This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.194.92.153 (talk) at 15:45, 20 November 2006 (what was the purpose of blanking this page?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:45, 20 November 2006 by 172.194.92.153 (talk) (what was the purpose of blanking this page?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Undue amount of critcism from David Horowitz
The criticism section mostly consists of one person's disparaging comments, which compromises the article's neutrality. Some of the content is not even criticism. For example:
- During the 1996 U.S. Presidential election, Berlet published another adapted version of this article in which he characterized as "antidemocratic forms of populism" the movements in support of Perot, Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. He described them as "three straight White Christian men trying to ride the same horse".
-- WGee 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, in order for neutrality to exist, there must be a response to the criticism embedded in the criticism section, provided the response is sourced and published (i.e. not based on Berlet's comments on Misplaced Pages). Any well-faithed inclusion of criticism without a response from the criticized is an NPOV violation, usually based on the backward assumption that the rest of the article portrays the subject favourably and must therefore be counterbalanced by criticism. -- WGee 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. What if someone is dead and unable to respond? No critical views should be heard? --TJive 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Criticism of a dead person is not exempt from Misplaced Pages's policy regarding undue weight. If the person is notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages article, chances are he/she has supporters to offer rebuttals. Misplaced Pages policy states: "At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available." And in this case, I believe rebuttals are available. -- WGee 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- If they are available, by all means cite them. I do not see that this is an issue. --TJive 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is an issue because to exclude rebuttals is to violate Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which states: "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." Currently, the article represents only the anti-Berlet viewpoint. -- WGee 00:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- If there is relevant "pro-Berlet" material, include it. You aren't going to use specious pedantry in order to delete swaths of material. --TJive 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much about David Horowitz's criticism. Tom Harrison 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I returned the Horowitz criticism to the amount that was agreed a few months ago. I still think it's too much, but it was agreed as a compromise. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. --TJive 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism section lacks weight
The purpose of a criticism section in an article, as I understand it, is to provide notable criticisms, ones that are either held by a significent portion of the population, factor into the public view of the subject in some significent manner, or otherwise tell the reader something important about the topic. By comparison, the criticism in this article seems to be nothing more than a laundry-list of such-and-such a newspaper editorial criticised him. Certainly, it isn't encyclopedic to note each and every person who was criticized in an editorial by the John Birch Society or David Horowitz; if we did, roughly half of our U.S. political articles would have to focus on such criticism! Is there anything that makes those criticisms particularly significent in this case? Finally, the second criticism listed, from Larry Chin, appears to be from a private email; while I'm sure Mr. Chin feels strongly about his views, they're not encyclopedic on their own. --Aquillion 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probably should keep a few sentences pointing to the Horowitz criticism, though there is no need for the elaborate detail. The links are useful if they include my rebuts as well. The Horowitz matter is probably the best know criticism outside the 9/11 "Truth" movement, which also deserves a sentence and pointers to critics and the PRA page on 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Cberlet 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
For later:
Tom Harrison 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarify not an attorney
"Berlet, as a paralegal investigator, was a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive bar association." I seldom edit this page, but for too long it has left the impression at the top of the article, that I am an attorney, which is unethical for me to not clarify. Also, the NLG does not decribe itself as "liberal," but as "progressive."--Cberlet 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since my edits were reverted (without explanation) by Tom Harrison, I would like to ask two questions.
- Is it not the case that Chip Berlet has no college degree whatsoever? The article says no law degree, leaving one with the impression that he may have a degree in something else.
- It seems a bit of a double standard to say that because the NLG describes itself as "progressive," the article must use that term, whereas Berlet's target organizations throughout the article are referred to as "right-wing." I suspect that, given the opportunity, they would prefer to be called "conservative" or some other warmer, fuzzier term. --207.200.116.130 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You may have a point about liberal/progressive vs. right-wing, and we clearly can't rely only on self-description. Still, it doesn't seem to me that the groups he studies are anything other than right-wing. The John Birch Society is not conservative as I understand the term. Do you have a citation that says he has no college degree? Tom Harrison 01:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it appears that much of this article is drawn from promotional materials provided by Berlet's company. It includes a lot of not-very-notable stuff; it looks to me like Berlet is very anxious to make himself look respectable. If he had a college degree in anything at all, I am certain that he would be announcing it from the roof-tops. --207.200.116.130 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look, get over it. The NLG was founded as a "progressive" bar association and when it opened up membership to legal workers of various stripes it did not abandon that label. It is the height of arrogance to proclaim that a group cannot self-identify as "progressive." PRA and I study right-wing groups that include conservative, Christian Right, neo-conservative, paleoconservative, white supermacist, fascist, and neonazi organizations. The umbrella label that fits is "right-wing." I do not think that conservatives are fascists or neonazis. If an anonymous editor is too ignorant to appeciate these distinctions, it is not my concern, nor should it be the concern of a majority of sensible Misplaced Pages editors, no matter what their political preferences.--Cberlet 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you be avoiding editing your own biography, per WP:AUTO?
- --FidesetRatio 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you try to get a real life?--Cberlet 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the record shows that you do think that conservatives are fascists or neonazis. You also think that liberals are fascists or neonazis if they are tainted by what you call "conspiracism." And I believe that the ArbCom has advised you not to edit your own biography. --NathanDW 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with the article? -Will Beback · † · 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing...and for the record, I have never stated that "conservatives are fascists or neonazis" nor "that liberals are fascists or neonazis if they are tainted by what you call 'conspiracism.'" In addition, I seldom edit my own bio entry, except to fix errors of fact, or in this case, make it clear higher up that I am not an attorney, which is hardly a controversial edit. Also, ArbCom advised me to avoid editing my own biography: "Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself," -- a subtle but important difference. So three errors of fact in one post. Not a great track record, NathanDW.--Cberlet 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is the edit in question -- not a factual correction, not about you not being an attorney. This material, deleted from the article about you, makes it clear that you have accused prominent conservatives of being fascists or neonazis. And although no one is sure exactly what to call Lyndon LaRouche, he fits my definition of a liberal (with all the emphasis on FDR, Martin Luther King, and so on,) and you never tire of calling him a fascist or neonazi. __NathanDW 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is the edit in question -- and it is a factual correction. The NLG does not describe itself as "liberal."
- I have indeed suggested that a handful of "prominent conservatives" have allied themselves with "fascists or neonazis," or have adopted some ideological features of those political ideologies; and I have produced copius documentation to back up these claims. That is very different from suggesting that I "think that liberals are fascists or neonazis if they are tainted by what you call 'conspiracism.'" This is a false statement. Lyndon LaRouche is a neofascist with neonazi tendencies. Hardly a "liberal." We disagree. Stop trying to pester me.--Cberlet 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)