Talk:Chip Berlet - Wikipedia


7 people in discussion

Article Images

An editor just added "Category:Conspiracy theorists" to the Chip Berlet article; I removed it. Chip Berlet is not himself a conspiracy theorist, i.e., one who speculates about conspiracies to act or conceal actions; he studies conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. More of a conspiracy theorist theorist, but let's not get too meta; I've removed the category. --lquilter 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A second editor has now added the category, stating "restore -- he advocates the "Jeremiah Duggan" conspiracy theory, which is on Wikipedia's list)". This isn't documented anywhere in the Berlet article and should be removed, at least until and unless it is documented; and arguably until it is one of the major things he is known for. (Categorization shouldn't be used for relatively minor aspects of someone lest it lead to category bloat. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Overcategorization.) However, in the interests of harmonious editing, I'm raising it here rather than reverting again. --lquilter 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I added the documentation, and it was immediately deleted by Tom Harrison [1]. --NathanDW 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am insufficently familiar with Duggan case to characterize CB's involvement as making him a "conspiracy theorist", but Nathan's actual text seems unexcptionable. It doesn't have to be "one of the major things he is known for" to justify a couple lines. Anyway, investigating LaRouche and publishing a report on him seems notable (and more power to him).Andyvphil 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Someone can check my German, but I don't think the source says 'conspiracy theory:' "Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise" I think is "Four years after the suicide of Jerimiah Duggan, the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents, but no new evidence."Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is probable (for the sake of argument) correctness of theory a bar to being a "conspiracy theorist"?... And the Wiesbadener Kurier is clearly saying "the murder conspiracy theory continues to find new adherents" even if Mordverschwörung could be translated in some other context without that word. It's not a cabal to kill Duggan thats getting new Anhängers, after all, but a theory of the LaRouche group's responsibility for it. Andyvphil 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The main issue here is original research. Please note that I have published only a few things about the Duggan case, and I pick my words carefully. Wiesbadener Kurier does not claim I am a conspiracy theorist regarding the Duggan matter. Only the LaRouchites rant in print about my connection to the Duggan case.--Cberlet 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
How does what the Wiesbadener Kurier says about Jeremiah Duggan tell us anything about Berlet? While the last sentence belongs in Jeremiah Duggan's biography, I'm not sure it belongs in Berlet's. If it does belong here, maybe what other news organizations have said about Duggan should also be presented, for balance. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's a problem here with a category being used as a slur. "Conspiracy theorist" sounds bad, "Believes LaRouche thugs may have played a role in the death of Jeremiah Duggan", not so much. There's a problem with the way the category is set up that needs addressing... If the Wiesbadener Kurier is taking about "Justice for Jeremiah"'s allegations, and if CB associates himself with JfJ's allegations, then it's perfectly appropriate to quote the WK dismissively on JfJ's position here. If you asserted that Oswald probably didn't act alone it wouldn't be wrong (or WP:OR) to quote the Warren Commission dismissively on that theory merely because the WC didn't mention you. ... But I'm on board for an offsetting quote, showing support for JfJ's plausinbility, as TH suggests. Andyvphil 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please provide a printed cite from a reputable source demonstrating that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations." I have been asked by Jeremiah's mother to provide two written statements for her use. I have done so. Please read them. They exist on the JFJ website. I have made other statements to reputable newspaper and magazine reporters. I have written a paper for a scholarly conference on antisemitism where I talk about LaRouche's antisemitism and the Duggan case. Feel free to cite them. The claim that I have "associate[d] [my]self with JfJ's allegations" is false and original research.--Cberlet 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Now it's my turn to insist that I picked my words carefully. In particular, "if". There were several "if"s in my last post. I already said I was not an expert on the Duggan case. But neither is TH, and I did not have to be an expert on the case to see that his reasons for removing mention of your association with JFJ didn't hold water. As your reason for removing mention of WK's comment does not. What JFJ's exact assertions may be and the degree to which you have in fact associated yourself with them is something about which I claim little knowledge at this point. I did not revert WK's comment back into maintext for that very reason. But the actions you declare and the text at the cite clearly indicate some degree of association. Which doesn't seem disreputable to me. OR has nothing to do with this. Gotta run. Andyvphil 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tom Harrison added the word "new" in front of evidence. There is no basis for this. "keine Beweise" means no evidence, period. I translated this headline for the other articles. I agree with Andyvphil that it makes no sense at all to say that the murder conspiracy continues to find new adherents. The English term "conspiracy theory" is clearly what is intended. --Masai warrior 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Another editor has objected to your translation of that, though (see Talk:Jeremiah Duggan), arguing that the English "conspiracy theory" is stronger than the phrase used by the newspaper. We should err on the side of caution, especially in a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I consulted with you before posting my translation.[2][3] And here is my response to Mr. Diderot on the Talk:Jeremiah Duggan page: "I am an experienced translator. I would always use a cognate when appropriate. However, an important feature of translation is to take into account the context. That is why Babelfisch and other translation programs produce such comical results -- they simply attempt to translate word for word. I invite you to translate this headline into something that makes sense in English: Nur die Legende hat ein langes Leben - Vier Jahre nach dem Selbstmord von Jeremiah Duggan findet die Mordverschwörung immer neue Anhänger, aber keine Beweise. If you come up with something better than what I have done, then by all means we should use your version." --Masai warrior 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It corroborates what was already pretty obvious -- that Berlet was promoting a conspiracy theory about Duggan's death. --NathanDW 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
What source does it corroborate? Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It corroborates the conclusion that may reasonably be drawn from the material in the article Jeremiah Duggan. The police rule the death a suicide. Additional investigations by German authorities arrive at the same conclusion. Despite all this, a group of people refuse to accept these conclusions, and began to suggest other scenarios, including suicide caused by "mind control" (see Schiller Institute) and also murder. They also theorize about possible motives. Compare this to one of the classic conspiracy theories, that of the JFK assassination conspiracy, which follows the exact same format: the official explanation is rejected in favor of alternate theories (usually with some kind of political agenda.) --NathanDW 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is precisely the type of bogus faux logic employed by conspiracy theorists. See Conspiracy Theory. The source corroboration here is interpolated from existing anecdotal information in a manner that implies logic yet, if diagramed, reveals itself to be a disconnected fallacy. Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism!--Cberlet 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
When some reliable source draws that conclusion, and applies it to Berlet, you may have something that doesn't violate policy. From Wikipedia:No original research: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey! That's what I said, only in plain English. No fun at all.--Cberlet 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'd have been a fool to try to beat Quintessential Circumloquacious Conspiracism. Tom Harrison Talk 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just coined the phrase. Now I just have to find a way to use it in a reputable printed published source...--Cberlet 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
What does the story in the Wiesbaden Kurier have to do with Berlet anyway? Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
CB has, by providing two written statements to JD's mother "for her use", associated himself with the claim that his death was improperly investigated. WK says this is a crackpot endeavor. Ergo, WK is commenting on CB's actions. Which answers your question. Andyvphil 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It also refutes the edit memo on SlimVirgin's latest revert: "(that has nothing to do with this article)". --NathanDW 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, both the above claims by Andyvphil and NathanDW reflect original research, as patiently and pecisely explained by [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]. No original research -- not a steep learning curve.--Cberlet 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nonsense. In order to be OR, by the quote TH has provided, there has to be a "position C". (a)To quote SV,[4] "Berlet has lent support to a campaign run by relatives of Jeremiah Duggan...". (b)For context, WK is quoted saying the campaign is based on myths without evidence. I've already stated that I'm in favor of a second, contrary quote, assuming a suitable one can be found. (c) There is no (c). Andyvphil 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The British student was ruled to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. The conclusion by law enforcement authorities is being challenged by Berlet and others."

