Talk:Chip Berlet

Book Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

updating

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

Attacking Wiki entries out of spite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of quotation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed text for criticism section (December 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<nowicki>

== Final Request ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What text would make the page more NPOV and balanced?

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

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

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

---

Concerns over right-left coalitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

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

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

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

Passed 7-0

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modify Lyndon LaRouche 2

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

Passed 7-0

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Modify Lyndon LaRouche 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other part of the Arbcom decision

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

Harassment of controversial experts

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

Passed 8-0

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

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

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

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

Return to editing discussion?

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

Responses section

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

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

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

Requesting unprotect to edit summary of review essay

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

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

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

Using Wikiquote for a vendetta

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Protection policy

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Needs Process To Handle Private Intelligence Interagency Conflicts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't invested any time in finding out. None of the participants other than Chip track back to Boston at a glance. I was using the general heuristics 1)that only Larouchians are interested in buffing Larouche's image while tarnishing his detractors, and 2) that Larouchians habitually report back to the hive, and 3) that the LYM (Larouche Youth Movement) like Spartacus, functions primarily as an infiltration and harassment force in addition to pamphleting. In my small experience, people who were deleting neg or wiping links for fifth column organizations were always principals. 216.99.241.29 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)