Talk:Claremont Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Criticism 2 Pro-SPLC POV pushing 3 LVM accusing Claremont of being a cult 4 Sobran

[edit] Criticism

The criticisms listed in the page all seem to come from people associated with the von Mises Institute, so I've moved them together and named the heading to indicate the source. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

McCarthy is Von Mises institute, Copold is not. Lumping them together and removing Copold gives the strong appearance of an attempt to remove and minimize content so as to diminish its presence in the article for political POV reasons. Please see WP:NPOV. Rangerdude 2 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

I reinstated Copold, and moved him to "other criticism." Who is he anyway and why are we reporting his criticism? I labelled him a blogger, because that's where he posted his criticism, but I don't know anything about him. Do you? Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

He looks like an opinion writer and/or political satirist to me. 2001 predates the blogging age. Rangerdude

The "Houston Review" is a defunct blog. Barring any other information about Copold, he's simply a blogger. I don't see how his opinion is worth including, unless we're simply looking for all possible sources of criticism. But, if you know more, please include it. Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Google brings up tons of blogging entries and comments from a Derek Copold. No sign of any credentials. He's not even a well-known blogger. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

I see no source of any kind where the Houston Review ever identifies itself as a blog, nor do I see any site where Derek Copold identified himself as a blogger in 2001 when that article was published. Thus the claim is unsourced. When I google the name I see a mixture of political editorials, response posts he's apparently made to various blog entries, and published articles. Given this, the most neutral and all encompassing description of him would probably be "political writer" or something along those lines. Rangerdude 3 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

If he's not a blogger he's a nobody and doesn't belong in a citation. Do we just report anything that anyone says on the internet? Regarding other edits, we both know that the Mises Institute has been called "neo-confederate". that fact is relevant to the discussion of views of Lincoln. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 04:03 (UTC)

You are, as usual, in error. One does not have to be a "blogger" to be cited here. Political writers are more than sufficient. For purposes of this source, he is a published writer and that is all he needs to be. His inclusion is pertinent as it is among the non LVM sources that have made similar criticisms of Claremont - a fact that you were trying to hide for POV reasons by changing the title of the criticisms section and deleting Copold to conform to that title. As to neo-confederate, it's an attack allegation that's been made by sources that are controversial in their own right and one that is included for pejorative reasons. As a descriptive term, it lacks consensus in common usage and among the accused persons. Including it is therefore inescapably POV, and once again I suggest you abstain from pushing it as you have been. WP:NPOV. Rangerdude 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Where was Copold published? So far as I can tell he only writes online. If he's not a blogger then he's just a guy. In fact, even if he is a blogger he's still just a guy. Blogs are not considered worthwhile sources. Copold needs to go. If he's the only one outside of the Mises Institute who agrees with them then that is that the way it goes. The reason to add the phrase "neo-confederate" is not for "perjorative reasons." I would appreciate if you do not question my motives. It is being used because it is an often-applied description of the group that is relevant to their position on Lincoln. By your criteria, most of the descriptive, POV terms that we use for both groups should also be removed. "Neo-conservative" is also used on occasion as a perjorative. etc. We can say who calls the Mises Institute "neo-confederate" if you prefer to attribute the term. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 04:39 (UTC)

Google hit for "Derek Copold" #4 [1] - something you could've easily found if you so desired. There are also lots of links etc. to other publications including the Houston Review where that article appeared. Dismissing published articles because you don't like them or their implications for your other edits is not a valid reason to delete material. Because the term "neo-confederate"'s use is controversial and typically lacks consensus in its application, it's use as a descriptive word is inherently POV and pejorative. Since this article is about the Claremont Institute, stating that Morris Dees calls LVM neo-confederate is foreign to the subject matter. It is just as much a POV to selectively choose to include certain allegations against a source from other sources as it is to make blanket pejorative characterizations. As to your motives, I question them for the extensively documented reason of your past behavior towards me. WP directs editors to assume good faith, and you have consistently failed to do so towards me since early February as evidenced in your extensive wiki-stalking. Given that record, that I or any other editor who had encountered the same would find your motives suspect is a perfectly reasonable exercise. Rangerdude 3 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

