Talk:Chip Berlet - Wikipedia
5 people in discussion
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
|
|
Chip Berlet should completely stay away from this article, or others mentioning him or his work, their talk pages and refrain from trying to add or remove any material pro, con, true, false or whatever either directly or indirectly on any of those pages.
It should be a wiki rule that no author can edit, comment or try to influence any article, or its talk pages, in any way that mentions them or their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.7.243 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- How do we know that you aren't Chip Berlet? For the actual guideline, see WP:COI. •:• Will Beback •:• 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- There are attempts to delete or sanitize other pages simply because some of my published scholarly or journalistic work is cited ... Cberlet (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information." (p. 114-115) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet
- Of course we know how this has been handled in the past. nobs (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- What occasions this discussion? I believe that Chip has retired from WP editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- This isn't Conservapedia, where at least one editor appears to be obsessed by Berlet.[1][2] •:• Will Beback •:• 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Is one allowed to link to such BADSITES? ;)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Will, I read through the whole thing, Old Nazis, New Nazis, and the Republican Party and couldn't find a scintilla of evidence to support Berlet's claim in the intro,
- This isn't Conservapedia, where at least one editor appears to be obsessed by Berlet.[1][2] •:• Will Beback •:• 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- "the trail from the bloody atrocities of the Waffen SS to the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican Party and even to the paneled walls of White House briefing rooms."
- Isn't this kind of hype is a little to risky for Wikipedia to risk its reputation on? nobs (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Rob, in which article do we use that assertion? •:• Will Beback •:• 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I am referring to the use of extremist sources. You yourself joined the consensus to redirect the Roots of Ant-Semitism after an extensive discussion over What Counts as Reputable. nobs (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- A sentence written in the preface of someone else's book is proof that Berlet is an extreme source? Perhaps that assertion would make sense on Conservapedia. By Wikipedia standards, that sentence proves nothing. •:• Will Beback •:• 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- In the above link, our old friend RD made a pretty convincing case that the Reliable Sources policy (written by SlimVirgin) cited the Socialist Workers Party as an example of an extreme source. The subject of this article mainspace's own biography openly boasts working for that same Socialist Workers Party. (Slim says, "Okay, I'll stop now" and it was litigated in an ArbCom case originally accepted as Requests for Arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin but somehow ended up being called "Rangerdude".)
- A sentence written in the preface of someone else's book is proof that Berlet is an extreme source? Perhaps that assertion would make sense on Conservapedia. By Wikipedia standards, that sentence proves nothing. •:• Will Beback •:• 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I am referring to the use of extremist sources. You yourself joined the consensus to redirect the Roots of Ant-Semitism after an extensive discussion over What Counts as Reputable. nobs (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Rob, in which article do we use that assertion? •:• Will Beback •:• 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Isn't this kind of hype is a little to risky for Wikipedia to risk its reputation on? nobs (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- As an aside, how, pray tell, does a respondent in a ArbCom case get to remove herself and make the complaining party the respondent? You should know. You were the other respondent in that case that ArbCom voted to hear against you, but somehow ended up being the complainant. nobs (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- You mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others? I don't know how the ArbCom decides the scope of cases, and I've posted a question on just that point in the appropriate place. But none of this discussion concerns improvements to this article so we're off-topic. •:• Will Beback •:• 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No, it is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. ArbCom voted to accept the case against SlimVirgin & yourself [3], yet nowhere in the surviving record do we see SlimVirgin listed as a participant in the case. Amazing, since it was SlimVirgin herself who removed herself as a defendent. Remarkable transparancy, or lack thereof, in Wikipedia's internal regulatory processes. Could I do the same? Remove myself as a defendent from an ArbCom case after ArbCom votes to accept? nobs (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see what that has to do with editing this article. The only folks who can answer your questions are ArbCom members. You can post a request at WP:RFAR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It has everything to do with editing this article. In that very case ArbCom voted to hear against you & SlimVirgin (/Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet}, well qualified sources were presented for the statement, "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public." Yet through an obviously tainted process, and reprisals against editors seeking NPOV, this non-objective and unscholarly image was foisted upon Wikipedia & an unsuspecting public. nobs (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see what that has to do with editing this article. The only folks who can answer your questions are ArbCom members. You can post a request at WP:RFAR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No, it is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. ArbCom voted to accept the case against SlimVirgin & yourself [3], yet nowhere in the surviving record do we see SlimVirgin listed as a participant in the case. Amazing, since it was SlimVirgin herself who removed herself as a defendent. Remarkable transparancy, or lack thereof, in Wikipedia's internal regulatory processes. Could I do the same? Remove myself as a defendent from an ArbCom case after ArbCom votes to accept? nobs (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- You mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others? I don't know how the ArbCom decides the scope of cases, and I've posted a question on just that point in the appropriate place. But none of this discussion concerns improvements to this article so we're off-topic. •:• Will Beback •:• 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- As an aside, how, pray tell, does a respondent in a ArbCom case get to remove herself and make the complaining party the respondent? You should know. You were the other respondent in that case that ArbCom voted to hear against you, but somehow ended up being the complainant. nobs (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The third paragraph of Books and other writings reads: The New York Review of Books describes the book as an excellent account in Right-Wing Populism in America, describing the outermost fringes of American conservatism. [10] The Library Journal said it - with the latter sentence ending after the it. Autarch (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
On 27 March 2010 somebody inserted a 'notability' warning. It seems to me that a) this page has handily survived two rfd debates (archived above), and b) it does not lack for third-party reliable sources or discussion. Is there a reason for raising this question again? I am inclined to delete the warning if nobody will step up and defend it. M.boli (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I tend to agree. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Third, I agree. He is a moderately well known author. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
User Counteraction described the reason for the notability warning as follows. I apologize for not moving it here earlier. M.boli (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC):Reply
- Most cited sources are primary sources. According to the guidelines on Notability; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I question the reliability and independence of the secondary sources. Counteraction (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply