User talk:Cberlet/Archive 2005-06 2005-08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archive of User talk:Cberlet

[edit] copyedit & such

Hi again, Chip. I gave the article a cursory copyediting, please have a look and let me know if you find any rewording to be odd or in error. Also, I noticed that the criticism section isn't entirely symmetrical at the moment, missing a response from yourself on Daniel Brandt's criticism as well as that of The New American. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I think these are due (I also notice that the last paragraph, about LaRouche, dosen't depict any actual criticisms of you, only that they had some – any thoughts on that?). I find myself in the fortunate position of being able to ask you these questions directly, it makes my work much easier, as in research that I would otherwise be obliged to carry. :) El_C 09:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your messages

I'm sorry not to have replied to your first message; I somehow missed it, and was only alerted to it by your follow-up. Good luck with the redirects — I'll keep an interested (and sympathetic) eye on things. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Copyright Permission

Dear Chip,

I believe that Wikipedia’s article on Right Wing Politics would be enhanced by an article (chart) found at the Political Research Associates website. I would like to edit Right Wing Politics article on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics). I am seeking permission to add Political Research Associates’ “Mapping the Right: Chart One. Sectors of the US Right Active in the Year 2004”, located at (http://www.publiceye.org/research/concepts/Mapping-the-Right-02.html).

Thank you for considering my suggestion,

Daniel

Political Research Associates allows Wikipedia to use specific copyrighted material on a case-by-case basis as Fair Use for educational purposes.

[edit] Permission granted

This message will serve as permission for use of the Chart of Sectors of the U.S. Political Right.

The page with the most recent updates of the chart is: http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html

It is possible that there will be objections to the insertion of the entire chart. Wiki editors can be opinionated. :-) You can also consider using selected material from the chart as long as you somehow credit it to PRA. If it would help, PRA could produce the chart as an expandable image file. If the chart is used in its entirety, PRA will add a small copyright/permission note similar to the ones used on the page for me on Wikipedia where two images are located: Chip Berlet. The code for the notice and other instructions are located at User:Cberlet.

Good luck with your editing.--Cberlet 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added the .png version to the PRA website: http://www.publiceye.org/research/Chart%20of%20Sectors.png ---Cberlet 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

Hi Chip, we have another LaRouche editor The Power of Reason (talk • contribs), possibly a sockpuppet. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at the deletion vote regarding two articles he's created about LaRouche economic theory. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. It's a pleasure to collaborate with you. -Willmcw 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

First your spurious accusation of plagiarism, and now you accuse me of vandalism. This, combined with dozens of other ugly statements on your part seem to be leading up to a rather damining arbcom case. I suggest you chill the fuck out. Sam Spade 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

I thought of your conciliatory work on the whole Islamofascism thing, and certainly wanted to get your opinion on the nomination.

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Schaeffer

Are you sure that you are being more "NPOV" by rendering questionable things that are demonstrable? 14:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

Please see WP:RfM#User:Cberlet_and_User:Sam_Spade. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, researchers

Chip, would you be willing to merge whatever is salvageable from this article into 9/11 conspiracy theories? The VfD was clear that September 11, researchers should be re-merged, but the creators and maintainers of that article seem reluctant to do so. I will be re-directing soon, so I'd appreciate any assistance. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

[edit] Ludwig von Mises Institute

I see that youu've written about the Mises Institute before. The article here is undergoing active editing, with a number of LVMI faculty and staff participating. If you have any interest in it you might be able to bring a different POV to the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -Willmcw 22:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 911 Prediction Photo

Why do you feel the 911 prediction photo from July 2000 and background story are "too bizarre"? Are not all predictions bizarre? And how few of them come with photos and credible witnesses? I think you were too hasty in removing it. It took less then five minutes from being posted for you to remove it.

If you Google '911 prediction' it is the top link, so it is not completely unknown.

Dear anonymous. It does not belong on a page about real death and destruction. It would be outlandish and painful to many. It is a bizarre claim, there is no substantial coverage (astrology weekly notwithstanding). And if I Google "lunatic" and "prediction" I get 55,500 hits.--Cberlet 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Dear Chip. You are a journalist...so check it out. Apparently it was a real prediction witnessed by a credible journalist. There is also a very specific anthrax through the mail prediction from the same person witnessed by a PBS Frontline producer, apparently with video tape.

Be more skeptical. Before 9/11 there were studies by think tanks warning about jets being flown into buildings as a form of terrorism, as well as the use of anthrax being sent through the mail. Please stop bothering me.--Cberlet 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chip. Okay. Fair enough. Still I have never seen a photograph like the one linked above. What about this: AI Predicts Terror Attack? from the same guy. Again very specific, and he posted to usenet 4 days before the gas station building bomb, so the timing is real: Baby AI Issues Terror Advisory - Gas Stations Near Buildings So, three terror predictions, that appear dead on? I know I am very curious.

[edit] On primary sources

Hi Chip,

If you have a moment, could you take a look at Harry Magdoff? You are probably familiar with him; he is a prominent Marxist economist who has been an co-editor of Monthly Review for many years.

Last week, I asked 172 to have a look at the article; at the time, it was dreadful, very little on economics, lot of dubious allegations that he was a Soviet spy, largely the work of a Nobs01 (talk • contribs), a conspiracy buff who seems to find a spy under every bed. 172 rewrote the thing, and turned it into a decent article. Now, however another user, TJive (talk • contribs), has re-added a huge amount of this espionage stuff, [1]], thereby undoing nearly all of 172's work. The article, as it now stands, is basically a MacCarthyite smear.

The crux of the issue seems to be the the reliance of Nobs and TJive on what appears to me to be dodgy primary sources, such as Venona transcriptions, the type of things which 172 has says have not been sanctified by secondary sources. Given your experience as a researcher, I wonder whether you would care to weigh in. Any help you can offer in helping restore the balance to that article would of course be most welcome.

Thanks, Viajero | Talk 13:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alas, I just noticed that the situation is very similar with I. F. Stone. Viajero | Talk 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Scare

Hi. I see you're helping get rid of some of the nonsense on the Harry Magdoff and I. F. Stone pages that User:Nobs01 put in (and which his reactionary helpers try to keep in).

I haven't seen you break it, but just as a precaution, the reactionaries often try to trip people up on the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which is to not revert a "page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." So familiarize yourself with this rule. Not that I've seen you break it, but I know they try to goad people into breaking it. Otherwise - good work. Ruy Lopez 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Harry Magdoff

Mr. Berlet, I should remark that I am familiar with some of your work outside of this site (some of it I agreed with and some not). I welcome your constructive engagement on the Harry Magdoff article but preemptive mass deletions and moving entire swaths of content is not a good way to initiate discussions, which have already been ongoing for some time now. If you would indicate support for remerging and verifying the content and sources it would be a sign of good faith towards rationally compromising on the material. Thank you. --TJive 02:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet,
In my experience when there is a dispute over the accuracy of content a tag is placed on the article and it is discussed in the talk page. That is what was occurring in the article until you moved it elsewhere. Usually moves are for the purpose of saving space on an article which is not a concern here. That you dispute the text is nearly self-evident, but not justification in itself for creating a new article with an inflammatory title and introduction. That was bound to elicit a negative response no matter how you view it and I do not believe it is appropriate, as you can see by the Vfd. If you wish to compromise over the material I would be glad to participate but I am not going to do so on what amounts to a POV sandbox. Please reconsider. --TJive 03:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comments on my talk page, I must say that I had already posted the Vfd by the time I had asked, which is why I asked for your support in deleting and merging the content. I had assumed that you were perhaps initially acting a bit rashly (out of anger or otherwise) and might reconsider, as I have attempted to encourage you. --TJive 03:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have indicated a few times now that I look forward to constructive discussion and compromise on the matter but that I do not believe at all that the manner in which you have done so is helpful, that it is in fact counter-productive and inflammatory. Nobs, another major contributor who believes in the value of this material, agrees with me which is why he refused to comment on the page. There is no real reason for its existence. If you wish for constructive dialogue as you say (and having already read your comments I believe that you do), then simply move this content to the Talk:Harry Magdoff page where we will discuss it. I maintain there is no reason for what has been done and that it is counterproductive towards accomplishing the stated goals of both you and myself. --TJive 03:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I should add as an observer that the results of a VFD do not matter at all if the title violates wikipedia NPOV standards, which this one does. J. Parker Stone 11:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to have a discussion, let's have it on the discussion page. This is very frustrating and irregular.--Cberlet 11:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note, I prefer the original Magdoff article I wrote after it was merged with Ruy Lopez, et al contributors. It appeared well rounded. They insisted on a confrontation and no reference whatsoever as to the facts of his involvement with Soviet espionage. Hence, the result what you have now. This will continue, I suppose, until facts become accepted, and old myths discarded. My personal interest is in espionage activity, not counterespionage files, which is where most of the evidence is drawn from. But let me clearly state, the fact Harry Magdoff's espionage career may overwhelm his bio page, is not my doing. If the arguements are over what the meaning of "is" is, then the weight of evidence must be inserted. nobs 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