The text above is biased and misleading. The following is factual and NPOV:

"The British student was ruled by German authorities to have committed suicide while attending a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school. A British coroner rejected the suicide ruling."

I hope this can be changed, and hope the constant attempts by LaRouche apologists to add misleading and POV material stops.--Cberlet 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cberlet's prefered version doesn't mention Berlet. There should be some mention of the role Berlet has played in the affair, and the specific accusations he has made. --NathanDW 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not aware that he has made any. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In what way is the first version biased and misleading? --MaplePorter 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noticing how a prominent contributor to the Norwegian Wikipedia, the late Tron Øgrim, who was also a somewhat noted public figure has his Wikipedia effort mentioned, shouldn't the same be allowed in the case of Berlet. At least it is my impression that his Wikipedia efforts have been considerable. __meco 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would be against that unless there are reliable sources who talk to that point. Anyways, --Tom 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I restored some criticism from Leftists, since the present criticism section makes it appear as if Berlet only has critics on the Right. Also, according to WP:LEAD, notable criticism should be reflected in the intro. Why is there none? --MaplePorter 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That sourced you provided looks very questionable, wp:el, imho. --Tom 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Portland Free Press

SlimVirgin says that the PFP was "self-published." I don't know much about it. Is there evidence that it was self-published? In this cite a man named Per Fagereng is described as a senior editor at the Portland Free Press. In this cite Ace Hayes is also described as an editor. Likewise in the Willamette Week obituary for Hayes, which describes the Portland Free Press as "far-out" but says that Hayes "never descended into black-helicopter paranoia." --MaplePorter 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

