holocaust deniers, antisemites, and neofascists is a hard position to justify if one claims the label "progressive." --Cberlet (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to supply specific suggestions for contextual text.Andyvphil (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a new section that picks up material already in the entry.

---

Concerns over right-left coalitions

Berlet was originally on the board of advisers of Public Information Research, founded by Daniel Brandt. Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Berlet, resigned over issues concerning another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty and Prouty's book The Secret Team. The book had been republished by a leading Holocaust denial institute, and Prouty was appearing at conferences sponsored by the Liberty Lobby, a group that claimed to be populist but also praised the Waffen SS, spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, and promoted white supremacy.

In 1991, Berlet wrote a report entitled "Right Woos Left," which was critical of a number of critics of U.S. intelligence policy including Prouty, Mark Lane, Dick Gregory, Craig B. Hulet, and Victor Marchetti for being willing to work with groups on the right such as the John Birch Society or Liberty Lobby without publically distancing themselves from the xenophobic and antisemitic baggage of these groups.

Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, and anti-unionization stalwart. Although the assertion is sometimes attributed to Berlet, he denies ever suggesting that Milliken funded Nader's work, saying he has no evidence of such funding.

According to Berlet, those who uncritically promoted right-left coalitions were really:

• "asking people to close their eyes to the prejudice of Pat Buchanan with his history of racism, sexism, homophobia and antisemitism. Liberals and progressives who join in coalitions with right wing populists see the anti-corporate and anti-government arguments. What they don't see (or choose to ignore) is the flip side of what is called the ‘producerist’ narrative of right wing populism. The producerist narrative sees a hard-working productive middle class and working class being squeezed from above and below by social parasites. Historically, this has led to scapegoating and conspiracy theories of power.... Some argue that globalization of the world's economies on behalf of powerful corporate interests is the only issue that matters. But what about racism, sexism, homophobia, and antisemitism? It is a political fact of life that many liberals and progressives find themselves on the same side of the struggle against corporatist globalization along with business nationalists and the followers of Pat Buchanan. But working on the same side of an issue is not the same as creating a coalition where we give assistance to the enemies of our friends. Which of our allies on the left are we willing to toss overboard to keep the leaky lifeboat of populist anti-elitist politics afloat?"

Berlet was very critical of Lenora Fulani for endorsing Buchanan. This led Justin Raimondo to write:

• "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst. He and his organization have been a veritable fountainhead of anti-Fulani material, which details the political history of Fulani and her group from a leftist perspective. In Berlet’s view, Fulani endorsing Buchanan is a betrayal of leftist principles, a sell-out that does not augur well for the left."

---

This text puts several of the criticisms in context.--Cberlet (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some necessary citations missing, and I'll have to put this suggestion side by side with the existing text to make sure nothing important has been left out, but my first impression is that I can accept this. Andyvphil (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of this text is from the Raimondo page. He at least had the decency to cite what he was critcizing.--Cberlet (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

Cberlet has made sweeping claims on this and other talk pages, saying the the arbcom has given him license to do this and that. I read through the arbcom decisions to see specifically what was said, and I found nothing to back up Cberlet's claims. I did however find this:

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

6) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.

Passed 7-0

— RFAR#Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

--Terrawatt (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what point are you trying to make resurrecting this old laundry here? Cberlet has been a model contributor both before and after that RFAR. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't begrudge you your opinion, but Cberlet has been blocked twice in recent months[10][11] for edit warring, BLP violations and disruption. If he were to show the same tender loving care toward other BLP articles that he does toward "his" article, I'm sure there would be no problem, but he doesn't, and so the double standard is difficult to ignore. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The alleged double standard is irrelevant. This talk page is only concerned about one particular article. If you think there is an overall problem with a particular user, the place to discuss it is an RfC or the admin noticeboard, not here. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet needs to exercise caution editing his autobiography, as anyone does, but he is welcome to say what he likes here on the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was not Terrawatt who resurrected "this old laundry". If you search this page for "Arbcom" you will find the first three occurances of the word (after the index entry for the following section) are Cberlet's. The relevant section in the case Terrawatt refers to (which contains a link to another of the decisions Cberlet refers to) is, however:

Modify Lyndon LaRouche 2

2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages).

Passed 7-0

RFAR#Modify Lyndon LaRouche 2

The editing bans apply directly only to Herschelkrustofsky and Cognition, but I believe Cberlet is correct to believe that he ought to prevail in cases where retaliatory editing simlar to that alleged against those two actually takes place. The problem is that he is showing a tendency to allege similar behavior where it is not taking place (myself and almost certainly Leatherstocking, e.g.), and in fact may already have prevailed before the Arbs with a specious claim (in particular, I judge Rangerdude to have been admonished and put on probation when he did absolutely nothing wrong). Andyvphil (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, Andyvphil, you are not on Arbcom, so your "judgements" as to when Arbcom is right or wrong have little status here, especially when you are absolving yourself.--Cberlet (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Argument from authority(argumentum ad verecundiam, a fallacy in regard to logic). I don't have to absolve myself, as your pathetic attempt to assert the existance of nonexistant evidence has already been fully exposed. And my judgement as to Rangerdude's innocence isn't dependend on my "status" -- anyone can follow the link I supplied and reach their own conclusion as to the truth, even if they don't have the authority to do so in your top-down model. Andyvphil (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that you do not need to follow Wikipedia rules, codes of conduct, and guidelines, then what is your purpose here? You are tying up this page with personal atacks rather than helping to edit text. I am frankly confused. As for argumentum ad verecundiam, you have not understood the concept at all. You might find Hannah Arendt's discussion of a core misunderstanding of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative useful in straightening out issues involving legitimacy of authority versus personal principle and community obligation. Especially important is the idea of Good Will and Duty. Arendt's synthesis can be found in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Worth reading, but the explanation here on Wikipedia is quite solid. Cheers.--Cberlet (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The logical fallacy in argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't here require Arendt's explication. In application it reads "Just because they're Arbs doesn't mean they were right." In fact one of the biggest trolls I am aware of seems to have been an Arb at the time. Also, I don't recall having signed a loyalty oath to the Arbs, or a pledge not to disagree with them, as part of creating my WP account. Was it in the small print I didn't read? Andyvphil (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the above exchange have any bearing on the content of the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The "caution about autobiography" clearly does. It looks to me like Cberlet is re-writing the article to his own specifications, and then soliciting other editors to post it for him, in order to circumvent the arbcom ruling. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct about the relevance of my original comment, but I solicited CB's input and that seems perfectly permissable under WP:AUTO. Andyvphil (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUTO calls on biography subjects to make suggestions about edits on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The other part of the Arbcom decision