Cberlet, it seems that part of the problem that Rangerdude et al have with one of your edits on the Mises institute was that your affiliation with SPLC isn't declared on your user page. They seem to be of the opinion that if they declare their relationship to the Mises institute on their user page then they aren't hiding anything, so their edits can't be NPOV. That is my loose interpretation of some of their comments. Anyway, I thought that perhaps it would help resolve at least some of this mess if you put something on your user page that announced you affiliation with SPLC. Wikipedia policies don't require it, and I know the notion that "declare affiliation ==> therefore ==> exempt from NPOV" doesn't really add up, but maybe such a gesture would help, at least while you are editing the Mises institute article. I am not an admin or a mediator or anything official like that. Just consider this an invitation from a lowly editor with a silly idea that may or may not help anything. Accept or decline as you wish. FuelWagon 15:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks FuelWagon 20:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

given all things I've been accused of recently, either you are a saint for putting up with what you did, or I am a very bad wagon indeed.  ;) FuelWagon 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I. F. Stone

As a gesture of good faith in resolving a myriad of disputes, I will lay some cards on the table. You will note my input and/or reverting of material on the main article I. F. Stone has been minimum. I inserted an understanding of what Stone's relationship to the KGB was on the Talk page, and will deal with it fully once I have completed the review of Venona information regarding Washington, D.C. operatives within the U.S. government. Afterwards, I intend to review the Archives of the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB), which are now open, and should shed more light on I. F. Stone and other issues in question. It should be noted, Haynes & Klehr place I. F. Stone in their Appendix D, Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies, or "uncorroborated" as I refer to them; in this regard, I have departed from Haynes & Klehr's conclusions based upon the corroborative evidence of Oleg Kalugin, and as such, have not marked Stone with an (*) on the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_Venona_Papers. Conversely, I have not engaged in an edit war over placing Stone in [:Category|Soviet spies]. It seems the consensus is to leave the Kalugin material in the Stone article. I am happy with this, and would be willing to fall back on a presumption of innocence stand vis-a-vis leaving him out of [:Category|Soviet spies], and marking him with an (*) on the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_Venona_Papers as "uncorroborated" until such a time as the SACB materials can be dealt with. I would be willing to cooperate with you in this regard, if you are willing to work with me in resolving several of the other disputes, including the persistent vandalism that now is occurring on the Venona project page itself. nobs 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page. Thank you. nobs 20:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I am debating in good faith on the appropriate talk pages. Please do likewise. I have no interest in a side conversation.--Cberlet 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe I have acted without good faith in any manner whatsoever. If I have offended you somehow, I apologize. nobs 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I really prefer to work on public talk pages. Happy to continue working with you there.--Cberlet 01:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Soviet spies VfD

I have closed the VfD you opened for this category, and moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This was done because WP:CFD is the prefered location to debate deletion of categories. --Allen3 talk 20:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leftist Lie Factory?

Chip, is this you they are talking about?[2] Please refute these charges! NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!!
Don't be coy. Not an auspicious start. However, here are my comments about the hit piece written about me.--Cberlet 12:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red-baiting Lie Article!

David Horowitz had a fit when he read my article in the SPLC magazine, and commissioned a hit piece by Chris Arabia. It is full of distortions and factual inaccuracies based on assumptions that are false. Hit Piece

Here is my original article, for starters. Berlet article

Horowitz complained about my article: H-1

As the Chris Arabia article reports:

“Because Berlet impugned the integrity of the CSPC (among many others), David Horowitz thoroughly rebutted Berlet’s bile. Undeterred as ever by reality, Berlet repeated his distortions and SPLC endorsed and defended his misconduct.”