I made this small but very important correction above.--Cberlet 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The conflict between Berlet and Brandt goes way beyond this single incident; is documented both in places that Brandt would like to bury as he "reavealed too much about himself" and in places some people feel wikipedia is better off not naming; is something wikipedia perhaps should not go into due to BLP concerns as it fundamentally consists of mutual accusations of political immorality between two seminotable people who formerly found common cause in left-wing political activism; and therefore needs careful editing. While I prefer my edit to the paragraph, I feel Will Beback's edit is within the BLP policy and I will not revert it. WAS 4.250 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The edit history of this article has been wiped clean from June 23 to July 22. Does anyone know how or why? --Don't lose that number 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was the page protected or something? I know this bio is related to Daniel Brandt(sp) old article so maybe thats the rub?? I have NO clue but HATE when ANY history is removed. Thanks! --Tom 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

geocities links are garbage, and not appropriate for this project, period. Thanks! --Tom 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked an admin, Will Beback, about a similar situation, and he indicated that anonymous sites were still permissible under WP:EL (see [5].) --NathanDW 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I protest that gross mischaracterization of my response. All I did was direct you to the WP:EL guideline. Which, if you read if carefully, makes it clear that a one-person, anonymous attack site is inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
geocities is still garbage and is still not appropriate for THIS project. Anything else? Cheers! --Tom 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

The only current review of Right-Wing Populism in America is a negative one:

Reviewing Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Robert H. Churchill of the University of Hartford criticized Berlet and other authors writing about the right wing as lacking breadth and depth in their analyses, failing to make contact with significant figures in the movement and conduct significant research on the Internet, and for providing analyses of far right movements that proscribe as "racist" a broad range of conservative political ideologies that are "driven more by the association of the author with various civil rights organizations and leftist political activists outlined in the acknowledgements than by the primary evidence presented in the footnotes."

Most of the published reviews were very positive. I think a little balance would be nice.--Cberlet 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed the following link that was being used as a reference. Hope this was ok. Thanks, --Tom 14:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's the text of the article in The New Republic specified by the ref it was included in, not an email (as you suggested in your edit comment). I've removed the long-standing text claiming that Berlet criticized Nader for accepting support from Milliken since it was not supported by the cites. The only real support for the current text is the "New Politics" cite. but I left (actually improved what was an indirect mention) the New Republic cite in as a resource for someone who wants to improve this stub of a subject. The maintext could be improved if we had a cite for NP's claim that Berlet was cited as support for the claim that M supported N. If it happened anyplace else than Wikipedia, that is. (Is this a case of the Heisenberg principle? Was NP referring to WP misquoting TNR? I guess the dates don't work, but it's a charming thought...) Andyvphil 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is a mess. There is ample evidence that M supported N (at times providing a car and driver), but the word "funding" in my mind means a transfer of money, which I never claimed. The TNR article made it seem I implied more. Hard to sort out. In part, the Naderite letter to TNR made it seem that I claimed more than I did.--Cberlet 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
What TNR article is this? The Lizza article, assuming the topica copy is accurate, doesn't seem to imply anything much. Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This paragraph is the result of very sloppy research, questionable use of the word "cite," and dubious POV juxtapositioning:

Berlet has been cited as a source for allegations that Ralph Nader has accepted funding for his projects from Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 Presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart. Berlet has also been cited as saying that he has no evidence of any such funding.

It makes it seem as if I made the claim despite having no evidence. Here is a factual text:

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 Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart. Berlet denies ever suggesting that Milliken funded Nader's work, although this is sometimes attributed to Berlet, who was quoted as saying he had no evidence of such funding.

The entire last sentence should simply be deleted, since it is based on one article's footnote that has been misinterpreted.--Cberlet 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

CB: I take your point that, although I did not intend it, the two sentences I wrote could be read as saying you made the claim that Milliken funded Nader despite not having any evidence that he did. But it wasn't "dubious POV juxtapositioning" -- I was simply quoting the "New Politics" footnote virtually word for word, except for adding the identification of Millikin. The footnote reads: "Chip Berlet, a researcher and writer on right-wing movements, who has been cited as a source for Milliken's funding of Nader projects, told Walter Contreras Sheasby that he has no evidence of any such funding". Note the use of "cite" in the original.
The reason I replaced "Berlet has more recently criticized Ralph Nader for working with Roger Milliken on antiglobalization issues.[8][9]" was that, as I have already pointed out, the sentence was not supported by the two citations provided. Your proposed replacement "Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken..." has the same problem -- I believe you when you say you've done it, but I shouldn't say so in the article unless I have a RS saying you've done it. And I don't think I can use this page as my RS. So, can you provide citations for your paragraph?
And, no, I didn't engage in "very sloppy research [or] questionable use of the word 'cite'". I didn't do or pretend to do any substantial research at all beyond that necessary to determine that the two citations provided did not support the assertion that you had criticized Nader. There was a blog pointing at the New Republic article which, when I found the text at topica, said nothing more than that you found it odd to be picked up by a Milliken lobbyist when you went to visit Nader (not in itself a criticism of Nader). And there was the "New Politics" footnote which I essentially simply repeated. Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't rate a paragraph in his biography that Berlet is mentioned in a footnote, and in passing in the New Republic. I don't know enough about Nader to say whether it belongs in Nader's biography or not.

