Talk:Political Research Associates/Archive 1

Hi,

Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche and other critics of Political Research Associates tend to post material here that is not merely critical but full of false or very outdated information. Please try to keep a balance of positive and negative out of fairness. Try to actually fact check criticisms before posting them.

Chip Berlet - Political Research Associates

Added NPOV note

Hi,

I am inviting a discussion of how to make this page balanced, while cutting the material that is not accurate. There are only a tiny handful of people who are critics of PRA. I am calling for a discussion about how to present this criticism fairly.

This page is now unbalanced in favor of PRA. Let the critics add material so that it does not contain false claims, and does not exceed 50% of the page. --Cberlet 15:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that says claims should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), clearly sourced and referenced. See Wikipedia:cite sources. There should be a Reference section at the end of the article. Each book, paper, newspaper article or website referred to by the author for a particular claim should be listed in this section. Throughout the text, as claims are made, a reference should be provided inline like this [1] and then also listed in the References section. (Not all claims have to be referenced, of course: it's a question of commonsense, but if a claim is challenged by another editor, a reference must be provided.)

References should be reputable. The more contentious the claim, the more reputable the reference needs to be. Not all editors stick to these rules, but they are supposed to.

There has been a problem with several Wikipedia articles being edited by Lyndon LaRouche activists/supporters. They are Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden, Weed Harper and 64.30.208.48. (The latter two appear to be the same person; not sure about the others. Weed Harper and a notorious Usenet LaRouche activist called Ralph Gibbons have both posted on Usenet using IP address 64.30.208.48, and the same IP address has been reported for sending out pro-LaRouche spam around the Web.) Anyone who consistently tries to correct their editing is accused of being an anti-LaRouche activist. I first came to the attention of these people when I wrote the article on Jeremiah Duggan, which they heavily contested. See Talk:Jeremiah Duggan/archive1 and Talk:Jeremiah Duggan for details of the dispute. In the end, we agreed on a compromise version, which is what you now see on the page. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast but this is what happens to articles they get involved in. My own view is that these editors should not be editing articles that have anything to do with LaRouche, but that is just my personal view. There was an Arbitration Committee ruling against them, which you can find at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. The ruling states that they are not allowed to insert "original research" emanating from the LaRouche organization into any article that is not about Lyndon LaRouche or a related person or organization. The articles that are regarded as being connected to LaRouche can be viewed at Template:LaRouche. They would therefore not be allowed to insert "original research" from the LaRouche organization into the Political Research Associates article, unless there was something in the article critical of the LaRouche organization, in which case the LaRouche response could be quoted. What is meant by "original research" here are claims not verifiable without reference to the LaRouche organization.

If you feel able to, I would suggest you take the most biased version of this article you can find, and try to incorporate, into the current version, any of the claims you feel may have some validity, providing references for each claim, bearing in mind that the article must be written from a neutral point of view. Alternatively, it might make more sense if editors who are not involved with, and who are not opposed to, Political Research Associates do the editing. I hope this information helps. Slim 02:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

unsourced claim

There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially Chip Berlet, has a bias against persons and groups who see conspiracies as driving history and current events. Citation on this? DanKeshet 20:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Necessity of NPOV notice?

Is it still necessary to have the notice about NPOV disputes at the head of this page? It looks perfectly kosher to me. If no one has any objections, I'd just as soon see it removed. Wally 03:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, can you provide a reference for the Brandt quotes or remove them? Also, I'm going to remove the Brandt link you gave, as it is absurd and mentions the silly PROMIS conspiracy story, which truly is the preserve of lunatics. Slim 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The reference is the very link that you wish to remove. I think that it is customary to included references in the external links section, but to ease your mind, I have added a footnote.