What that means is that I wrote a lengthy memo defending my few sentences about CSPC, and after the attorneys at SPLC read it, and compared it to Horowitz’s complaint, they and the editors felt the Horowitz complaint had no merit and defended my article as written. Horowitz then published the memo, even though he did not ask permission. Berlet memo

Horowitz’s counter response is here: H-2

The author, Chris Arabia, mentions my role in the Albania friendship group, but fails to mention my article where I talk about what I did in that group, especially my struggle against anti-democratic Stalinists and my criticsm of the “democratic centralism” of Leninism. See: “Abstaining from Bad Sects: Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations. Abstaining from Bad Sects

In case that is not clear, it means I am critical of communism. I have also written about Stalinism as a form of totalitarianism.

“In Berlet’s mind, North Korea on the Adriatic was paradise.”

Not true. Never said it, never thought it.

“Because Berlet arbitrarily redefines words such as ‘fascist’ to fit his delusions, he need not confront a reality that lays waste to his worldview”

Not true. I write scholarly articles on neofascism that have been published internationally. See, for example, Chip Berlet. (2003). “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”

This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) I left the board of a group Brandt ran when he refused to discuss my concerns over his increasing tolerance of conspiracy theories and antisemitism. He was mad.

“Even The Nation has printed criticisms of Berlet’s venomous proclivities.”

Apparently not on the page linked in the article, which is an attack on The Nation by the CSPC. It does not mention my name. Once, Alexander Cockburn felt I had not criticized the ADL strongly enough for a spying scandal in San Francisco (I guess co-writing an op-ed in the New York Times was not critical enough). Cockburn criticized me in The Nation, but was forced to retract some of his claims by the editors.

“Berlet’s unstated litmus test for ‘fascists’ is deviation from his far-Left political views.”

Not true and surreal.

“For example, Berlet has recently turned his poison pen on such dubious ‘anti-Semites’ as David Horowitz.”

Not true. The quote is ‘cooked,’ I never called Horowitz an anti-Semite. Read for yourself, here is the text: CSPC section

“By falsely insinuating CSPC's devotion to bigotry and hatred (a devotion belied by David Horowitz's multiple decades in the Civil Rights movement), Berlet created the false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand.”

Not true. Misrepresents my article. I never wrote that CSPC had a devotion to “hatred.” I wrote, at the beginning of the article:

“How do ideas that once were denounced as racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited get transmitted into mainstream discussions and political debates? Through a wide array of political and social networks.”
“Today, there are still political and social networks that seek to undermine full equality for all Americans. Their messages are spread using the standard tools: prejudice, fear, disdain, misinformation, trivialization, patronizing stereotypes, demonization and even scare-mongering conspiracy theories.”Berlet article

This next paragraph by Arabia is quite interesting:

“To aid the radical Left, PRA identifies three primary tasks: boosting ‘dialectical materialism’ to combat ‘conspiracism,’ continuing to support Palestinian anti-Semitism, and promoting ‘progressive internationalism’ to thwart the successes of capitalism.”

Not true. At PRA we could never figure out how he cut and pasted snippets of language (off of our website?) to assemble this totally false claim. Especially since we have multiple articles warning about anti-Semitism.

“Berlet is also on the roster of ‘Speak Out Now!’ a left-wing speakers bureau that features such luminaries as veteran Communist miscreant Angela Davis.”

This is a good example of the guilt-by-association red-baiting that is laced through the article.