Selective citation is very creative, here is another section of the Arbcom ruling:

Harassment of controversial experts

6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Passed 8-0

RFAR

Paints a different picture, doesn't it?--Cberlet (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's a "principle," a re-emphasis of existing policy, not a "finding of fact" or a "remedy." It doesn't confer on you any special privileges. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your interest here, Marvin? The article is protected from editing, and sniping at Chip isn't going to get it unprotected. Please stick to discussing content. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Return to editing discussion?

Well, the faux arbcom hearing has been exhilarating, but can we return to discussing editing actual text now? It's a new year after all.--Cberlet (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses section

When the article's unprotected I propose to do away with the Criticism section in favour of a Responses section that will contain a selection of favourable, unfavourable and mixed reviews of Berlet's work in good third-party publications. The mix of pro- and anti- will depend on what the reviewers said. So far we have one in Terrorism and Political Violence, a Taylor & Francis journal, apparently negative but I haven't seen the whole text, and a range of others quoted by CBerlet above, one or two of which are in important publications, presumably mainly positive but again we'll see. All the stuff relating to Horowitz-Berlet animosity should go into an appropriately titled subsection - I would say in the "Political views" main section, but possibly in the "Responses". It is not in the same category as book reviewing in academic journals or political magazines. Itsmejudith (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If Horowitz doesn't fit in the Responses section, maybe you had better keep Criticism. And where is Raimondo going? Andyvphil (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what Raimondo is about but it would fit in the Responses section. The idea of heading Responses rather than Criticism came from my experience on the Bat Ye'or page, more controversial than this one, where it seems to be holding together a shaky consensus. Have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unprotect to edit summary of review essay

{{unprotect}}. Could an admin unprotect it so that I can alter the summary of the review essay in Terrorism and Political Violence? The current text was added last February by a now banned user. It cherry-picks some negative elements from what is actually a fairly positive review. Also it is important to remember that this is a review essay, i.e. an attempt to move the field of study forward by reference to published texts, rather than a book review of the type that might appear in a political or literary magazine. The author's purpose is not at all to praise or blame books, still less their authors, but to identify gaps in the current scholarship and suggest what is needed to fill them. In relation to Berlet and Lyons he says "... some aspects of the historical analysis represent a significant advance ..." "The narrative is far more coherent ... adds an additional genealogical line ... ". His criticisms of the lack of breadth and depth in the research are aimed at all the authors that he is reviewing - academics as well as independent researchers, UK- as well US-based. He notes that PRA has built up a collection of news clippings that have been used by other researchers in the field. The text as it stands is a serious misrepresentation of the source, probably introduced deliberately by a banned user in order to push a POV. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks, so I've unprotected it. All participants are strongly encouraged to follow the letter and spirit of WP:BLP lest it get protected again. henrik•talk 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And already someone has created a WikiQuote entry consisting of the Raimondo quote and linked it to this entry. --Cberlet (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikiquote for a vendetta

Are there no standards whatsoever on Wikiquote? A page on my real life identity as Chip Berlet was created there for the sole purpose of inserting a nasty quote out of contect into a Wikipedia entry where the quote had already been deleted by admins for violating rules on Biographies of Living Persons. What is even more outlandish, is that my request for deletion was refused. Is there no one here willing to deal with the fact that Wikiquote is being used to violate Wikipedia guidelines on defamation?--Cberlet (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pot! Kettle! Black! --Leon Pringle (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No.--Tom 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That was hardly a useful response. Luckily, there is a serious discussion of the matter over at Wikiquote.--Cberlet (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote is not Wikipedia; en.wikipedia policies and users have no inherent authority on en.wikiquote -- unfortunately not our "jurisdiction," so to speak. I would recommend going up to the Foundation level for cross-project resolution. If you haven't already, contacting OTRS might be an option. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Snake: (to Gloria) Hey, baby. Listen carefully. Someone’s been editing my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him. --Judy in disguise (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection policy

Doc Glasgow first reverted, then protected this page. According to WP:PPOL, Administrators protecting pages for this reason should do so regardless of the state the page may be in, and not revert to another version, or otherwise modify the page, except as permitted below. Such protection should not be considered an endorsement of that version; see also m:The Wrong Version. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute.

I don't think the claim that the Raimondo quote violates BLP is credible. It is simply what is normally referred to as "criticism," and it is certainly far milder in tone than the self-citations from Cberlet that are so plentiful in other BLP articles. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The maxim "do no harm" makes it clear that with the biographies of living people, the "wrong version" is unacceptable. This is a bio, the subject has explicitly objected to the quote, no evidence has been presented to indicate that the quote itself is significant, influential, or particularly relevant. Until such times as that happens, and it seems highly unlikely it even will, the ethos of our BLP demands that the quote stays out. There is no debate here. Arbcom is two doors down the hall - but I really would not recommend that you go there with a case like this.--Doc^g 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote was taken out of context. At least Raimondo had the decency and sense of ethics to inlcude some of the text he objected to and was criticizing. The sliver of the Raimondo quote plopped onto this page was just another round in a POV vendetta by a tiny handful of editors.--Cberlet (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs Process To Handle Private Intelligence Interagency Conflicts