Thanks for finding out who your source is. Like all edits, the onus is on the one adding the information to justify its inclusion. If potentially perjorative terms need to be removed then I guess "neo-conservative" needs to go too. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

No will. Per wikipedia's source citation policies and common knowledge guidelines, the onus is on the editor to simply provide valid sources demonstrating information validity where appropriate and when possible. There is no "policy" requiring me to justify my edits to your arbitrarily applied standards and demands of citation that exceed anything demanded of me by wikipedia. Your harassing attempts to deconstruct virtually everything I do and your demands that I justify virtually every major edit I make on wikipedia to your personal degree of satisfaction extends far beyond any policy or guideline requirements made of me or any other editor by wikipedia. It also constitutes a bad faith assumption on your part, thus violating another Wikipedia guideline. As to neo-conservative being pejorative, I would concur but for the fact that the major writers for the Claremont Institute openly and frequently use the term themselves (there are over 300 different hits for the term on their site alone!). By contrast, von mises writers generally do not advertise themselves as neo-confederates. Rangerdude 3 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Is "leftist" a pejorataive term? What about "right wing"? If so then the terms should be sourced and attributed. I plugged in "controversial", because it's a catchall term and relatively neutral. -Willmcw 07:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet you have no problem using the non-neutral, non-catchall pejorative "neo-confederate" when it is applied to a libertarian group that clashes with your liberal political viewpoints. What we have here, Will, is yet another example of your POV pushing by way of a double standard. That said, I am and always have been supportive of a solution such as BenKovitz's where both are taken out and left to their respective articles. Rangerdude 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Neo-confederate" is an attributed criticism. "Leftist" is an unattributed attack on the source of the criticism, an ad hominem argument. -Willmcw 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Will, they're both ad hominem attacks on the source of the argument. I also recall attempting to address the issue of attribution previously by quoting Horowitz about the SPLC, but he too conflicts with your liberal political agenda and thus you object while letting similar ad hominems from groups from your own side of the fence stand. That said, I am content to leave the matters to their respective articles, meaning both ad hominems should be removed entirely. Should you decide to reinsert the "neo-confederate" attack as a qualifier against the LVMI though, I will continue to balance it regarding the SPLC, to wit: "the SPLC, which is described as a leftist "hate group" by conservative pundit David Horowitz. Rangerdude 22:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added your compromise language. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-SPLC POV pushing

Horowitz has referred to the SPLC as one of the many forms and synonyms of the political "left" on dozens of occassions, including "leftwing" and "leftism" [2], thus to describe his opinion of the SPLC by characterizing it as leftist is accurate. In the future, Will, please refrain from the POV-pushing and politically motivated edits that have characterized your behavior on this article to date, of which your multiple attempts to remove Horowitz and/or his content out of less-than-genuine sourcing concerns are prime examples. They are disruptive and in violation of WP:NPOV. Rangerdude 13:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read your own sources. Nowhere in that link does Horowitz refer to the SPLC as leftist. Those comments appear directed at Berlet. Let's just leave it with Dilorenzo, who unequivocally uses the language you added, "leftist hate group". -Willmcw 17:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop your own POV pushing too. ;) Thanks, -Willmcw 17:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Try reading instead of POV pushing for a change, Will. From Horowitz: "The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization (the SPLC) by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you (Morris Dees) promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights." "This report is so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." Rangerdude 18:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you try reading instead of POV pushing. If you want to say that Horowitz accuses the SPLC of promoting a "leftwing agenda" then that would be accurate. -Willmcw 19:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So in short, you object to stating that a pundit who says the SPLC pushes a "leftwing agenda" considers the SPLC "leftist," which is defined as a person or group that espouses the agenda of the political left wing, or, in short, a leftwing agenda. I'm not sure whether that objection constitutes a case of inane semantical hairsplitting, extreme anal retentiveness, a pattern of obstruction, obtuseness, and being unnecessarily difficult, or some combination thereof, but one thing is increasingly clear, Will. You are not making edits to this and a great many of the other articles you stalked me to with an aim of improving wikipedia's content or reaching consensus with other editors, especially those who differ from your strong and slanted political views. Rather you appear intent upon picking fights and stirring up revert wars on everything from the proper use of descriptive qualifiers to the most pedantic trivialities of word synonyms, all to the end of propping up your own leftist political views or denigrating the views of others who differ from them. Given that your POV pushing and other disruptive tactics of the type you have displayed here are almost always aimed at instigating conflict - and often conflict over bizarre, trivial matters at that - with other specific editors such as myself, other conservatives and libertarians, or whatever newbie you're trying to run off of wikipedia in any given week, to characterize them as a pattern of harassment as well is only to state the obvious, hence the unfortunate need for an arbitration case against you. It is equally unfortunate that the dispute between us has occupied so much time and come to such a heated conflict, but as this and numerous other cases in your editing behavior demonstrate, not even in the face of arbitration and its accompanying scrutiny do you relent in the pushing of a POV or the intentional aggravation of other parties with whom you are in dispute. Rangerdude 05:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think achieving accuracy and POV is "hair splitting" or "bizarre". However, that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. -Willmcw 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You certainly are trying to "acheive" POV, Will. Unfortunately for wikipedia it's your own POV and you conduct your edits in such a way as to disparage, belittle, and expunge any other that disagrees with or attempts to neutralize it. As to cloaking your actions in a purported quest for "accuracy," that's an odd claim to make for somebody who has devoted his recent energies on Wikipedia to removing an accurate cited quotation of Ed Sebesta in which he describes himself as an "anti-neo-confederate researcher." Rangerdude 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LVM accusing Claremont of being a cult