I removed the link to lists.topica.com. It's not necessary since we can just cite the New Republic. There is no way of knowing if it is an accurate copy of the article, and even if it is it says at the bottom "(Copyright 1999, The New Republic)". If this is someone's copy and paste it's a copyright violation, right? Tom Harrison Talk 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point, as usual. The New Republic article, as I explained 27 August, isn't even a source for anything I wrote. The actual source for the revised paragraph was solely the New Politics footnote, which mentions the TNR article, and I provided the link to the text of the latter "as a resource for someone who wants to improve this stub of a subject" (see above). The subject is not the footnote but whether Berlet alleged Milliken funded Nader and whether he criticized Nader for being involved with Milliken. We have a RS alleging the former (presumably wrongly) and we have CB alleging the latter (presumably truthfully, but we don't as yet have a RS). Andyvphil 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Most of the information about this matter is either on listserves and websites, or in printed publications not on the internet. Thus the problem of insufficient research. It is insufficient because it relies solely on what is easily found on the internet. Some of it is in Right-Wing Populism in America near the end of the book, in a discussion on Nader and Buchanan (pp. 338-344).--Cberlet 18:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
My talk page comment (above) already stated the need to "improve this stub of a subject". There was no citation of any kind to support the statement that you had critcized Nader and I was surely required by WP:BLP to remove it. My replacement of that statement by an accurate paraphrase of the one RS that had been cited should not have been characterized as "very sloppy research, questionable use of the word 'cite,' and dubious POV juxtapositioning". You might consider an apology. Andyvphil 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
You might consider doing better research before posting material on Wikipedia about me. The research was sloppy, the text misleading, and you might consider an apology.--Cberlet 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Don't think so. I replaced unsourced contentious material (which policy says should be done immediatly and without discussion and, I might add, without waiting for further research) with an accurate and verifiable transcription of the underlying reliable source. If the result was misleading your argument is with New Politics, not me. Andyvphil 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
This sentence is unsourced:
  • 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 Patrick J. Buchanan and anti-unionization stalwart.
The source for the subsequent passages doesn't mention any such criticism.[6] Can we find a source for Berlet criticizing Nader? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Source is: Right-Wing Populism in America(pp. 338-344). There are several other sources in print, but not on the internet.--Cberlet 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Subject of article claims to have dropped out [7] Uncle uncle uncle 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is an accurate summary:

The point of the article is that conspiracy theories are not progressive, and antisemitic conspiracy theories undermine work that seeks justice for Palestinians. See the Rosenwasser quote. Also, the article ends with: "Fenster warns that if our ‘simple, populist narrative slips and becomes racist or antisemitic or exclusionary, then its power to affect positive social and economic change disappears’. The current summary makes it seem as if I support the Bush administration around Middle East policies and its claims about 9/11--which I do not.--Cberlet 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed this: McCain, Robert Stacy. "Researcher Says 'Watchdogs' Exaggerate Hate Group Threat", The Washington Times, May 9, 2000. Maybe stick to "main stream" articles rather than self published stuff. If this was from the washington times, can we cite that instead? Thanks, --Tom 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)ps Just to clarify, I was reffering to the web site and not the article. If we want to list this article, fine, but I would rather not link to a personal web site, thanks, --Tom 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you can find it at the WaTimes site, feel free to switch. But McCain should be a RS for his own article in the publication he edits (WaTimes). Not aware that this violates any policy. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have to deal with real life right now. My problem is linking to a self published site. I will try to find the article or maybe we can just list it as a footnote? Again, I am not really disputing the content, I just don't like any links to self created web sites. Does that make sense? Thanks and cheers, --Tom 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again, I have no objection to your preference, so long as it is expressed by finding a better source rather than in deleting reference to relevant material. Andyvphil (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
It was removed by an administrator as a violation--Cberlet (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC).Reply
Inconsistency in the story here. Time to call in an IP check? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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.--Docg 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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).--Docg 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
There are some admins who have sharply different interpretations of the BLP policy.[8] --Terrawatt (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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[9][10]. 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[11] are far more representative. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I propose simply re-adding the quote by Justin Raimondo [12] which is very brief and highly representative of criticism of Berlet. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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."[13] --Terrawatt (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

<----------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.

<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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
Lots of digression here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
You may want to review your edits to Political Research Associates.[14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Wikipedia has tools rendering it uniquely easy to refute Mr. Berlet's invention of "facts".[15][16] 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 "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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Does pretended silliness usually work for you when you are caught out?Andyvphil (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
...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)Reply
...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)Reply

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)Reply