Incidentally, you are the first person to denounce Daniel Brandt as a source, to my knowledge. If you will take another, perhaps slower look at the linked article, you will find that he is in fact criticizing the PROMIS story. --HK 16:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put the NPOV flag back up. This entry is supposed to be about PRA, but it is now mostly a criticism of PRA by Brandt, who I have criticized in the past as a conspiracist willing to be an apologist for those who flirt with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. He is not an unbiased source. He has repeatedly attacked PRA. Furthermore, some of the information is not factual, and some is outdated. It is not fair for LaRouche supporters to edit pages about LaRouche critics in a way that makes dubious and highly marginal claims the dominant text. --Cberlet 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip, I'm not certain that I am following your reasoning here. The LaRouche pages are littered with attacks authored by persons who are not unbiased sources, and who have repeatedly attacked LaRouche -- persons such as yourself. I will be convinced that you are a supporter of fairness when I see you apply the same standards of fairness to your opponents that you request for yourself. In the meantime, I suggest you include some rebuttal information about Brandt in this article, or a refutation of that information which you claim is "not factual." --HK 23:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia entry is to offer a fair and accurate summary of information. I write entries for published print encyclopedias. I do not include hyperbolic charges by marginal groups and conspiracist writers. I often do not include material that I believe to be true, but which is not the most important material for an entry. The tactic you pursue on this site is to paste in globs of outlandish claims from marginal conspiracist writers and then suggest that the way to proceed is for people to rebut these claims. In fact, these dubious claims do not belong in the entry in the first place. I understand you firmly believe the material you paste in is true. But as has been shown repeatedly, your posted additions are often not supported by the available facts or are hyperbolic or include personal attacks. Scores of editors of publications over the past 30 years have found my work to be fair and accurate. Like every writer, I make mistakes, and I take responsibility for them. While PRA has critics, the number of supporters vastly outnumbers those critics. Why make a marginal conspiracist critic the centerpiece of an entry about PRA? It is fundamentally unfair and biased. That is the point I am trying to make. What I say about people like LaRouche I can document and I can offer a reasonable argument for the claims and analysis I offer. The claims of LaRouche and other conspiracists exist in an alternate reality where the rules of logic do not seem to apply. Such claims do not belong in a serious encyclopedia entry. --Cberlet 14:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip, you seem oblivious to the irony in your comments. You are yourself a "marginal conspiracist critic", who makes "hyperbolic charges" and "personal attacks;" they are your stock in trade. That is essentially Daniel Brandt's criticism of you; he's not charging you with being "overly critical of 'conspiracism.'" --HK 15:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, regardless of your own view of Chip Berlet, the important point here is that reputable sources must be used for articles. Daniel Brandt, rightly or wrongly, would not normally be used as a source by mainstream journalists or writers. Regarding the particular link you've provided, I believe Namebase is Brandt's own organization. I could be wrong about this. Does anyone know for sure? If it does belong to Brandt, this is a piece he has published himself, which means it is little better than a personal blog. If you want to include criticism of Political Research Associates, it must come from a mainstream publication. If you can't find any such criticism, it means no mainstream publication thinks there is anything critical that is true, fair and worth publishing, and Wikipedia should take heed if that is the case.

Our disputes have settled down recently, and I have no wish to re-start them, but I have to say that I feel it's not appropriate for LaRouche activists to edit pages about someone who was a LaRouche critic, or about a company that person now works for, because it's bound to lead to real or perceived POV problems. I feel the best thing would be if LaRouche activists were to leave this page alone. If people working for Political Research Associates edit the page in too positive a way, other editors will take them to task for it, myself included. However, if you feel you must edit the page, at least provide reputable sources so that no one can question your edits. Many thanks, Slim 20:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, could you supply a good reference for this (not a wild conspiracy website, though, please)? "There are some critics of PRA who claim the group, especially senior analyst Chip Berlet, is overly critical of persons and groups who see conspiracies as driving history and current events." Many thanks, Slim 22:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, I'll do my best. That statement was made by senior analyst Chip Berlet, in an edit made to Wikipedia on December 7, 2004[2]. Although Wikipedia is generally not regarded as a wild conspiracy website, editor Chip Berlet is regarded in some circles as a conspiracist, due to his practice of "decoding" hidden messages in the published utterances of political figures that he is targetting. --HK 00:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to have a reference, because at the moment, we've got "some [unnamed] critics" believe X, and another critic, Daniel Brandt, believes Y. It looks a bit odd. Slim 03:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Other additions

It'd be nice to have a paragraph on particular specialties of the PRA, widely cited reports, or notable involvements. There's not much here that indicates what PRA has actually done to make them notable. Just a thought. -Willmcw 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme partisan

