Talk:Public Information Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Daniel Brandt was merged here. For the contribution history, see Talk:Public Information Research/merged material

Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 18 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public Information Research article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Public Information Research.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Killing redirect

Folks, I'm killing off this redirect to Talk:Daniel Brandt. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Discussion at Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Merge_Discussion --h2g2bob 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed the 'reference'

...and boy, i don't really want to get burned by this hot potato, but what i removed was in no way a reference, and looked silly, so i took it out.... hopefully there may be a better written, properly referenced article on its way here shortly? hmmmm..... Purples 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

There's no point in moving BLP issues from another page to this one. Any article here needs to be properly written, entirely factual, very well-sourced, and should be about the projects, not the person. The "claims to be" thing in the lead was a BLP violation, because you're implying that the directors are somehow misleading people. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

tagged talk {{blp}} --h2g2bob (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of "watch" pages

It was suggested to merge Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch into Public Information Research.

  • Oppose for the following reasons.
    • Different topics.
    • Reasonably large articles
    • Virtually non-overlapping content.

Since wikipedia is not paper, I fail to see what can be gained by merging. Mukadderat 05:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are good reasons to merge them. These are all projects of Public Information Research. The Wikipedia Watch article does not appear to have multiple 3rd party sources and it's only three paragraphs long, not a "large article". The argument for keeping Google Watch separate is stronger because it's longer and has better sources. A good reason to keep them those separate is that they have better "name recognition" than PIR. In fact, perhaps the merge should go the other way. Is PIR itself notable if there are no 3rd party sources about it? Maybe we should move it back to "Namebase", which has several prominent mentions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...came here from NameBase, which has a note that it is also proposed for merge to here. Now, exactly why, other than overassiduous WikiLawyering, is it a good idea to make someone interested in Wikipedia Watch dig through another article for info on it? Exercise some editorial judgement, note that if it doesn't fit the notability template that that's a flaw in the template (the problem is in the Wiki structure, which doesn't allow for article complexes, except by the inadequate Category, etc., structure), and devote your efforts to flushing out real trivia. Or adding information to WP, like the currently omitted mention of the graphic interface at NameBase... Andyvphil 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a merged article

An editor has repeatedly added a link to an old version of a merged article.[1] I believe such links are out of the ordinary and should be discussed before being added again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think linking to an old version of an article that no longer exists (except as a redirect) is problematical for a number of reasons - that it's arbitrary which version of the article is linked to; that linking to an article that can't (or shouldn't) be edited is totally not in keeping with the norms of Wikipedia (and obviously is confusing to the reader/editor); and, of course, most importantly, that the AfD and DRV processes (and/or Jimbo's intervention) lead to the decision that the article would no longer exist at Wikipedia (except in the database), so linking to an old version is essentially saying that AfD and DRV processes can be ignored by any editor who so chooses. Not good. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. First, Wikipedia is not a suitable candidate for an external link. Second, this is a clear case of WP:POINT about Brandt's AfD - inside articles is not the place to hold debates on this. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that creativity in solving unusual situations is to be encouraged. Second, the key is does this make wikipedia better but if so does it do so only marginally at the expense of some other important thing. (The key is not what can the policies be interpreted as or changed to; this is a fairly unique situation.) For example, if the linked page revealed personal data on DB or could be edited by vandals then it would be contrary to why the DB page is a redirect in the first place. Third, the link could be to an archive of that page and as the page fully documents its sources would be a (is a) verifiably reliable source of information on DB. All that said, I'm tired of the DB issue so I don't see myself getting much involved in this latest issue. WAS 4.250 07:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a diff that defeats the purpose of a compromise created to solve a longstanding dispute is not a wise idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is why I need to be unblocked

Someone please revert the word "organization" back to "charity." The technical term for a 509(a)(2) organization, which is what the IRS has determined PIR to be according to the IRS determination letter, is "public charity." --Daniel Brandt 66.142.89.147 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Source? Quatloo 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Organization" is not incorrect. We're not obliged to use the IRS's terminology. Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on groups with 509(a)(2), 501(c)(3), and other "public charity" classifications. See Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States. I doubt we call more than a few of them "public charities". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Charity" or "public charity" is more the proper term, but it has nothing to do with section 509(a)(2) of the IRS code. 501(c)(3) is the appropriate section. Of course, in some parts of the worlds they are known as NGO's instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.10.241 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge all Public Information Research articles here, and delete the category