As someone who writes well researched snipe dossiers and exposes myself, and from the same geographic location as Chip Berlet, it is plain to me that at some point there would be conflicts between private intelligence agencies here on Wikipedia. In this case, Berlet's private intelligence agency is beefing with Larouche's private intelligence agency. Both groups have political bias and disputable sense of what constitutes a proto-fascist. The main thing is that Wikipedia should have a tag such as: Interagency Smear Campaigns are prohibited. Berlet does in fact have a reputation for accusing everyone of being a proto-fascist, however, he does back his claims up with dossiers. Nevertheless, he should not be goaltending a Wikipedia entry against rival agencies. Signed, Flipside, Haters Magazine. Contextflexed (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has Conflict of Interest rules, but I've never seen them enforced. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They are enforced all the time.--Cberlet (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Contextflexed's assessment is correct. No one editing Wikipedia has admitted any involvement in "Larouche's private intelligence agency". I don't think anyone contends that Justin Raimondo is a part of that group. There are no lack of reliable sources that have labelled LaRouche a "fascist". It isn't a "smear campaign" to report that designation. On the contrary, our articles on LaRouche would be incomplete if we didn't report on widely-made characterizations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to veer too far off topic here, because Will is not actually addressing the point raised by Contextflexed, but I would like to point out that what Will is saying is incorrect. LaRouche has not been labelled a "fascist" by any reliable source. He has been labelled a fascist by some notable political opponents, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and some not-so-notable ones, such as Berlet. But these are not reliable sources, although their opinions may have been reported in reliable sources. A reliable source for an actual assessment of LaRouche would be a peer-reviewed journal of political science, for example. There is a difference between a scholarly analysis and a political epithet. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record. Political Research Associates is not a "private intelligence agency," but a non-profit think tank and publishing house, which I do not control. I do not edit Wikipedia on behalf of Political Research Associates. Raimondo does not run a "private intelligence agency." LaRouche does run a "private intelligence agency" LaRouche has been called a fascist in published scholarly sources.--Cberlet (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Contextflexed's point, do you know whether or not elements of "Larouche's private intelligence agency" are involved in editing Wikipedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't invested any time in finding out. None of the participants other than Chip track back to Boston at a glance. I was using the general heuristics 1)that only Larouchians are interested in buffing Larouche's image while tarnishing his detractors, and 2) that Larouchians habitually report back to the hive, and 3) that the LYM (Larouche Youth Movement) like Spartacus, functions primarily as an infiltration and harassment force in addition to pamphleting. In my small experience, people who were deleting neg or wiping links for fifth column organizations were always principals. Contextflexed (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that LYM or other members of the LaRouche movement, or even his private intelligence agency, are editing articles on LaRouche or his detractors. One set of accounts that edited with a pro-LaRouche POV went our of their way to say they only had a passing knowledge or interest in LaRouche despite acting otherwise. Unfortunately, with Wikipedia's open editing model it's hard to control POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. It's sensible to assume that every organisation with an agenda: national governments, NGOs, educational institutions, political parties, and the rest, are all present on WP in one way or another. Add in everyone who has something that they want to market to a mass audience. Fortunately, few of them have a concept of reliable sources or source editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I can propose a simple solution: sources that are organizations which have a pronounced agenda should be used only in articles about those organizations, per WP:SELFPUB. Whenever admins spot self-citing by representatives of such organizations (in particular) in articles about the opponents of those organizations, they should put a stop to it. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

<----I have another proposal. Fawning sychophants of cult leaders who are A. convicted felons, B. deranged crackpots, and C. antisemitic, racist, sexist, and homophobic bigots, should not be allowed to edit articles about their fantasy guru.--Cberlet (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --Cberlet (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking to yourself, are you? I don't see how the status of somebody as a felon, antisemitic, or "deranged crackpot" (a subjective assessment that fails NPOV) affects whether supporters of theirs should be allowed to edit. The same principles apply as would for anybody who's a strong supporter or opponent of an article subject (whether a politician or a pop star); their edits need to be strongly scrutinized for NPOV-ness, but a categorical ban from their participating in the editing is not called for unless their actions show a continued inability to adhere to policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am talking to people like you who facilitate trolling on Wikipedia through a failure to deal with real-world fanatics and the need for an online democratic community to defend itself against totalitarian attacks that are destructive and malicious. I would be delighted to discuss this with you here. How many dozen LaRouche fanatics have come and gone on these pages? How many new ones keep appearing like zombies in a B horror film? How many scores of wasted hours do editors such as Will Beback have to spend because people like you refuse to enforce common sense guidelins that already exist? And how many times have you entered a dispute to support a hands off approach that allows the bullies to triumph? I look forward to the discussion. --Cberlet (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your team" seems to want to "defend against bullies" by becoming bigger, badder bullies yourself, and defend against "totalitarian attacks" by one-upping their authoritarianism. You'll destroy the village in order to save it. Sometimes the cure may be worse than the disease. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you take it to your respective talk pages, please? Thanks. El_C 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Failing to deal" with rival fanatics of the left. Now that's the Chip Berlet I know. The notable Chip Berlet is the guy who is notable for having a private intelligence agency out of Somerville / Cambridge, MA which is an extension of the leftist agenda, which includes, labeling people as per the above entry, as racist, sexist, homophobic antisemites, and making it part of the mission of their agency to snipe various enemies of the People's Republic of Cambridge on Wikipedia. I don't understand the obsession with perception management on Wikipedia, other than it being some kind of Othello game by various samizdats. Berlet has gotten flustered and suggested that no one who agrees with Lyndon Larouche be able to post to Larouche articles. The hope is that Larouche (albeit rightly) would be pilloried on Wikipedia. I don't think it is Chip's place to be pillorying people on Wikipedia. That is what his website is for. This is why I suggest that P.I.s be openly labeled and that inter-intel warfare be tagged. Contextflexed (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled by Cberlet's rage at Terrawatt's suggestion. As I understand it, Wikipedia was not intended to be vehicle for anyone's pillorying, according to WP:NOT. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And when living people are involved, pillorying is against WP:BLP too, and that's a very strictly enforced policy these days. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons also applies to the subject of this article. El_C 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First, at least chip uses his real name, which makes looking for COI easier. (Same with me.) However, having just cleaned up some of his barely relevant and vague smears on a BLP, I wandered over here. If he is smearing people with crappy sources, hopefully people are cleaning up behind him.