And that's just a few of the reasons I call the CSPC article by Chris Arabia the "Red-baiting Lie Article!" --Cberlet 12:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's great book review of Horowitz's biography? It's really great. He tears it up. (I can't find the original Chronicles review; but here are some related comments/discussions.[3],[4],[5]) So, what, are you some commie or socialist? I have always been curious why socialists and leftists act righteous and take the moral high ground, despite the fact that without property rights you can have no other rights. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 16:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Abstasining From Bad Sects" confuses me; the term "ultra-Leftism" confuses me. It appears there is a mountain of ideological belief somewhere underneath a construct of "left" or "Leftism", this all theoretical, and I haven't the patience to attempt to making sense of it. Seems it is all built upon the Left/Right Political Spectrum Theory, which I am disposing of in my tract "Fallacy of the Left/Right Spectrum Theory". Can you somehow make it more specific. Thank you. nobs 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
So guys, if I ever run into you in person I will buy you a drink and try to explain it all, but there is such a vast ideological chasm between us, it would give me carpal tunnel syndrom to start typing a response. Well, except to say that I am a dull democratic socialist like Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornell West. Pinkish but not a full-fledged Red. Some of my best friends are commies, though.  ;-) But to suggest I am a Stalinist is like suggesting Ludwig von Mises was a neoconservative. Wrong era, wrong ideology, wrong category. --Cberlet 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; I have engaged at Talk:Left-Right politics in an attempt to dispute the whole theory. Suffice it say, I reject the basic concept that all political activity is ideologically driven, hence the very underlying construct of a "left-right division". nobs 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Chip, I believe that this "hit piece" as you describe it is entirely too bombastic and its conclusion precedes its evidence but there are still some points to my mind not sufficiently resolved. I don't believe, tough as it may be, that I have been thrown into confusion or convulsion by the left-lingo of the sect article and yet in reading it I can not for the life of me figure out why in the world you would participate in such an organization to begin with. This was a "friendship" organization pertaining to a country which felt itself scorned by the rejection of Stalin and Mao in the USSR and PROC, respectively. It was itself the most sectarian and ideologically extreme of the communist bloc countries and yet you write almost as if you were surprised to see all sorts of Leninists and Stalinists show up, rigging and running the show for whatever minute pathological purposes it serves at that moment. That is like joining the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic" and being shocked and dismayed that you find yourself amongst racist and totalitarian cranks and are forever haunted by it. It's certainly not the fault of someone who gets a bad impression from the act.
For the purposes of full disclosure I have to say that as I referred to before I am familiar with some of your pieces. I think your material on LaRouche is generally valuable, but I also believe your work with SPLC was as much a "hit piece" on Horowitz and co. as this was on you, so in that sense it simply returned the favor. Horowitz is a grown man and can certainly defend himself (and he did), but I think you underestimate the exasperation that comes when a man who dedicated years to (real and faux) civil rights causes is being lumped beside neo-Confederate authors and racialist science proponents for what entirely appears (to him) as being a case of not conforming to an arbitrary expectation of what opinions and language is proper when dealing with already hypersensitive issues like slavery reparations. I've read quite a bit of his material and get entirely the opposite impression that you have of him; to my mind conflating people such as he and actual, fringe racist groups is a disservice to the SPLC's stated goals to be engaging in and, in fact, wasting time on. --TJive 00:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Chipster, sure, I guess you can say you are not a commie, but still, all leftists are systematically hostile to private property rights to some significant degree, are they not? And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity; you necessarily then want some collective group with Big Guns--the state--to own the property instead. But he who owns the properts gets to tell the others what to do; it's a control thing, ya know.
What have you written on that nutjob Larouche? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps his encounters with "the Right" in Wikipedia he can then write investigative journalist articles and then sell through a non-profit organization, for which he he gets paid. nobs 02:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That conjecture does not assume much good faith, nobs. El_C 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting premise; we will see in three or four months in upcoming issues of The Public Eye if Venona project materials are being used by neo-fascist skinheads to promote anti-semitism. nobs 15:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity — Always convinient when the the premise is so... self-contained. I, however, dispute it. El_C 02:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether it's disputed, what matters is that all long-term successful economies and societies have been market-oriented to some degree, and have included property rights. J. Parker Stone 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that it does, in fact, matters; and I dispute this definition you set out above. But I don't wish to engage in these polemics at this time. Also, we are intruding on Chip's talk page, which is unfair (on my part, too). El_C 02:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No polemics, just stating a fact. J. Parker Stone 03:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation at this time, nor with rhateorical or semantic epilgoues. El_C 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No smiley? :( J. Parker Stone 05:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought I added one, actually; doing too many things at once. :\ El_C 05:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs01 strikes again