It makes by far the most sense to do this. Instead of having several short articles, they could all be easily covered here with relevance to the topic. Does anyone disagree? If I wasn't just about to go offline, I'd probably be WP:BOLD and do it all myself.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles are all short enough. I'd support the merge. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge for the above reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Yahoo Watch is a redirect here already... the other articles could easily go the same way and be merged into this one. Terraxos 23:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I merged the PIR articles here, and would like some feedback if there is any. My position is that on their own, none of them were notable enough for an article, and some had no sources other than primary ones. At the very least the issues of original research and unsupported claims can be dealt with here from now on. There are plenty. --arkalochori |talk| 04:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Watch

Surely not worth discussing here? Could be mentioned in Google Watch section, as it is nothing but an attempt at appearing fair-minded. Doesn't have the usual complement of Brandt's rants you'd expect from one of his sites. John Nevard 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This thing is making me mad...

I resent Arkalochori's tampering with this article. He cites the Lobster article, but I believe that he hasn't even seen a copy of it. His assertion that Berlet, Wenger, Sklar and Prouty were directors is false; they were advisors. I could summarily delete the entire Board of Advisors this afternoon if I wished -- our advisors have no legal standing whatsoever, and never have. A dispute over advisors 17 years ago is only notable today because of a POV campaign by Berlet to diss me. Furthermore, the Lobster article should not be cited because it is not readily available for reference by those who see the citation. The reason it isn't available is because the first time Wikipedia linked to it, I had it removed by a public library in Ohio by sending them a take-down notice. The second time it was linked by Wikipedia, I asked Google Groups to take it down on the grounds that when I posted it to Usenet in 1995 I had no idea it would end up searchable on Google Groups, and it should now be withdrawn for privacy reasons. Google agreed with me and took it down. Then the third time it was cited on Wikipedia, I sent a fax to Archive.org and they pulled it under DMCA. I consider Arkalochori's tampering with this article to be a renewed effort by someone's sock to harass me. The price I have to pay for getting that autobiographical piece I wrote in 1992 off of the Internet, is that some Wikipedia editor now cites it as a basis for false information, and no one is in a position to correct him because they don't have the article. And you call this thing an "encyclopedia"? -- Daniel Brandt 68.92.156.191 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lobster article appears to be reprinted in full here:[2] Unfortunately, it's hard to retract things once they've been published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note -- the Lobster article has been removed "for copyright reasons." --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That version is not the corrected version that I posted in 1995 on Usenet. The version you cite contains a typo that is repeated from the original printed version. Lobster editor Robin Ramsay inserted an error in this sentence: "...when Chip Berlet resigned from our Board of Directors..." It should read, "Board of Advisors." There are references to "advisors" elsewhere in that version, and when considered together it becomes clear that "Directors" is incorrect as a description of Berlet. Thanks for the tip; I'll ask the poster to take it down. But I also know that it makes little difference to Wikipedia editors whether or not it's online — they'll cite it to use against me, whether there's a link behind it or not. -- Daniel Brandt 68.92.156.191 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's correct that sources don't need to be online in order to be usable. We use out-of-print books, out-of-business magazines, defunct journals, even offline websites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Why was all the information pertaining to the different PIR websites deleted? Yonatan talk 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If unexplained, and you can't reach the deletor on their talk page, revert it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No sources to support PIR runs Google or Wikipedia Watch

I'm re-adding the {{fact}} tags. There's no source given that ties these websites to this organization, so mentioning them here seems to be WP:OR. PIR's president's hobbies aren't relevant here. -- Kendrick7talk 06:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK -- I stand corrected. -- Kendrick7talk 06:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you read the information on Guidestar you'll find that PIR is all hobby, it has no 'employees'. They have several 'volunteers'. Presumably some of these work on the PIR's various 'watch' articles apart from Brandt, but who knows. John Nevard (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nevard is POV pushing for Berlet