David Horowitz and his website can be considered extremely partisan and so are inappropriate to cite here, according to the standard that some editors are pursuing. -Willmcw 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nice disclaimer, Will. nobs 22:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:RS - "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." The material on Horowitz located here is explicitly attributed to him, thus meeting the stipulation in place. Rangerdude 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

So we are free to discuss, at length, the opinions of Horowitz and his websites and magazines, since this article is now about him and his opinions? Interesting. -Willmcw 23:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are only free to do what WP:RS says, and that is to discuss his opinions on the subject of the article with clear representation of them as such. Rangerdude 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not the article in which we are discussing the opinions of the DiscovertheNetworks.org, it is the article in which we are discussing Political Research Associates and its opinions. In a strict and logical interpretation of WP:RS, "extreme political websites" (in this case DiscovertheNetworks.org) "should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of [DiscovertheNetworks.org] or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." So with that interpretation it would be appropriate to mention and discuss their opinions on the Discoverthenetworks.org page but not on every page or here. It might also be argued that the same would apply to the SPLC, LvMI, Claremont, etc. Since the definition of "partisan" appears quite broad, a strict adherence to the letter of the guideline would ultimately mean an end to almost all of the "criticism" sections composed of comments for opposing organizations or people. Gosh, someone could argue that the NY Times is a partisan source, or even an "extreme political website", and then we'd might have to scrub out the ten thousand NY Times quotes in Wikipedia. Maybe we should start by tightening up the definition of "extreme political website". In the context of a world encyclopedia, what does "extreme" really mean? -Willmcw 00:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude never replied to that last, so let me try to clarify: the quoted phrase except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization is no longer in WP:RS, perhaps because it could be easily misunderstood in the way Willmcw did. His first sentence is a false premise. Note the plural in "articles". This is not the article in which we discuss the opinions of DiscovertheNetworks.org, but it is one of many in which the opinions expressed in DTN are suitable to discuss as "Criticism" of the article's subject. Andyvphil 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I updated the staff and director information. I hope my critics will not portray this as part of a communist/fascist conspiracy.--Cberlet 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Did some more updating of that myself. I dunno where the policy is on contributions by subjects of articles, but if uncontroversial updates are disallowed the policy would need a rewrite. WP:CCC Andyvphil 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairness and Balance

This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--Cberlet 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments (RfC) filed: [3]--Cberlet 13:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My take on this whole matter is that it's generally inappropriate for persons and groups that are the subject of an article to be active in editing that article for reason of an obvious conflict of interest. That PRA has "discussed" its wikipedia article and deems its content problematic is not a basis for rewrite as we are not here to accomodate what PRA, a highly politicized POV-pushing organization, thinks wikipedia should say about it or what PRA believes to be a problem. That would be accepting PRA's POV about itself. Rather, our mandate is to present the organization from a neutral perspective and neutrality means showing both the good and the bad - the praise and the critics alike. That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia beyond accurately presenting both those critics and PRA's counterviewpoint, should they offer one in their own publications. That said, I would not object to the addition of favorable sourced material here so long as it is done with neutrality and is done by parties that are not conflicted in their interests. According to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, articles that are believed to "omit important points of view" or have another similar imbalance "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Rangerdude 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am precisely suggesting that material be added to the page, and that you and a handful of other POV critics of PRA stop implying that in the real world the criticism of PRA outweighs the positive accomplishments and praise. So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right. Hardly fair, balanced, accurate, and NPOV.--Cberlet 16:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Flinging ad hominem attacks at one's critics is not a way to obtain neutrality in this article, Chip. I have not seen many LaRouche advocates on this article of recent & the remaining sources you mention are non-LaRouche political think tanks and figures. They're certainly from the different end of the political spectrum as your own, but that is no basis in itself to discredit a source. One could similarly respond that this topic is being controlled "by fans of a small uber-leftist think tank (PRA)" or dismiss its members, yourself included, as "leftist conspiracy theorists" and "carnival geeks of the ultraliberal political left." But stuff like that adds nothing to the political discourse, whereas sourced praises AND criticisms alike give us a complete picture of the controversy surrounding your group. Like it or not, figures such as Horowitz have made substantive criticisms of PRA, its politics, and its research methods. You are free to disagree with or respond to those critics with a counterviewpoint, and you've certainly made more than your share of political criticisms against Horowitz and LVMI. But you don't have a right to screen out their criticisms of you or your group because you don't like what they say. Again - if there is favorable material about PRA to add, then by all means it should be added. But per wikipedia stipulations, "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." IOW, why don't you spend less time whining about the people who have criticized PRA and focus more on those who have praised it, using the latter as counterbalancing material in the article itself while also allowing the critical viewpoint to be fairly and accurately presented. Rangerdude 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, dude, I am not supposed to edit this page for major content. I work here. I generally only do housekeeping such as changing staff names and fixing the image copyright notice. Unlike some Wiki editors, I try not to edit the page for myself and my employer.  :-) Calling for comments is hardly screening out content.--Cberlet 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am just jumping into this without to much information on the history the disputes here. This organization has been active for a number of years, has achieved prominence on a number of issues, and I am sure it has many "accomplishments" (depending on one's perspective) that are not listed on the site. In my view, the addition of material is generally preferable to deletion of content. I will try when I have the time to post material regarding the accomplishments of the organization. I would recommend that other editors add content. The inclusion of criticism's of right wing "intellectuals" such as Horowitz's is not inappropriate. Horowitz's allegations reveal much about him and about PRA. PRA might consider it a badge of honor to be criticized by Horwitz. If the addition of information concerning "accomplishments" of PRA were to be reverted in an effort to skew the article, a POV problem could be a serious problem. The article as I read it at this moment doesn't look like it terrible. --Whitfield Larrabee 15:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ford Foundation

Why does the Ford Foundation support this??? Sam Spade 04:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would presume they have a good Grant Writer; a good Grant Writer, whose job it is to apply for public and private foundation grants, can command a six figure income. Many grant writers work as outside consultants, and are hired to just help the non-profit entity obtain funding. They are specialists in the field, and handle numerous client organizations during the year. nobs 04:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but the Ford Foundation isn't known for foolishly dishing out $, quite the opposite, their accused of using their finances strategicaly, even too strategicaly... I am very confused at why they would want to give these guys, of all people, $... Maybe they think the info is handy? Sam Spade 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the grant writer jumped through all the qualifing hoops and successfully hid all the dirt. The CPA did a good job too, though what is reported on the Annual Report is dubious; for example, "Progams" can include airline tickets, a rental car, and hotel room for Mr. Berlet when he flies to New York to give a seminar. Also, "Fundraising" and "Programs" are nearly equal. "General Adminstration" doesn't tell much, it includes paperclips, the light bill & overhead, but a portion of "Administration" can be used to the benefit of Administrators. "Staffing" is interesting; if we divide the Staffing figure by number of Staff, we get an average of $44,000+. Of course, there is no such thing as an average staff member, so we can presume pay inequitities exist even in an avowadly Marxist organization. Some at the bottom make probably 25K to 36K, while others higher up probably double that. Then you have to factor what portion of "General Administration" also ends up being paid to Administrators. nobs 05:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an incompetent and biased piece of original research:

"According to PRA's most recent Annual Report, 70% of its expenses are for general administrative and staffing salaries, with only 18% allocated to "programs"."

PRA is a think tank. Paying researchers is part of the mission. I have removed the text.--Cberlet 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are not accurately called major funders of PRA. I have removed the text.--Cberlet 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: What is "inaccurate" about this statement,

. According to PRA's most recent Annual Report, 70% of its expenses are for general administrative and staffing salaries, with only 18% allocated to "programs". Thank you. nobs 18:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are major donors; can we have a cite for them please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 asks: "What is "inaccurate" about this statement?" (above). Answer: Because it is an incompetent analysis of an annual auditor's report for a non-profit. If PRA was a charity, it would matter. Since PRA is a research think tank, a substantial portion of the staffing expenditures are devoted to fulfilling the stated educational purposes under which PRA operates. What matters is the percentage of expenditures devoted to fundraising--about 12%--which is well within the standard guidelines. Furthermore, what is the source for the claim that Peter Edelman and Barbra Streisand are "major funders? They are not. Even if a cite is provided, it is not accurate. Actually, this charge is peddled by by a well-known conspiracy crank, Bob Feldman [4] and was picked up by Horowitz and Frontpage. Edelman and Streisand are related to foundations that have funded PRA, but are not directly "major" funders.--Cberlet 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim: Striesand is here,

• Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory, By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com, October 16, 2003

where it's always been. Thank you. nobs 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration filed concerning this page

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming Nobs01, Rangerdude, Cognition, Herschelkrustofsky, and Sam_Spade for their participation in edit wars over this page and page entry on me: Chip Berlet. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this article pending arbitration. (unless of vandalism or spelling etc.) Thank you. Olorin28 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What? Do I sue for defamation for calling me a Larouchie, or is this just another of User:Cberlet's conspiracy theories, "acting in concert"? nobs 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Audit

The Audit prepared by Kenneth Freed and Company, CPA, Boston MA represents a grand total of four expenditure items. Zoowwee. And all are ambiguous. It is hard to believe a non-profit entity with $600,000 plus in funding sources accepted an audit in this form. The problem with presenting an audit like this to the public is, it creates more suspicion than it discloses. Would PRA be willing to disclose it's IRS Form 990? Thank you. nobs 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PRA's IRS Form 990 is available to the public by law. Write PRA for a copy. The full audit is far more extensive. Stop trying to invent an issue where none exists.--Cberlet 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a simple question; perhaps you may wish to suggest to whoever's in charge there that what is posted on the site gives the appearance of not being forthcoming, and maybe more diclosure on the site would be helpful. Just a suggestion. nobs 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't the place to make it. You're getting your real-life animosity toward PRA confused with your responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to respond, but because of the personal reference made, let me just state, PRA's link says,

PRA is funded...from the sale of our materials" [5]

The Chip Berlet namespace is little more than a sales brochure for PRA materials. If the Arb Com takes up this issue, this is core to the case. nobs 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But I was the one who added the material, not Chip. Should we not describe what Wal-Mart does in case someone shops there because of our article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised an interesting issue; articles like Wal-Mart (1120) place all the financial information right up front, in the opening sentences and paragraph. This non-profit (990) had no financial information whatsoever til I inserted a few days ago, and got slapped with an ArbCom filing evidently for doing so. nobs 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The actual full text: "PRA is funded entirely from non-governmental sources. Foundation grants, contributions from individuals, and income from the sale of our materials provide all of our financing."--Cberlet 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So there's no A-133 uniform audit? nobs 04:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to contact PRA or our auditing firm in writing for any further infromation.--Cberlet 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can it be e-mailed? nobs 18:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, you're getting Cberlet mixed up with PRA. Contact the company if you want information from them. This isn't the place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

But that would mean disclosing a return address; and just reading Jimbo Wales [6] he says "I am asking about privacy and respect." Can't it be e-mailed? nobs 19:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Email them and ask. This is not the place for this. Please stop grandstanding. This discussion is over. Gamaliel 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Funding

Does PRA recieve any funding from the Legal Services Corporation ? nobs 19:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, regarding PRA, the claim that "82% of its expenses are for general administration, staffing, and fund-raising, and 18% for programs," is totally misleading. Most of the 82% goes to program work through research salaries, library expenses, etc. As I stated above: "Since PRA is a research think tank, a substantial portion of the staffing expenditures are devoted to fulfilling the stated educational purposes under which PRA operates. What matters is the percentage of expenditures devoted to fundraising--about 12%--which is well within the standard guidelines." The claim that only 18% of income is spent on program work is simply false.--Cberlet 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chip, the difficulty is that it's sourced directly to PRA. This is what they say, so if it's misleading it's because whoever wrote that wasn't anticipating that a Nobs-like character would bear down on them. Do you know whether there's anything else on the website that says more about how the funds are spent, or anything that would flesh out the above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me be specific: The fincancial report [7] states "the following is a list of grant making institutions that funded PRA in 2003", it does not say "the following is a complete list". PRA site says "funded entirely from non-governmental sources". Technically, the Legal Services Corporation could be refered to as a "non-governmental" source, and not be included in a "complete list". Can this somehow be clarified ? Thank you. nobs 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim...our problem exactly, and we will ask our accountant and auditor to break out the chart differently next time. We should have anticipated critics looking at it and cheering. Let me ask the director if we have better information we can post to the website. Sigh.