The larger question is dealing with whether some of these groups and individuals are reliable sources, ala Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Would be nice if we could put up conclusions as a chart there or something - recognizing that opinions will change. It's absurd that groups that barely source their smears of individuals and groups can be called reliable sorces on WP. Don't know about Political Research Associates but splc is pretty bad in couple articles i've read on their web page. Carol Moore 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please be aare that this talk page exists to disucss improvements to the article about Chip Berlet, the researcher. If you'd like to discuss edits made by Cberlet then a more appropriate location would be user talk:Cberlet, or any of various forums. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, sir! I'd say barring mass resistance, you should feel free to move this section to the cberlet talk page. Carol Moore 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Oh, please, leave it here, to be denounced by Carol Moore is a real honor. Hi, Carol, long time no see. Cheers. --Cberlet (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First, perhaps the general topic belongs here Wikipedia:Attack. Also just noted chip and this issue discussed previously in a couple sections here - Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest. How much policies in general prohibits specific criticisms of editors on their article or talk pages, I'm not sure. Mine were specific in one case and questioning in the other. Also all of these organizations must remember that attacking people off line because of their online wiki edits is a wikipedia no no. Wikipedia:Attack#Off-wiki_attacks As I said, at least Chip is honest enough to edit under his own name. Anyway I'll leave what to do about it to Mr. Beback's better judgment. (Also noticed Chip in past criticized my exposes on police brutality and coverup at Waco/1993 and (I assume) of black bloc violence at street demos at this link. (July 2008 note: by the way, in case Chip thinks I carry a grudge for his comment on the Left Business Observers list serve linked above, believe me I consider this but a minor evidence that another person noticed I exist.) Carol Moore 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

<-----------------I have asked that this page be deleted. I have asked that my user account be deleted. I am tired of the wikistalking and endless editing nonsense. I have been battling over false and malicious text on this page since December 2004. Now there are attempts to delete or sanitize other pages simply because some of my published scholarly or journalistic work is cited. Only a tiny handful of editors have stood up against this. I thank them, and wish them well.--Cberlet (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure if there is any allegedly libelous info that does not come from WP:RS you can have it removed. But you are too important a person, and quoted far too often on wikipedia, to have your page removed. I mean, what if George W. Bush asked HIS page to be removed? Or Bill O'Reilly? Or Lyndon LaRouche? Or thousands of other controversial high profile people? Carol Moore 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

As I understand WP:BLP, it is not necessary for something to fall into the cateogry of 'libelous,' but merely that it be controverisal or derogatory and not well sourced. I have cited an example below. While I sympathise with Chip's desire to have this biography removed, and would have voted in favour of that had I been aware of the AfD, I encourage him to not vanish but to post his objections on this page.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip is presented as a Reliable Source for many contentious accusations in BLP and other articles throughout Wikipedia. These sorts of accusations must be attributed, and should be linked to a Wikipedia article so that the reader may evaluate the source of the accusations. In the case of Daniel Brandt, whose bio was deleted, I don't think that he is used as a source at Wikipedia to any significant degree. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed this new policy which is a bit too sweeping on the one hand, and on the other not inclusive enough since may not include groups like PRA. Going to note the comments in first paragraph of this discussion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Political_advocacy_groups Carol Moore 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Criticism section

The Criticism section of this article strikes me as excessively long for this article. I daresay the entire article is too long generally. If one removes what is attributed to FrontPageMagazine and Resist Inc., which are manifestly not reliable sources, that leaves only the University of Hartford professor. I know this is a controversial article and I don't want to remove these without discussion, so let's discuss.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see much discussion, just removal, but now that Chip has left he can threaten to sue, so probably some of removals in best interest of wikipedia. I think FrontPage's response is of encyclopedic interest and should be included, though in a less confusing manner than previously. I don't consider them a terribly reliable source for fact or opinion, and I don't know what the final verdict is on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. However, if they are criticized and respond, it seems to me a short summary of their response and a link is in order. Carol Moore 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The text from the criticism section has been merged to other section of the article for a better NPOV presentation. The long list of works has been moved to a separate article Bibliography of Chip Berlet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is better but still is objectionable on BLP grounds. I agree with Will Beback on Raimondo. I don't believe that FrontPageMagazine is a sufficient source either and think that whatever is attributed there should be removed.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to feature Berlet's attacks on David Horowitz in the article, while deleting Horowitz' response. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the interest of NPOV, at the very least you have to add something like: This led to an internet exchange published at FrontPage magazine. Carol Moore 02:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No one ever said that WP policies are intented to provide equity between parties. If I recall correctly, editors argued that Nicholas Benton's article in the newspaper he owns was self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a third-party source that describe the rebuttal of Horovitz, then it can be added. Otherwise, a WP:SPS cannot be used in this case. If this is a notable dispute, I am sure that there will be such sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I agree with Will on this and would point out that FrontPage Magazine is not mentioned in this article. The fact that he said something that resulted in an "internet exchange" is beside the point.--Janeyryan (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the issue whether Horowitz site and the back and forth there reliable sources, for fact, opinion, or BLP. Or at least for quoting Berlet's response to whatever Horowitz response was. If so, then at least a mention of a response and link to it is not POV but part of the story and can't just be summarily deleted. (And I'm talking wiki policy, since I'm hardly a fan of Horowitz.) Carol Moore 02:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If Horowitz is notable enough for an an article in Wikipedia, then we could add his views on Berlet there. But not here, according to WP:BLP and WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are far more important people to mention in any Horowitz article and any such entry quickly would be removed from the page. Carol Moore 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

'Friends of Albania'

I removed the sentence saying that Mr. Berlet was a 'friend of Albania' 24 years ago. I think that this needs to be cited in a publication of greater reliability than 'Resist Inc.' in a biography of a living person.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the "Albania" material that was taken out over the last few edits should be restored, because it debunks a rumor about this BLP. While FrontPage Magazine is obviously a POV source, it still has an editorial board and meets WP's requirements for sourcing. I recommend restoring the "source of FrontPage Magazine's allegation" material, but clarifying it as "source of the right-wing FrontPage Magazine's allegation" and removing the "Communist repression" block quote. I also recommend restoring Mr. Berlet's rebuttal published by Resist, Inc. While I'm not familiar with that publisher, it would be a primary source by and about the topic of this article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither publication meets the requirements of WP:BLP for negative information on a living person, as both are right-wing political rant sheets. Lord only knows what 'Resist inc.' is. Reinstating the 'Albania' nonsense would simply dredge up a minor negative factoid from 25 years ago and I think WP:UNDUE applies.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Raimondo Quote

I propose the re-inclusion of the Justin Raimondo quote that was debated but never resolved. It has the advantage of being very concise and is representative of a wide array of Berlet's critics. Also, I agree with Anti-Gorgias that the list of Berlet's articles is excessively long and unencyclopedic. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on Raimondo quote. For reference, here it is: Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[12] --Terrawatt (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Antiwar.com is Raimondo's self-published site and is not a reliable source for BLPs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The site lists the following staff: Webmaster/Managing Editor Eric Garris, Editor Matthew Barganier, Asst. Webmaster/Senior Editor Jeremy Sapienza, Associate Editor/Student Coordinator Michael Ewens, Letters Editor Sam Koritz, Editorial Director Justin Raimondo, Research Editor Jason Ditz, Editorial Assistant Scott Horton, Executive Director Alexia Gilmore, Senior Researcher Kevin Hall, plus 20 researchers.[13] It is not self-published. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the claim can be made that AntiWar.com is a SPS. The article should take note of the criticism, made by a variety of commentators, that Berlet is quick to brand all and sundry as neofascists. The Raimondo quote is representative, and should be included. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject, so please describe who publishes anitwar.com? What is their editorial policy? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to antiwar.com, the parent organization is the Randolph Bourne Institute, of which Raimondo is a fellow. The antiwar.com site provides an extensive mission statement. --Niels Gade (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted this edit [14] because it added the contentious antiwar.org quotation and because it added material apparently taken from an email posting.[15] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written that section, sourcing it to the PRA website. The Raimondo quote may only be seen as contentious if your claim that it is self-published is correct. Terrawatt's info appears to refute that claim -- please respond. --Niels Gade (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The PRA page cited does not mention Berlet. Neither PRA nor antiwar.com come anywhere near meeting the requirements of BLP for sourcing of derogatory or controversial statements about living people. WP:BLP says as follows: 'Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.'--Janeyryan (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as you are treating both (and I assume Chip himself) equally for BLP purposes... Of course, a lot of the groups PRA has criticized can now ask that PRA/Berlet criticisms be removed. Carol Moore 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not sure that Janeyryan realizes that PRA is Chip Berlet. But I sure agree with the part about PRA being an inadequate source for BLPs (except for Berlet himself.) --Terrawatt (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A) there are other people who work at PRA. B) the reliability of the PRA as a source for Wikipedia articles has been discussed before in appropriate places and it was agreed that it qualifies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it absolutely was not so agreed. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right- there have been several postings about it and I may have mixed them up. However since this thread isn't about using the PRA as a source we can probably leave that to another talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you were right.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Link, please, if you wish your statement to be given any credence whatsoever. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to a discussion in which it was determined that the PRA is not permissable as a source? --Janeyryan (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't need to, as I am making a negative statement. Please don't change the subject from the request to back your statement up. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Will, you have asserted this opinion on many occasions, but I don't think that it is justified by the actual discussions "in appropriate places" (which Carol has helpfully linked below.) I would also note that "there are other people who work at AntiWar.com." --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Other people also work at the Falls Church News-Press. But some editors have asserted that when the owner and editor in chief writes an article is is essentially self-published. How ould that principle apply here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What we have before us are sources that are definitely not adequate as sources of derogatory information on Berlet. Let's keep the focus on that. --Janeyryan (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Janey, I understand that you are a new editor here. I don't think you understand how some of these policies work. The first source is in fact written by Berlet, which is why it doesn't mention him. Now, we can debate whether Berlet is a suitable source for BLP comments about other living persons (I am inclined to think not,) but Berlet is without question an excellent source for information on Berlet's own views (as it says in the quote that you yourself supply from WP:BLP.) In the case of the Raimondo quote, no evidence has been presented to support the argument that AntiWar.Com is self-published. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I am not so new that I cannot read a web page. I clicked on the link used as a citation and Berlet was not even mentioned. Yet even though I brought that to the attention of the editors here, it is still being reintroduced into the article. I did a word search in the text for 'Berlet' and it was not there. See for yourself[16]. I trust that you are not claiming that Raimondo's personal attack reflects 'Berlet's own views.'--Janeyryan (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Marvin, thanks. Try clicking on this link. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies on the name related brain freeze. Marvin I clicked on the link and the quote is not there. Let's see the actual web page and then we can fairly discuss it. Given what has been said about PRA being preapproved as a web site citation, I'm keeping my mind open. If acceptable, and if the quote is accurate, there may be other issues, I assume antiwar.com is no longer being seriously advanced as an acceptable source.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. "Right Woos Left" is a long article by Chip Berlet, which is posted in installments on the PRA web site. It is one of his better known articles, and is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article. Because it is in installments, the byline "By Chip Berlet" does not appear on each of the web pages, only the beginning. I don't know about PRA being "preapproved" -- where was that said? -- but it is certainly a reliable source for Berlet's views, because it is the website of his organization. I will also say that I have no problem with AntiWar.com as a source. It does not seem to be self-published. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to discussions about both sources are now here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions Carol Moore 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Marvin, I still have not seen a link to the text that you wish to add. Until that is provided, there is no point in discussing its addition. Carol, thank you. Antiwar.com does appear to be prohibited as a source and PRA allowed, if I am interpreting the discussions correctly.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is correct. And let me attempt to spell out, once again, the situation with the links. The link to the quoted text is right here, but it doesn't say "by Chip Berlet" because it is not the beginning of the article. The beginning of the article, where it does say "by Chip Berlet," is here. It's all the same article. Therefore, the quoted text really is by Chip Berlet. I am getting through here? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'll read it through and post my comments, if any.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<---Just read through the Antiwar.com entries and they all really are talking about editorial comment, and especially that produced by Justin Raimondo. Justin had had two books published by credible 3rd party publishers, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement and "An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard." He probably could be considered an expert on those topics, even in his columns. He's been published in the LA Times and New York Times. However, for BLP purposes in this article, doubtless wikipedia would be risking a law suit. However, antiwar.com does have a paid staff, is a division of [http://randolphbourne.org/ Randolph Bourne Institute) and publishes commentaries by many academics and experts and those each would have to be challenged on their own merits. So I don't think we can say that antiwar.com per se is not a reliable source, only some of its writers on some topics. Carol Moore 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The discussions that you yourself cited found that antiwar.com is not a acceptable source. That can be tested again but I think the result would be the same. Certainly the inflammatory remark made by Raimondo needs to be picked up by a reliable source and not self-published by him or picked up by a website that is set up for a political purpose, 'paid staff' or not.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they held that Justin Raimondo's comments on certain subjects - like Chip Berlet - discussed in those threads were not reliable. If the topic had been Raimondo on Rothbard (who he wrote and autobiography of) or some well known antiwar.com writer on some topic in which they are an acknowledged expert. So please be precise. Thanks. Carol Moore 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Anyone who doubts that Berlet is quick to smear people as neo-fascist need only take a look at this. It's not a source for the article, but it's relevant to the discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That comment is out of line. Please remember that WP:CIVIL is a requirement. Making remarks like that about your fellow editors is inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which comment are you referring to, Leatherstocking's comment, or this one? --Marvin Diode (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Will's comment was perfectly appropriate, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate forum to become exercised over a talk page to which he most certainly was not referring.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Closure

A couple of people have left comments on my talk page regarding my closure of the article's second AfD, so I thought I'd explain a little. Yes, I did call for a "keep" in the AfD but I still closed it anyway. Generally, users who have voted in AfDs shouldn't close the AfD. However, I feel that this was a speedy keep from the get-go, given that the nominator did not actually give a !vote, with "the subject wishes for the article on them to be deleted" not being a valid rationale per WP:DP. Sure, the notability was questioned at a couple points, but consensus and the presence of sources both seemed to show that he is, no doubt, notable. By closing it, I was not going by the reasoning behind my own vote, but rather the consensus established by others, and by the fact that the nominator's reasoning didn't hold water (although it was most certainly in good faith). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The objections to the closure seem to be more about the process than the outcome. Even with the cleanest of hands it's best not to close AfDs in which one has participated. Don't we still put a tag on the talkpage when an article has been kept at AfD? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually. {{multidel}} is useful when there has been more than one XfD/DRV in the discussion history. GRBerry 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of closing things out, if Berlet no longer editing, should he be deleted from category notable wikipedians? Carol Moore 12:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No, for readers, the fact that this user and article subject is one and the same is significant whether or not he has resigned from editing. __meco (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that that category is essentially there so we can boast about having notable contributors (hence, vandals and those driven out by trolls for good pseudonomous editing are not included) Berlet should probably no longer be included. He rejected Wikipedia because he couldn't see the point of fighting the crap-flooding by single issue trolls on his subject of expertise. He is not, now, a contributor, regardless of his good work in the past. John Nevard (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a review of Berlet's edit summaries, not to mention some of his edits and relevant talk entries, shows that he was quite a hostile editor. He certainly felt free to insult me in maybe our second encounter on wikipedia. Hostility can engender more hostility. (Maybe I should just break down and delete the insulting thing he wrote about me on the PRA page?) Carol Moore 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

We need the category to warn readers of possible COI. He may have resigned, but his many edits remain.--Leatherstocking (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Creating former editors and then trying to keep track of those who come and go and come back might be too much trouble. And then of course there is the issue of someone who might (and with wikipedia's blessing) come back anonymously to avoid harassment but others might SUSPECT it's really them. While someone shouldn't be listed if merely suspected, the past listing at least keeps them in play. Carol Moore 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

• There's no need to stress over this. I've worked on numerous articles that had the same tag and we've never remove them once added, even if the notable Wikipedia only made a few edits years ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But I think this is a special situation. Any editing he may have done has been since repudiated, and that tag gives the incorrect impression that this is a autobiography of Mr. Berlet.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No special situation at all. The edits, if are good and within NPOV and other content guidelines can remain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidently my writing has been a monument to unclarity, as this is the second time within a short span of time that I have not been clear. I believe that Cberlet's edits have been fine. It is the notice at the top of this page identifying him as an editor that I find objectionable, given the efforts that have been made to slant this article against him. He requested that the article be deleted as a result of that slanting. It is ironic, then, that the notice at the top of the page is allowed to remain. --Janeyryan (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Having it there makes it not look so secretive for those who might wander back in history and see he edited and think it's some big secret. Carol Moore 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Plus, it is the case that much of the article as it presently stands was written by Cberlet, or taken almost verbatim from his web pages. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If he had written it, and his 'authorship' was so evident, I doubt very much that he would want this article deleted.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition?

