The Coverup
Dispute at Chip Berlet
2) Rangerdude was involved with a dispute with SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) at the article Chip Berlet with respect to his characterization of the content of an article strongly critical of Chip Berlet [133]. Rangerdude's characterization "Berlet's work [material omitted] "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse,' including among the political left." is present in the link but somewhat out of context: the original being: "His radical leftist ideology has caused him to lessen true fascism by smearing every non-Stalinist with totalitarian motivations. His attacks of fellow left-wingers has squashed vigorous debate and discourse." SlimVirgin's objection includes an invitation for Rangerdude to cease editing the article on the basis of alleged malice and both raises a poorly founded liability threat to Wikipedia and threatens unspecified "further action" [134]
Comment by Arbitrators:
I guess the focus needs to be on SlimVirgin's animosity toward an other editor in good standing rather than on the rather lame language Rangerdude is promoting (sic). Fred Bauder 19:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess SlimVirgin made a good faith mistake with respect to thinking RangerDude was creating a liability problem by including the Horowitz material in the article. (The material is properly ascribed, not assertions by Rangerdude [emphasis added]). I know many editors admire cberlet and understand the urge to support him, but he is a controversial figure and criticism by both the radical right and mainstream critics may legitimately be included in the article. As to the proportion of favorable and unfavorable coverage and word counts, the cure is to round out the favorable and neutral information, not to exclude or limit what is arguably a significant viewpoint regarding the subject. ... Fred Bauder 14:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
The full context of what Fred Bauder alleges to be "rather lame language" [emphasis added] in my addition seems to reveal otherwise. Here is the quote in full, indicating that the quote is attributed directly to its author:
Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [135], a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, [136] and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.[137]
As you can plainly see, my addidition did not claim that "Berlet's work has squashed vigorous debate and discourse" as Fred's characterization of it implied [emphasis added]. Rather, I explicitly attributed this opinion to Chris Arabia of David Horowitz's organization, which is what WP:CITE says to do for political viewpoints. Rangerdude 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I harbored no animosity toward Rangerdude. I hadn't edited an article with him before. But I'd noticed that he appeared to harbor animosity against Chip. He had tried to have Chip deemed an unreliable source for Wikipedia. He had opened an RfC against User:Cberlet. He had tried to remove a diagram created by Chip from (as I recall) Anti-Semitism just because Chip had drawn it. I therefore felt he was in danger of allowing his feelings toward User:Cberlet to influence his editing of Chip Berlet, and might edit the article with what looked like malice. I therefore said I felt he should stop editing it. When I said I was considering taking the matter further, I meant that I was thinking of alerting Jimbo, or taking steps in the dispute-resolution process. I felt that Rangerdude's actions toward Willmcw and Cberlet amounted to harassment, and that that shouldn't be allowed to affect the editing of a biography in the main namespace. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
See Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 114-131. ISBN 0-993592-96-5 for documentation up to 1998 from a verifiable reputable source (recommended by the Nizkor Project:
The Watchdog article is on a site which redirects to volksfrontinternational Fred Bauder 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The Watchdogs book by Laird Wilcox that you cite above is self-published, according to Amazon, and this is the quality of sources you've been trying to use at Chip Berlet, which is part of the problem, Nobs. We can't use self-published opinion in order to insult people. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't PRA also "self publish" its own highly opinionated attack pieces on conservative groups? Rangerdude 03:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I object to the insinuation "to insult people"; I am a qualified historian and only concerned about valid, historical research matters. nobs 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
PRA is a professional research group, not one individual. If Wilcox has to self-publish, it might be because he couldn't find a publisher. But whatever the reason, it's another mark against using that book as a source, especially when the claim it's currently being used for at Chip Berlet is to say he used to be associated with an organization that harbored terrorists. Strong claims like this need extremely good references to back them up, not self-published tiny-minority views. Nobs, I didn't mean to imply you're doing it in order to insult Chip. I'm saying the material does, as a matter of fact, insult him, and therefore the source has to be a good one. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 [138]; I'm assuming The Military Law Review is a peer reviewed journal, but go ahead and check that out for me if you will. Thank you. nobs 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