Nobs01: stop bugging me. --Cberlet 21:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just take the 82% out? Just because a fact is true, doesn't make it significant. Obviously, with a budget of less than $700K and full-time staff of six, not much money is going to be left for "programs" not included in staffing, G&A and fund-raising. --FRS 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 75.8% of PRA's expenses are devoted to program, 12.1% for general operating, and 12.1% for fundraising. PRA has posted a chart showing the actual figures online at our website: chart of PRA expenses for 2004--Cberlet 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PRA primary activity under its non-profit status is listed as "Book Publishing & Printing" [8]; its site declares, "PRA is funded entirely from... Foundation grants,...individuals, and income from the sale of our materials." PRA's most recent available financial report [9] shows exactly $0 revenue derived from sales of it primary activity as a non-profit organization (this is down from $12,000 in its previous report). Perhaps this warrants some clarity or explanation. nobs 21:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

<----This is an outlandish misrepresentation. On the page cited, the sales of books and reports is listed under the program income: $51,175. All PRA publications are essentially subsidized by grants and donations. Sales are folded into that section of the report. In 2004 PRA published and sold copies of:

• Publication: Deliberate Differences: Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism in the United States
• Publication: Defending Criminal Justice, an Activist Resource Kit
• We continue thrice yearly to publish our Journal, Public Eye.

As well as many other publications. This vendetta by Nob01 continues to undermine the accuracy and NPOV of Wikipedia. How long will this disgrace be tolerated? --Cberlet 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an outlandish misrepresentation and personal attack via edit summary. The financial report clearly uses the word, sales [10]. The website clearly uses the words sales of materials [11]. nobs 22:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

///// Interesting and illuminative discussion here! I thank all those involved for their participation. I have been reading about PRA and Chip as part of some research I have been doing on a documentary. It seems to me that PRA and Chip are associated with a particular type of "business model" -- if you will -- for what I call FauxLeft activism. These fauxLeft entities and activists seem to be engaged in a sort of symbiotic relationship with large nonprofit foundations that have gradually diverted American leftism into identity politics, and away from economics-based leftism, especially away from white lower middle class concerns.

PRA and Chip seem to be almost pioneers in this business model. One of their apparent goals of the fauxleft movement is to use big money (much of it originally from plutocrats and megacorporations) to keep economic populism seperated from the lower white middle class. It appears that the identity politics orientation of the fauxLeft is instrumental in this end. This seems to have been taking place for decades. I refer to the early connections of the Ford Foundation with the CIA and their activities in subverting leftism overseas. Well, it apparently has happened here in America, too. The FAUXLEFT would be the result of that, at least in part.

I guess the elite rightwing think tankers that are behind the original creation of the fauxleft figured that as long as the white lower middle class (the largest bloc in America) was not part of any populist leftist movements, economic leftism was not gain much ground in America.

I don't mean to say that this is a large, well planned "conspiracy" in any specific sense. More like a group of elite entities and people simply acting in their own best interests. Sort of like a ecosystem, really.

Chip, PRA, et al., simply fill a niche need for these elite entities -- to find activists that provide an antipopulist direction for American leftism, and to make it not something for the largest bloc in America--the white lower middle claas. PRA has in particular been quite keen on demonizing any nascent connections between white lower middle class populism and leftist politics. Check it out via google!

Well, that is all for now. But very interesting. I do have a blog with links to some parts of my documentary uploaded. If you want to see or read more on this, google for my blogspot blog using keywords like "identity politics" and "fauxleft". I don't want to give the url directly....call me paranoid, but something tells me it might give someone an excuse to delete what I write here....

Hi anonymous. I went to your various web posts and read the material. I would be delighted to call you paranoid, thanks for asking. I note that you frequently cite Noam Chomsky and the folks at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. FAIR also gets foundation funding. I regularly work with the folks at FAIR. I work with Noam Chomsky through the Z Media Institute, and you participate in the Z Media forums online. Thus you are part of the FauxLeft. Welcome! Please note that I spent ten years organizing in a white working class community in Chicago, and am not critical of their quest for economic fairness, but residual elements of racism. Right-wing populism frequently involved racism. That's one of the issues that Political Research Associates discusses. --Cberlet 16:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