His mention of Carto and Liberty Lobby in the first paragraph is guilt by association. Moreover, the source he footnotes for this is my own essay. The only place in my essay where Carto is mentioned is in a quote from Berlet, and that's a quote from Berlet that I used to show that Berlet's criticism of Oliver Stone was completely out of line. I've never had anything to do with Oliver Stone. I'd like to add that by piling on defamatory comments in this PIR article, what Wikipedia is doing is the equivalent of starting my bio all over again, only now it's defamation of me and PIR. The two-year statute of limitations for defamation in Florida, which has expired for the Daniel_Brandt article, is now reset because of this new article. There are also privacy issues associated with the redirect from the previous Daniel_Brandt article to this article. It is not a redirect by any definition used on the web, but rather is a 100 percent substitution. I'll be pursuing this point with the Foundation because it's a software issue, and the Foundation owns the servers and employs the lead software developers. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.88.113 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Does look like an attempt to settle an old score, IMHO, by who I don't know or care. Certainly WP:UNDUE should apply. -- Kendrick7talk 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd! Dan Brandt's refusal to take a stand against antisemitic and fascist information sources is not important? Utterly bogus. This is on the public record, since when does Brandt get to sanitize legitimate criticism of him and his group? Nonsense.--Cberlet (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you quote the reference you are using to source this? This hardly belongs in the opening paragraph in any case. I'm moving the parts about individual employee to the end. BTW, if your first name is "Chip" there's a WP:COI here. -- Kendrick7talk 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Internal conflicts among directors is certainly a relevant topic for this article. However the lack of sources makes it difficult to add verifiable info. Brandt has caused the deletion of the Lobster article everywhere it appeared on the Internet. Without another reliable source there's no basis for the assertion. As for COI, Brandt has a much larger COI, and is a banned user. Editing on behalf of a banned user is itself a bannable violation of the banning policy so we should avoid using his suggestions unless we're willing to take full responsibility for them. If he chooses to go through the Foundation/OTRS then that's a different matter. Let's all tread more lightly when editing this article, both when adding and when deleting material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Like Ron Paul, I take full moral responsibility for all edits that appear under my own name, Will. -- Kendrick7talk 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Like Ron Paul? Are you being serious? Paul has ducked the issue entirely.--Cberlet (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that any worse than the MSM suddenly "discovering" last week info that had been in his wikipedia bio for months, if not years? But, this is off topic; it was only a case in point. -- Kendrick7talk 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"MSM"? What does that mean? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
mainstream media. -- Kendrick7talk 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You rang?

(copyvio content removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.27.25 (talk • contribs)

Yes, this is Brandt's self-serving version of events where he reveals that strong-willed women and uppity people of color refused to know their proper place under the thumb of white men. Great. At least that aspect should now be included in this entry. The wail of the wounded white male. How banal.--Cberlet (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, here is the joke. Fans of Brandt keep deleting the text that justifies the entry contents critical of Brandt, and then delete the entry text stating that there is no way to verify the text. Cute. Here is the citation text from the report published by PRA just cut from the entry cite:
Chip Berlet, (1994 [1991]) Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures to Progressives and Why They Must Be Rejected. Revised and updated. Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates.[3]:
  • "Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains a very useful research tool, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective. He later began openly praising "Spotlight," claiming he could find no anti-Jewish bias in its pages, and denouncing me as part of an alleged PC thought police movement on the left." /
  • "Another example of a left/right information alliance involves Dan Brandt, creator of the Namebase software program, an immensely useful computer tool which searches a huge index of CIA-related publications and documents. Brandt has created a non-profit group with a board of advisors composed of both left and right critics of U.S. intelligence agencies, including LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty who is listed as being on the advisory board of Liberty Lobby's Populist Action Committee. (30) On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."[4] /
  • "At the 35th Anniversary Liberty Lobby convention held in September, 1990 there was considerable antiwar sentiment expressed by speakers who tied the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to pressure from Israel and its intelligence agency, Mossad. No matter what actual political involvement, if any, forces that support Israel may have had in shaping the events that led to the Gulf War, the themes discussed at the Liberty Lobby conference tilted toward undocumented anti-Jewish propaganda rather than principled factual criticisms.
  • "Prouty's topic at the opening session of the 1990 Liberty Lobby Convention was "The Secret Team." The new Institute for Historical Review's Noontide Press edition of Prouty's book The Secret Team was released at the Liberty Lobby conference. Prouty assured the audience it was an "enormous privilege" to have his book republished by the Institute for Historical Review, a group, Prouty claimed, that keeps people "from revising history." Prouty thanked Willis Carto and Tom Marcellus of IHR for the "guts and good sense" to republish his book.25 Following Prouty to the Podium was the infamous anti-Jewish bigot Eustace Mullins, who spoke on "Secrets of the Federal Reserve."
  • "Prouty has been a guest at least nine times on Paul Valentine's Radio Free America program--syndicated by Liberty Lobby. An ad in "Spotlight" for a tape of Prouty's January 23, 1991 interview reads: "Was Bush's War [against Iraq] actually a "Secret Team" operation? Col. Fletcher Prouty, expert on this government within a government, argues that it has all the earmarks."
  • "Prouty also moderated a panel where Bo Gritz wove a conspiracy theory which explained the U.S. confrontation with Iraq as a product of the same "Secret Team" outlined by Prouty. Spotlight's coverage of the Gritz presentation featured a headline proclaiming "Gritz Warns...Get Ready to Fight or Lose Freedom: Links Drugs, CIA, Mossad; Slams U.S. Foreign Policy; Alerts Patriots to Martial Law Threat." " [5]