Old version:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, a publication which has itself had two correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Nobs01 version[6]:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, which has been referred to as a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" evidenced by having two of its own correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Cberlet: see my message to you at [7]. nobs 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, Please stop vandalizing the Wiki pages on me and Political Research Associates. Please stop trying to engage me in side conversations. Please stop using this page to carry out attacks on me and my work. Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to. Any further discussion of issues will take place through a mediator. Please stop stalking and harassing me.--Cberlet 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I always find it amusing when people use "harass" to refer to something going on on the Internet. J. Parker Stone 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chip Takes Wiki Sanity Break

The attacks on me and my work continue to mount. The tone gets nastier, the claims more ludicrous. I need to walk away from Wiki for a week or so in the hopes that stuff will settle down and that more level-headed Wiki editors will step in and try to calm matters down. --Cberlet 20:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Over the past year it has gotten worse instead of better, and the chance of some deus ex machina where level-headed Wiki editors will step in and sort everything out becomes more and more remote with each day. I do not have a Panglossian view either, in terms of political articles, Wikipedia will get worse, not better. Perhaps when a left-wing and right-wing Wikipedia clones pop up (Demopedia? Dkosopedia? Anarchopedia? Red Wiki?) and all of the hard-liners flock to them, things will become saner. Ruy Lopez 09:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Edits

I followed your edits in the Christian Identity article. Very good edits, objective, and I think dispassionate. Christian Identity is, of course, a powder keg. If you can navigate as skillfully though other articles as you did through the Christian Identity one, I can't see why people would be giving you a hard time.

Well done. Thanks for your contributions.

[edit] Eustace Mullins

Chip, I believe you're a bit of an expert on the subject, have published articles about him and so-on. Would you mind taking a look at the current article? Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perceived ...

Thanks for catching that very important missing word; I didn't even notice! It's been a while since I looked at the article. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism in the United States?

Could I prevail upon you to look in at Talk:Fascism#United_States? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Losing temper

It happens to the best of us. It's what caused me to slap a POV tag on an article you defend almost territorially. Your loss of temper is actually what has kept me from ever bothering to come back to try to constructively fix it. I begged out because I was too busy, which you tried to use as an excuse to remove the POV tag. It was appalling, but it's nice to see that you've finally admitted that you do, at least on occassion, lose your temper. Those of us with strong opinions sometimes express our POVs more forcefully than is civil, which is unfortunate, but at least, fortunately, in this venue, it's much easier to admit and retract. Tomer TALK 03:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Liftarn at List of political epithets

I have run into what I consider disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Political Views of LaRouche

Dear Mr. Berlet

Since you revertet the following paragraph so fast could you help me with changing it in a way that incoroporates the legal information? I find the paragraph supreamly misleading without it.

This is the original paragraph:

LaRouche has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in the 1978 article, and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

And this was added to clarify the courts statement "fair comment":

This ruling was in accordance to a U.S. Supream Court ruling that makes it clear that a public figue as a plaintiff must proofe that the opinion statet, even if untrue and harmful, was stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm the plaintiff. As long as this proposition can not be met the opinion is called "fair comment". That means the court did not qualify the statement of calling LaRouche an anti-Semite but judged if there was proof of mailcious intend etc. on the side of the defendend. The plaintiff in this case was LaRouche.


I also made an wikipedia article about fair comment which you might want to check. This article should put your concerns about original research to rest.

Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation in making the article better.


--Zirkon 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon & enemies list

Hi. What, out of curiosity, happened to this category? Do you know? Is the vote for deletion archived someplace? I can't find it. Thanks. --Cberlet 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know in detail. I don't follow WP:CFD, because it is mostly administrivia. Usually, someone alerts me when something substantive comes up. This time, no one did. I don't know where it is archived (you might ask on the CFD talk page, if it's not apparent). My assumption is that it was deemed redundant to Nixon's Enemies List. But it bothers me that no one thought to post a notice about the CFD at Talk:Nixon's Enemies List. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be in the archives for any time in the last three months. I'll try to follow up & find out what it happening. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Blindsided:_Nixon_.22enemies.22. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion, such as it was
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_19#Category:Nixon_.22enemies.22_and_sub-cat_Category:Original_Nixon_.22enemies.22. Let me know if you pursue trying to get this reversed, I'd certainly be with you on it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/b/e/User_talk%7ECberlet_Archive_2005-06_2005-08_4810.html"