I think that Mr. Berlet's discovery of plagiarism in the book Leaderless Jihad is worthy of mention. See [17].--Janeyryan (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is criticism of Chip Berlet by Justin Raimondo a violation of WP:BLP?

Here is the quote in question: Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[18].

It has been argued that the source, AntiWar.Com (where Raimondo serves as Editorial Director) is self-published. However, AntiWar.Com has a substantial staff, listed above, and is a subsidiary of another organization, the Randolph Bourne Institute. The argument is now being made that the criticism from Raimondo violates BLP. Here is the relevant section of the BLP policy:

Criticism and praise

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

What do outside editors think? --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Anti-war.com and Raimondo is roughly on par with Berlet and his organization viz notability. If Berlet is a reliable source on certain matters, I would think Raimondo and his pub is too. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And since material from PRA abounds at Wikipedia, it should either be systematically removed, or AntiWar.Com should be welcome here. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The material from Anti-war.com/Justin Raimondo could very well be used in an article about that person (or that site if it pass the notability test.) Otherwise it should not be used in this article based on WP:BLP#Sources and WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-war.com assessment as a source could be brought up at WP:RS/N which will bring much wider participation than an RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not the case the last time it was tried. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just thought it might be helpful if I pointed out that the relevant portion of BLP is, in addition to the one cited, the portion that relates to non public figures. It says:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.

This kind of charge as made by Raimondo needs to be published in multiple, highly reliable sources, and needs to be relevant to the subjects notability. Even if it's relevant to Berlet's notability, I think that Raimondo's charge in a publication he edits needs to be treated as a primary source, which needs to be published in multiple reliable secondary sources. Cheers,Janeyryan (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unquestionably relevant to Berlet's notability. It is also not defamatory; quotes have been provided from Chip's Article "Right Woos Left" which illustrate precisely the sort of thing Raimondo is talking about. As far as Raimondo in Anti-War.Com being a primary source, you lost me on that one. It is political commentary by an "advocacy journalist," no different than Berlet himself. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this is not a symmetrical issue. While it is OK to present Berlet's viewpoints on Raymondo's in Berlet's article, and Raymondo's viewpoints on Berlet in Raymondo's article, it would be against WP:BLP to mention Raymondo's views of Berlet on Berlet's article when these are available on a SPS or a questionable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Berlet's views of many, many other public figures in many, many other articles? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As Jossi said, it's not symmetrical. By analogy, we could use the New York Times as a source for Joe's Blog, but we can't use Joes Blog as a source for the NYT. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's high time we start removing some of those Joe's Blog accusations from Berlet that are plastered all over Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We can include criticism of Chip Berlet only if the criticism is coming from a reputed and authoritative source. Anti-war.com/Justin Raimondo are none of these two. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Terrawat: Raimondo pontificating on Raimondo's website is a primary source.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Leatherstocking: Correct. public figures. That is my point. Berlet is not a public figure. What he says about a public figure is covered by BLP; what is said about him, as he is not a public figure is covered by the more exacting rules of the NPF subsection of WP:BLP.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Berlet is a public figure as he is an recognized author. Criticism of Berlet does not need to come from an authoritative source, but the sources cannot be questionable or self-published as is the case with anti-war.com. If we want ciriticism of Berlet, we ought to find reputable published works that describe that criticism. We could even include Raymondo's views on Berlet, if these viewpoints are covered in secondary and reputable published works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I have seen the assertion made repeatedly that AntiWar is a self-published source, but the evidence provided by Terrawatt indicates that it is not. Unless the opponents of the site can provide a convincing rebuttal, they should stop referring to it as self-published. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points. It was previously argued by Marvin Diode that when the owner of a publication is the author of a piece it is essentially self-published. Has his view changed? Second, if this quotation were to be used then it requires more context to indicate what Raimondo was talking about. Taking it out of context gives it the wrong weight and emphasis. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed, but it's irrelevant here. Raimondo does not own Antiwar.com. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Come now. The 'editorial director' of a small website is tantamount to self-publishing his views.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell, the Washington Post is "tantamount" to a self-published paper for the Graham family. But for Wikipedia's purposes, there is a big difference between "self-published" and "tantamount to self-published."

We went around and around on this at the reliable sources noteboard, without ever getting a consensus. Is there any other mechanism for deciding these things? --Niels Gade (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Small websites are not comparable to large newspapers. Perhaps you could post a link to that previous discussion if you have it. Cheers,Janeyryan (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, Berlet may certainly be a public figure in the legal sense but he is not "generally well known," which by my reading puts him in the NPF category. But I agree that the distinction is not important because antiwar.com is clearly not RS and the other parts of BLP apply.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't produced any evidence to back your claims about AntiWar. You've just repeated your opinion many times. The Raimondo quote is properly sourced and notable, and should go in the article, which lacks criticism and tends to be a puff piece. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP is the central issue here, and is so framed in this section. I've already stated my opinion on this and I agree with Jossi as well, that Raimondo's view needs to be published in multiple independent sources.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that neither Raimondo's view of Berlet coming from antiwar.com nor Berlet's view of Raimondo coming Berlets publication (if there is such criticism there) is particularly notable. (If they had a useful well sourced, NPOV fact that might be OK). Hope thats helpful Probably not. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All this is fine with me, as long as it also applies to the numerous defamatory comments sourced to Berlet and PRA which have been proliferated all over Wikipedia. If AntiWar is deemed to be self-pub or inadequate for BLP comments, exactly the same standard should apply to PRA. Let the cleanup begin. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the antiwar.com quote under provisions of WP:BLP. If necessary to ensure compliance with our policy on biographies of living people I will protect the page or, reluctantly, temporarily suspend individuals' editing privileges if necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. However, could you be a bit more specific about why you think the quote violates BLP? --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. This hasn't happened, in spite of lengthy discussion recently above and in the past. I don't see further discussion being useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When Justin Raimondo's comments get published by something more reliable than Antiwar.com perhaps then it might warrant inclusion. As is, its certainly non notable and the sorces is not reliable. CENSEI (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are multiple issues with this Raimondo quote.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Two references are made to the Nobs01 decision on this page. Neither ArbCom, the Trustees, nor Jimbo Wales have seen fit to clarify the defamatory smears against my person & character in the Nobs01 case (my real life identity became public during the case). Mr Berlet, admitted in the course of the hearing that I was not connected with the LaRouche movement, which was the basis of his complaint. The ArbCom chairman and other Berlet confabs have likewise agreed I am in no way associated with or sympathetic to Lyndon LaRouche & the LaRouche movement.