More biased and false material

The director of PRA is Katherine Hancock Ragsdale. So the claim that PRA "Led by Chip Berlet former head of "Friends of Albania" " is false. I was never the "head" of the, "Friends of Albania" so that, too, is false. And what does it matter that I was involved with a group 20 years ago?--Cberlet 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - you are actually Chip Berlet himself? I thought that Wikipedia didn't like it when people try to change the content of articles about themselves. Didn't Dianne Feinstein's staffers get in trouble for that last week? Anyway, Horowitz does not say that youa re the director of PRA - he says you are a leader of PRA. You do hold a leadership position there, don't you? If so then its true. And what about groups from 20 years ago? Well, I contend that they do matter. Esp. when the group is infamous in its own right and Enver Hoxa and other communist thugs and murderers like him were. And didn't you just post something on the other article saying that your fascist allegations against Bush were valid because of some supposed staffer he had who was connected to some Nazi in the 1940's? That was 60 years ago, if even true at all. But now when the connection involves you 20 years ago is too long? -- Col.S

ColonelS, your contribs show that you're a newly arrived single-issue editor. Please take a look at our editing policies, particularly WP:LIVING, which says that biographical material about living persons must be handled with sensitivity. You're giving the impression of being here to smear someone and that won't be allowed. Please also read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which have to be understood in conjunction with one another. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- thank you for the links, but it appears to me that there are many other people here who could use them more than me. I read about Chip Berlet on Horowitz's website on him and the first google hits when I looked for more about him were to here. What existed before I changed it was deceptively supportive of Berlet and implied he had legal credentials he did not. All I did was add what his critics are saying about him and clarify the FACT that he doesn't have a law degree. And for that I've been constantly attacked by a cadre of liberal democrat editors who want to keep anything critical about their leftist allies out of their articles. I recently heard they were doing the same thing at the Harry Reid article. And now lo and behold Chip Berlet himself shows up and tries to get everything critical of him removed as well. He can also come here and insult me to no end and accuse me of all sorts of horrible things like "fabricating" evidence against him and calling me names, but his liberal ally who is some sort of sys-op here lets all that slide. But when I make a single one word complaint that other liberals are censoring material about CHip Berlet after one of them deleted an entire paragraph I had added, that same self-admitted liberal democrat sys-op shows up and threatens to ban me for it! I suppose I'm rambling but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. When the first 4-5 people who I encounter on Wikipedia are all rude and they're all trying to protect a liberal political figure from criticism it sorta leaves a bad taste in your mouth for the whole wikipedia process. I haven't even bothered with other articles yet because if that's the way things operate around here I don't see how any conservative could ever get a fair shot at contributing! The point is that ever since I touched an article on one of the left's sacred cows the liberals here - including the guy the article is about - have been trying to get it removed even though what I added is true! If they are willing to accept valid criticisms and give them equal time that seems to be the spirit of this place, but if any criticism of the "wrong" person (i.e. the left) gets removed then Wikipedia is false advertising - this is NOT an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - it's just an encyclopedia that only liberals can edit. -- Col. S

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

What are you talking about? I didn't add any conspiratorial allegations. I didn't make a guilt by association claim. ALL I DID WAS QUOTE BERLET HIMSELF, QUOTE WHAT BERLET'S MAIN CRITICS SAY ABOUT HIM, AND CLARIFY THAT HE IS NOT A LAWYER AND HAS NO LAW DEGREE. So where do you get off saying that I "continue" to do all those things and threatening to ban me? You libs are all the same - "do as I say, not as I do or I'll ban you." - Col. S

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

Removed opinion from intro: "independent"

This group is not financially independent. If it were, it would have its own endowment. It depends on the Public Welfare Foundation and the Ford Foundation for financial support. It is not politically independent. The grop only publishes criticisms of right-leaning groups. The claim of independence is opinion, or worse, misrepresentation by a paid employee of the group that is the subject of the article. It stands just as well to state that it is a non-profit without advancing the claim of a paid adovacate that it is independent. Moneytrail 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some editors have recently presented references that claim PRA is a gatekeeper that fcriticizes groups on the political left. I suspect that "independent" may have been intended to convey "non-partisan" and "unaffiliated". It may not be finacially independent, but it is not tied to any other organization that I know of. -Will Beback 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ZOG & the anti-War movement

Some material on the PRA site contradicts itself, while some sounds unmistakeably similiar to material on the Institute for Historical Review. For example, IHR site has "Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel" by Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings.

"President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area."

"Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic."