And what does the above have to do with Chip Berlet? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It is the qualification of who Mr. Laird Wilcox is. nobs 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude and nobs have attacked me and my work numerous times across many pages, even going to the entry on me Chip Berlet to add negative material after editing disputes. SlimVirgin and Willmcw have repeatedly attempted to cajole them into abiding by Wiki policies. It is no surprise to see that these claims appear here. It is part of a pattern of abuse that caused me to file an arbitration naming Rangerdude and nobs; see: [139] Therefore I do not think that SlimVirgin and Willmcw have acted improperly in this matter.--Cberlet 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The folks at Volksfront purchased and used Laird Wilcox's, "Political Research Associates, A Study in 'Links and ties'"; the folks a Volksfront also purchase and use Crest toothpaste and Charmin toiletpaper. Crest toothpaste and Charmin toilet paper must be neo-nazis then, as per PRA's standard methodolgy. nobs 19:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what the above text is meant to convey. The issue here is that SlimVirgin and Willmcw attempted to play a mediating role and make people abide by Wiki standards as they vented their spleens all over the page representing the entry on me in real life. SlimVirgin and Willmcw deserve awards for the effort at finding an NPOV outcome, not a sanction.--Cberlet 04:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
See WP:V#Dubious sources and Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links & ties", Editorial Research Services, 1999. Congratulations, A Wikipedia Policy has now been clarified to question the methodolgy that made PRA famous. Say, I just read your introduction to Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Republican Party; looks interesting. Maybe you can explain why the title was changed from Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Reagan Administration. nobs 05:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:V#Dubious sources:
2) Rangerdude was involved with a dispute with SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) at the article Chip Berlet with respect to his characterization of the content of an article strongly critical of Chip Berlet [133]. Rangerdude's characterization "Berlet's work [material omitted] "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse,' including among the political left." is present in the link but somewhat out of context: the original being: "His radical leftist ideology has caused him to lessen true fascism by smearing every non-Stalinist with totalitarian motivations. His attacks of fellow left-wingers has squashed vigorous debate and discourse." SlimVirgin's objection includes an invitation for Rangerdude to cease editing the article on the basis of alleged malice and both raises a poorly founded liability threat to Wikipedia and threatens unspecified "further action" [134]
Comment by Arbitrators:
I guess the focus needs to be on SlimVirgin's animosity toward an other editor in good standing rather than on the rather lame language Rangerdude is promoting (sic). Fred Bauder 19:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess SlimVirgin made a good faith mistake with respect to thinking RangerDude was creating a liability problem by including the Horowitz material in the article. (The material is properly ascribed, not assertions by Rangerdude [emphasis added]). I know many editors admire cberlet and understand the urge to support him, but he is a controversial figure and criticism by both the radical right and mainstream critics may legitimately be included in the article. As to the proportion of favorable and unfavorable coverage and word counts, the cure is to round out the favorable and neutral information, not to exclude or limit what is arguably a significant viewpoint regarding the subject. ... Fred Bauder 14:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
The full context of what Fred Bauder alleges to be "rather lame language" [emphasis added] in my addition seems to reveal otherwise. Here is the quote in full, indicating that the quote is attributed directly to its author:
Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," [135], a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, [136] and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.[137]
As you can plainly see, my addidition did not claim that "Berlet's work has squashed vigorous debate and discourse" as Fred's characterization of it implied [emphasis added]. Rather, I explicitly attributed this opinion to Chris Arabia of David Horowitz's organization, which is what WP:CITE says to do for political viewpoints. Rangerdude 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I harbored no animosity toward Rangerdude. I hadn't edited an article with him before. But I'd noticed that he appeared to harbor animosity against Chip. He had tried to have Chip deemed an unreliable source for Wikipedia. He had opened an RfC against User:Cberlet. He had tried to remove a diagram created by Chip from (as I recall) Anti-Semitism just because Chip had drawn it. I therefore felt he was in danger of allowing his feelings toward User:Cberlet to influence his editing of Chip Berlet, and might edit the article with what looked like malice. I therefore said I felt he should stop editing it. When I said I was considering taking the matter further, I meant that I was thinking of alerting Jimbo, or taking steps in the dispute-resolution process. I felt that Rangerdude's actions toward Willmcw and Cberlet amounted to harassment, and that that shouldn't be allowed to affect the editing of a biography in the main namespace. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
See Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 114-131. ISBN 0-993592-96-5 for documentation up to 1998 from a verifiable reputable source (recommended by the Nizkor Project:
"The two principle officers of PRA have always been Jean Hardisty, Director, and John Foster "Chip" Berlet, Analyst...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)Applicable Wikipedia Policy: WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources,
such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedianobs 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The Watchdog article is on a site which redirects to volksfrontinternational Fred Bauder 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The Watchdogs book by Laird Wilcox that you cite above is self-published, according to Amazon, and this is the quality of sources you've been trying to use at Chip Berlet, which is part of the problem, Nobs. We can't use self-published opinion in order to insult people. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't PRA also "self publish" its own highly opinionated attack pieces on conservative groups? Rangerdude 03:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I object to the insinuation "to insult people"; I am a qualified historian and only concerned about valid, historical research matters. nobs 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
PRA is a professional research group, not one individual. If Wilcox has to self-publish, it might be because he couldn't find a publisher. But whatever the reason, it's another mark against using that book as a source, especially when the claim it's currently being used for at Chip Berlet is to say he used to be associated with an organization that harbored terrorists. Strong claims like this need extremely good references to back them up, not self-published tiny-minority views. Nobs, I didn't mean to imply you're doing it in order to insult Chip. I'm saying the material does, as a matter of fact, insult him, and therefore the source has to be a good one. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
"John George and Laird Wilcox, two of the foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism, state that this definition reflects a common proposition about extremist behavior: it is more an 'issue of style than of content.' 30 What the extremist believes is less important than what behavior he exhibits. Rather, extremism can cut across the political spectrum."31
quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 [138]; I'm assuming The Military Law Review is a peer reviewed journal, but go ahead and check that out for me if you will. Thank you. nobs 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
And what does the above have to do with Chip Berlet? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It is the qualification of who Mr. Laird Wilcox is. nobs 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude and nobs have attacked me and my work numerous times across many pages, even going to the entry on me Chip Berlet to add negative material after editing disputes. SlimVirgin and Willmcw have repeatedly attempted to cajole them into abiding by Wiki policies. It is no surprise to see that these claims appear here. It is part of a pattern of abuse that caused me to file an arbitration naming Rangerdude and nobs; see: [139] Therefore I do not think that SlimVirgin and Willmcw have acted improperly in this matter.--Cberlet 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The folks at Volksfront purchased and used Laird Wilcox's, "Political Research Associates, A Study in 'Links and ties'"; the folks a Volksfront also purchase and use Crest toothpaste and Charmin toiletpaper. Crest toothpaste and Charmin toilet paper must be neo-nazis then, as per PRA's standard methodolgy. nobs 19:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what the above text is meant to convey. The issue here is that SlimVirgin and Willmcw attempted to play a mediating role and make people abide by Wiki standards as they vented their spleens all over the page representing the entry on me in real life. SlimVirgin and Willmcw deserve awards for the effort at finding an NPOV outcome, not a sanction.--Cberlet 04:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
See WP:V#Dubious sources and Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links & ties", Editorial Research Services, 1999. Congratulations, A Wikipedia Policy has now been clarified to question the methodolgy that made PRA famous. Say, I just read your introduction to Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Republican Party; looks interesting. Maybe you can explain why the title was changed from Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Reagan Administration. nobs 05:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Excerpted:
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.
WP:V#Dubious sources:
Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this
What is odd, is for the internet search results we get for this information, it all can be traced back to Political Research Associates, including a statement [140] read on the floor of the US House of Representatives. nobs 05:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
posted by Press Reports at
8:02 PM
<< Home