Please leave this text here.--Cberlet (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You could release your copyright, if you own it, and put it up on wikisource, BTW. I put a whole speech there relating to the old SDS just the other day, which is the only reason I can follow what's going on (barely) -- Kendrick7talk 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the author, but I do not own the copyright for the entire report, which was published by Political Research Associates. This is only a tiny snippet used here in the context of an educational discussion, and is thus fair use in my opinion.--Cberlet (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There's some COI involved in your posting quotes from your own writing; that really ought to be left up to somebody else to do if they independently judge it to be notable. There's also some hint of a double standard in your doing so in a context involving strong criticism of another living person, while simultaneously objecting vigorously to the inclusion of quotes in the article on yourself that you regard as smears. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What sources and evidence is there that this criticism is due weight in relation to this organization PIR, of which the article is about? Wikipedia is not an avenue for publicizing views on a subject that you have published yourself - there needs to be independent proof that this viewpoint is notable and widely held, per our long-respected NPOV guidelines.
Additionally, remember this article is not about Daniel Brandt; it's about an organization. Focusing too much on a tangential subject like this can turn an article into an "All About George" coatrack piece. krimpet✽ 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
An incident in which a third of a board of advisers to an organization resign is a substantial piece of that group's history. --Cberlet (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Prouty is history, and is thus no longer involved with the Liberty Lobby (Which is also dead). As far as Carto goes, read his article, he's still bouncing around with politically incorrect white European middle-class males. This isn't a tangential subject, or a BLP-violating smear, it's a subject important to the history of the PIR organization (which may only be Daniel Brandt and people who he chats with on the phone occasionally or mails asking for endorsements, but that's irrelevant). John Nevard (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomfield books is a front for a Holocaust denial group?

Am I reading this right?[6] -- Kendrick7talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide if a criticism or action was correct. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. That said, see [7]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please, stop this silly prevarication. Prouty allowed the world's most infamous antisemitic Holocaust denial group to republish his book, and then Brandt defended that decision.--Cberlet (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm just trying to get the timeline right. Is it the 1992 publication or not? -- Kendrick7talk 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Cberlet's comment is defamatory. There was not one word in that book about the holocaust. It was an important anti-CIA book. --Daniel Brandt 66.142.91.222 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The IHR is anti-semitic and holocause revisionist. Prouty said he was proud to have his book published by them. It's that relationship, not the contents of the book, that appear to be the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

<-----The truth is not defamatory. From Alibris.

Secret Team-the Cia and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World
by Prouty, L. Fletcher
Edition: Reprint Edition Binding: Softcover Publisher: Institute For Historical Review, Costa Mesa, CA
Date Published: 1991 ISBN-13: 9780939484355 ISBN: 0939484358
Description: VG. 0-939484-35-8. Orange with black titles.; 9 x 1.25 x 6 Inches; 496 pages.

And Liberty Lobby, at which conference Prouty spoke, praised the Nazi Waffen SS as heros.--Cberlet (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Lobby was also consistently anti-CIA. Maybe Prouty was referring to their position on the CIA, if indeed he said he was "proud." --Daniel Brandt 66.142.91.222 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And maybe the tooth fairy told Prouty IHR was just anti-CIA! LOL!--Cberlet (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Atlantic Monthly:

  • Aside from advising Oliver Stone, Prouty has maintained extremely active involvements with other conspiracy-hunters. He has served, for example, as a consultant to Lyndon LaRouche's far-right National Democratic Policy Committee, at a conference of which he provided a presentation comparing the U.S. government's prosecution of LaRouche (for conspiracy and mail fraud) to the prosecution of Socrates; as a board member of the Populist Action Committee, where he joined Robert Weems, a former activist in the Ku Klux Klan, and John Rarick, a prominent figure in the White Citizens' Council; and as a featured speaker for the Liberty Lobby, the anti-civil-rights organization whose founder, Willis Carto, also set up the Institute for Historical Review, which has disseminated books and videotapes alleging, among other things, that the Nazi death camps in Europe were fictions devised by Zionist propaganda to justify the donation of tax money to Israel. (It also distributes Prouty's own book, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World.)
  • Prouty has exposed the machinations of putative global conspiracies, too. For example, at the Liberty Lobby's annual Board of Policy Convention in 1990 he presented a special seminar, "Who Is the Enemy?" Prouty laid the blame for the high price of oil on a cabal that had systematically plotted to shut down oil pipelines in the Middle East. "Why?" he asked, and explained to the seminar: "Because of the Israelis. That's their business, on behalf of the oil companies. That's why they get $3 billion a year from the U.S. taxpayers." His enemies list also includes the CIA, usurers, school textbooks, the media, political parties, banks, federal crisis-planning exercises, and the U.S.-USSR Trade and Economic Council (which, according to Prouty, stage-managed, along with David Rockefeller, the liquidation of the Berlin Wall to profit from "the rubles and the gold").
  • The secret knowledge that Prouty/X had about the elite's organizing principle and the "war system" derives from a very special source--a study supposedly suppressed by the Kennedy Administration, which Prouty discussed on the Liberty Lobby's Radio Free America on December 14, 1989... Prouty explained on the radio program and in a subsequent issue of Spotlight, the newspaper of the Liberty Lobby, that these conclusions came directly from the report by the Iron Mountain group--of which he had obtained a copy (and which the Institute for Historical Review wanted to sell but couldn't, for copyright reasons). He concluded the program by talking about the "high cabal ... calling the shots.
  • "The second coming of Jim Garrison". The Atlantic. Boston: Mar 1993. Vol. 271, Iss. 3; pg. 89, 5 pgs

From his obit in the Guardian

  • Like other assassination critics, he found an outlet via the Liberty Lobby, a far-right organisation with ties to Holocaust deniers. Although Prouty himself never espoused such beliefs, the connection enabled critics to dismiss his later writings. He helped them by publishing articles that made easy targets, such as his revelation that, according to President Franklin Roosevelt's son, Kermit, himself an OSS/CIA man, Stalin believed "the Churchill cabal" had poisoned Roosevelt, and his widow, Eleanor, had kept his coffin closed to stop anyone finding out.
  • "L Fletcher Prouty: US officer obsessed by the conspiracy theory of President Kennedy's assassination". Michael Carlson. June 22, 2001, The Guardian

This article isn't about Prouty. If some PIR directors left because they thought Prouty was a problem then we should report that without delving into the truth of their beliefs. Clearly they weren't alone in their view of him, but it doesn't really matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change in key people

John Loftus is no longer listed on the Board of Advisors, and Kathleen L. Kelly is deceased. --Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.126 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Organization" changed to "charity"

Per Brandt's August 3 request above, I changed the word "organization" to "charity" in two places. PIR has the exact same legal status as the Wikimedia Foundation, and said Foundation describes itself as a "tax-deductible nonprofit charity" at the bottom of every page in Wikipedia. If Brandt prefers the term "charity" to "organization," and this self-description is recognized as preferable by the Wikimedia Foundation also, then there is no basis for denying Brandt's request. Soother62 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, Brandt's preferences should have absolutely no bearing on the choice of words. The base problem is the definition of charity under law versus the definition as is common usage. Certain organizations (PIR, Wikipedia) may prefer to be called charities, but they ought to be termed an organization because they do not meet the common usage of what most people would consider to be a charity. These articles are not written from a legal standpoint, they are written for general consumption. The word should be changed back to the best option, "organization." Quatloo (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How is it a charity? Since you essetially edited the article on behalf of a banned user who shouldn't be posting here to begin with I will revert until you have a reliable source for the charity claim. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's how the IRS defines PIR: http://www.scroogle.org/irsinfo2.html Soother62 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before, the IRS definition does not matter. This is not a legal document. It is an encyclopedia. The most fitting word here is "organization", not "charity." Charity has the connotation of benevolence and relief to the needy. A dictionary definition is more helpful here, not some arcane IRS distinction. Quatloo (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are the American Heritage Dictionary[8] definitions of charity: 1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. 2. Something given to help the needy; alms. 3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy. 4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity. 5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See synonyms at mercy. 6. Christianity: The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love. Quatloo (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source citations

The Chip Berlet source which is cited for Berlet's attacks on Fletcher Prouty does not actually document the claims in this article. The source only says that Prouty was part of "the growing network of persons willing to appear at functions of the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby," and there is no mention of the Institute for Historical Review. Brandt's Lobster article is also footnoted, but it's not available for inspection. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of a library card? Also, the claim about Prouty and IHR is easy to document. Brandt does not need another apologist on Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then document it properly, and desist from your tedious personal attacks. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is already properly documented.--Cberlet (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)