Jean Hardisty writes in Thoughts on Militarism and the Bush Administration

"...will the U.S. shape the world, preventing the rise of a competitor nation, determining how nations are ruled, and controlling who is allowed to exert international influence?

"...the events of September 11 have opened the door for the new post-Cold War doctrine – a policy of U.S. global domination."

"the foreign policy doctrine gaining ascendance inside the administration is frighteningly coherent. But it can be stopped if public opinion strongly opposes it. Mobilizing that opposition public opinion is crucially important work in the coming six months. In the short term, opposing an invasion of Iraq may be the most urgent task.

Berlet writes in ZOG Ate My Brains,

"There is an appealing simplicity in dividing the world sharply into good and bad and tracing ‘all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents’

"Why would progressives embrace conspiracism? In the 1980s, isolationists on the Right, and anti-war activists on the Left grew suspicious of President Ronald Reagan’s support for covert action overseas and political repression at home. As they interacted, some progressive groups began circulating allegations about ‘Secret Teams’, ‘Shadow Governments’, or ‘The Octopus’, that echoed historic antisemitic conspiracy theories found in rightwing publications. With the collapse of communism in Europe many rightists shifted scapegoats to claim a New World Order conspiracy was manipulating the US Government. Again, some leftists adapted this rhetoric. During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a ‘Jewish Lobby’ in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism. [12]

Hardisty writes,

"the foreign policy doctrine gaining ascendance inside the administration is frighteningly coherent. But it can be stopped if public opinion strongly opposes it. Mobilizing that opposition public opinion is crucially important work in the coming six months. In the short term, opposing an invasion of Iraq may be the most urgent task."

Berlet writes,

"For conspiracists, ‘the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions’.

Hardisty writes,

"...a little-known group called the Defense Policy Board, a shadowy military/foreign policy think tank..."

Berlet writes,

"conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others".

So with two clicks we read George Bush is both an Isreali stooge and a neo-nazi. Perhaps Berlet can articulate clearly his stance on the anti-Iraqi War movement -- is it lead by a bunch of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists or not? OC5 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

<-------------Please do not use discussion pages for extended POV diatribes.--Cberlet 04:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an honest question; Berlet has been widely applauded (and criticized) for not getting on the "Bush knew" conspiricism bandwagon. The world waits with baited breath, given the divisions within the country, if Mr. Berlet will join with the anti-Semitic critics of US policy and call for withdrawal from Iraq. This is an important question -- is coalescing with anti-Semitic hatemongers justified for a greater good -- to get rid of lame duck Republican policy makers? OC5 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OC5, on Wikipedia article talk pages are used to discuss improvements to the article, not for debate about the subjects of the article. If you have a suggestion to improve the article please offer it here, but this is not the place for debating your opinions about the PRA. Gamaliel 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Eye magazine name

Someone just pointed this out to me:

The Public Eye is, according to Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, a "spawn" of the original CounterSpy magazine. [13]"

Political Research Associates bought the rights to the name "Public Eye magazine" in 1992. This bibliogrpahy refers to the earlier publisher.--Cberlet 21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Berlet removed the comment but left the orphan reference, which I've now removed. I refer to his clarification here on the disambiguation page for "Public Eye" so please do not remove this section without sourcing the info there elsewhere. Andyvphil 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discover the networks

Discover the networks is not a reliable source - it is self published. Self published sources cannot be used in articles that are not about themselves, in any circumstances. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide the link, since you didn't: wp:v#self. DTN isn't "self-published" in any meaningful sense, and even if it were your second sentence is flatly wrong. But before we even go there I want you to start with this: Explain to me why, in your view, MediaMatters isn't "self published". Or if it is, surprise me by beginning to delete citations of that source. Andyvphil 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for missing this before. Could you provide examples of it being used as a source, your attempt to remove it, and my reversions of you? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I do not wish to remove citations of MediaMatters. My first substantive edits of this encyclopedia were in the Criticism section of David Horowitz where I added cited rebuttal to material sourced to, I think, MediaMatters. I did not merely delete the criticism on the grounds that MediaMatters is not a reliable source. My question is why you are not deleting material that meets your overbroad criteria for deletion. I asked you a question that would give you the opportunity to to demonstrate that your deletions are being made in good faith, not merely to push your POV. Please answer it. Andyvphil 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)