If a group calls the Claremont Institute a cult because they have a high opinion of Lincoln, and that group is known for their neo-confederate sympathies, then that is highly relevant. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Please do not remove factual, sourced, and relevant info. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 05:45 (UTC)

First, you are misrepresenting LVM's position. They do not call Claremont a cult because of their high opinion of Lincoln - they call Claremont a cult because of its common use of religious language and treatments toward Lincoln. Furthermore, per WP:POV "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." By selecting to present the fact that SPLC has called LVM "neo-confederate" - a pejorative and controversial term in its own right - over all other things that have been said or could be said about LVM, it gives undue attention to the stance of the SPLC. This would be comparable to going through each and every article where George W. Bush is mentioned and qualifying his name as "President George W. Bush, who Michael Moore has likened to Hitler, is..." Indeed, one could similarly edit every reference to the SPLC itself to reference conservative descriptions of it as racial McCarthyists. This is a dangerous slippery slope to pursue, and one we should strive to avoid. Rangerdude 4 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

[edit] Sobran

Is it right to have Holocaust denial proponent in here as a critic? -Willmcw 08:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:V:

Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence.

Calling Sobran a "Holocaust denial proponent" based on guilt-by-association with the IHR is inappropriate per this policy. Rangerdude 08:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Whew, a mighty new policy you're quoting there. So, you don't consider Sobran to be anti-semitic, despite remarks like:

• "The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it."

And Sobran didn't just speak to the IHR, he gave an impassioned defense of them and their work. [3]

So are anti-semites permitted as critics or not? -Willmcw 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please review WP:V:

Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence.

Calling Sobran a "Holocaust denial proponent" based on guilt-by-association with the IHR is inappropriate per this policy. Any other criticisms of Sobran's beliefs about zionism need to be appropriately sourced and attributed in the Joseph Sobran article itself, not in the form of nested criticisms or guilt-by-association attacks in a completely unrelated article. As with the previous cases, your disruptive behavior is being added to the Arbcom evidence. Rangerdude 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. On talk:Morris Dees you say that the Jubilee may not be used as a critic because they are anti-semitic. Does the same rule apply to all anti-semites, or is it a special rule that only applies to that page? -Willmcw 09:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your question is an attempt at disruption of this and several other articles. Once again please review WP:V. Guilt by association tactics such as those espoused in your post above, Will, are not permitted on wikipedia: "Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence." I look forward to your compliance with this policy. Rangerdude 09:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee, you've quoted that same passage three times on this page in under an hour. Yet you've avoided answering the question entirely. Anyway, since you've failed to give any reason why anti-semitic sources are forbidden, I must assume you no longer believe that, and that you drop your objections to the Jubilee, which has nothing to do with guilt by association. Either that, or yuo still think that anti-semites do not belong, and so the criticism by Sobran must be taken out of this article. Should I flip a coin to see which you really think? -Willmcw 09:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)