Nonetheless, Wikipedia has allowed Mr. Berlet to use their webserver & their internal regulatory processes to publicly defame Mr. Berlet's targets. nobs (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Berlet announced a few months back that he was leaving Wikipedia. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That does not remove the defamatory smears embalmed in the Nobs01 Arbcom ruling & elsewhere in WP. nor the hundreds of mirror sites repeating such admittedly false information. nobs (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've piped the links so that your handle doesn't appear on the page, except for this thread. Be careful of the Streisand effect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Now I want to read all about it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Berlet editing

Chip Berlet should completely stay away from this article, or others mentioning him or his work, their talk pages and refrain from trying to add or remove any material pro, con, true, false or whatever either directly or indirectly on any of those pages.

It should be a wiki rule that no author can edit, comment or try to influence any article, or its talk pages, in any way that mentions them or their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.7.243 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that you aren't Chip Berlet? For the actual guideline, see WP:COI. •:• Will Beback •:• 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are attempts to delete or sanitize other pages simply because some of my published scholarly or journalistic work is cited ... Cberlet (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"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." (p. 114-115) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet

Of course we know how this has been handled in the past. nobs (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What occasions this discussion? I believe that Chip has retired from WP editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Conservapedia, where at least one editor appears to be obsessed by Berlet.[19][20] •:• Will Beback •:• 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is one allowed to link to such BADSITES? ;)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, I read through the whole thing, Old Nazis, New Nazis, and the Republican Party and couldn't find a scintilla of evidence to support Berlet's claim in the intro,

"the trail from the bloody atrocities of the Waffen SS to the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican Party and even to the paneled walls of White House briefing rooms."

Isn't this kind of hype is a little to risky for Wikipedia to risk its reputation on? nobs (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rob, in which article do we use that assertion? •:• Will Beback •:• 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the use of extremist sources. You yourself joined the consensus to redirect the Roots of Ant-Semitism after an extensive discussion over What Counts as Reputable. nobs (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A sentence written in the preface of someone else's book is proof that Berlet is an extreme source? Perhaps that assertion would make sense on Conservapedia. By Wikipedia standards, that sentence proves nothing. •:• Will Beback •:• 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In the above link, our old friend RD made a pretty convincing case that the Reliable Sources policy (written by SlimVirgin) cited the Socialist Workers Party as an example of an extreme source. The subject of this article mainspace's own biography openly boasts working for that same Socialist Workers Party. (Slim says, "Okay, I'll stop now" and it was litigated in an ArbCom case originally accepted as Requests for Arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin but somehow ended up being called "Rangerdude".)

As an aside, how, pray tell, does a respondent in a ArbCom case get to remove herself and make the complaining party the respondent? You should know. You were the other respondent in that case that ArbCom voted to hear against you, but somehow ended up being the complainant. nobs (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others? I don't know how the ArbCom decides the scope of cases, and I've posted a question on just that point in the appropriate place. But none of this discussion concerns improvements to this article so we're off-topic. •:• Will Beback •:• 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. ArbCom voted to accept the case against SlimVirgin & yourself [21], yet nowhere in the surviving record do we see SlimVirgin listed as a participant in the case. Amazing, since it was SlimVirgin herself who removed herself as a defendent. Remarkable transparancy, or lack thereof, in Wikipedia's internal regulatory processes. Could I do the same? Remove myself as a defendent from an ArbCom case after ArbCom votes to accept? nobs (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with editing this article. The only folks who can answer your questions are ArbCom members. You can post a request at WP:RFAR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with editing this article. In that very case ArbCom voted to hear against you & SlimVirgin (/Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet}, well qualified sources were presented for the statement, "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public." Yet through an obviously tainted process, and reprisals against editors seeking NPOV, this non-objective and unscholarly image was foisted upon Wikipedia & an unsuspecting public. nobs (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

The third paragraph of Books and other writings reads: The New York Review of Books describes the book as an excellent account in Right-Wing Populism in America, describing the outermost fringes of American conservatism. [10] The Library Journal said it - with the latter sentence ending after the it. Autarch (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another notability discussion?

On 27 March 2010 somebody inserted a 'notability' warning. It seems to me that a) this page has handily survived two rfd debates (archived above), and b) it does not lack for third-party reliable sources or discussion. Is there a reason for raising this question again? I am inclined to delete the warning if nobody will step up and defend it. M.boli (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Third, I agree. He is a moderately well known author. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User Counteraction described the reason for the notability warning as follows. I apologize for not moving it here earlier. M.boli (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC):

Most cited sources are primary sources. According to the guidelines on Notability; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I question the reliability and independence of the secondary sources. Counteraction (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:American anti-fascists

I undid revision 553683108 by Obiwankenobi (talk). If someone were to include in the article that "Berlet is a noted anti-fascist," people would expect to see a source cited. I don't see why placing him in "Category:American anti-fascists" should be any less verifiable. To simply read his bio, decide that he seems to be anti-fascist, and place him in the category without citing a source would seem to be a variety of Original Research. Joe Bodacious (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe - actually I didn't stick him in an anti-fascist category, I just moved him to a country-specific version of same - someone else put him in that cat in 2011. In a quick google search I found a number of articles and blogs where he is referred to as an anti-fascist, and his record also speaks to that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)