Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Cberlet _ The Chipster goes on strike
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.
Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.
Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 10th October 2007, 4:12pm) 
Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.
Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.
Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?
QUOTE
2.) racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots.
-- CB "list of WP turn offs" on his user page.
Please show me even once instance where Berlet has stood up against Islamophobia. One academic whose aid he came to for an Islamophobic attack. One political figure, right or left, he has criticized as anti-Muslim. I do not mean general, useless hand ringing, but specific figures in public debate. I don't know. I don't follow the guy that close, so maybe he does defend Muslims. I would like to know.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 10th October 2007, 4:12pm)
Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.
Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.
Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?
This is the phenomenea Toynbee refers to as "Withdrawal and Return;" Moses going up the mountain, Jesus in the Wilderness, Mohammad in the cave, Lenin on the night train from Zurich, Hitler in Landsberg prison, Nixon after his defeats in 1960 & 62, Mandella released from prison, Arafat from exile in Tripoli, etc. etc. The charismatic leader withdraws for intimate introspection and communion with himself, God or demonic forces, only to return in triumph and lead the followers to Nirvana or the Promised Land.
Posted by: Kato
Isn't Chip's message an outrageous breach of protocol?
QUOTE
I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.
Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"? I don't know a lot about the guy and he's only shown up on my international radar via the wiki-wars, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notorious for any of those things. Not outside of Berlet's weird circle of anti-LaRouche campaigners who have been trying to smear the guy for decades, at any rate.To be fair to the Chipster, the bigots certainly drag a good faith editor down. Unfortunately, Chip isn't a good faith editor.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 10th October 2007, 4:38pm)
Please show me even once instance where Berlet has stood up against Islamophobia. One academic whose aid he came to for an Islamophobic attack. One political figure, right or left, he has criticized as anti-Muslim. I do not mean general, useless hand ringing, but specific figures in public debate. I don't know. I don't follow the guy that close, so maybe he does defend Muslims. I would like to know.
For the record, here's portions of an email sent to Stephen Schwartz when Wikipedia attemped to defame him in that famous case (most of the original content was available at WikiTruth last I saw).
QUOTE
from Rob Smith [redacted]
to Stephen Schwartz [redacted]
date Jan 17, 2006 4:15 PM
If you click on "What links here" on your biographical page in Wikipedia, you can discover the smears against you are a longtime in the making. Particularly related to other articles. In the "Neofascism and religion" article for example, we read, "The use of 'Islamofascism' to describe perceived strains of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in contemporary Islamic movements has nevertheless gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. It has been attributed to Christopher Hitchens, Khalid Duran, Stephen Schwartz,.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism_and_religion#The_.22Islamofascism.22_label
How did this get here? Let's look at the history.
Chip Berlet created the article on 28 May 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=prev&oldid=14076836
Here Berlet adds, "Allegations that any religion is involved with neofascism are hotly contested, and can bring out the worst in rhetoric and bigoted claims by advocates or opponents. Assertions that religious fundamentalists and militants are "fascists," can often be understood as a [[hyperbole|hyperbolic]] political attack that uses [[Fascist (epithet)|the term fascism as a politic epithet or slur]]). This article will examine this phenomenon in context, but will also review scholarly claims that have more substance ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=next&oldid=21574296
Here you see " To combine it with the word 'fascist' in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29495553&oldid=29495096
And here Chip Berlet links the Islamofascism page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29595005&oldid=29495553
Reviewing this and other articles, you will see you are a "neo-conservative pundit", a proponent of 'bigoted rhetoric" and "hate speech", and lacking in "scholarly review." Berlet laid the framework out in that particular article, and other anonymous sockpuppet trolls finally attached your name to it. This is just one example.
Rob Smith,
aka "nobs" in Wikipedia
to Stephen Schwartz [redacted]
date Jan 17, 2006 4:15 PM
If you click on "What links here" on your biographical page in Wikipedia, you can discover the smears against you are a longtime in the making. Particularly related to other articles. In the "Neofascism and religion" article for example, we read, "The use of 'Islamofascism' to describe perceived strains of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in contemporary Islamic movements has nevertheless gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. It has been attributed to Christopher Hitchens, Khalid Duran, Stephen Schwartz,.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism_and_religion#The_.22Islamofascism.22_label
How did this get here? Let's look at the history.
Chip Berlet created the article on 28 May 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=prev&oldid=14076836
Here Berlet adds, "Allegations that any religion is involved with neofascism are hotly contested, and can bring out the worst in rhetoric and bigoted claims by advocates or opponents. Assertions that religious fundamentalists and militants are "fascists," can often be understood as a [[hyperbole|hyperbolic]] political attack that uses [[Fascist (epithet)|the term fascism as a politic epithet or slur]]). This article will examine this phenomenon in context, but will also review scholarly claims that have more substance ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=next&oldid=21574296
Here you see " To combine it with the word 'fascist' in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29495553&oldid=29495096
And here Chip Berlet links the Islamofascism page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29595005&oldid=29495553
Reviewing this and other articles, you will see you are a "neo-conservative pundit", a proponent of 'bigoted rhetoric" and "hate speech", and lacking in "scholarly review." Berlet laid the framework out in that particular article, and other anonymous sockpuppet trolls finally attached your name to it. This is just one example.
Rob Smith,
aka "nobs" in Wikipedia
Posted by: Castle Rock
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 10th October 2007, 3:12pm)
Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.
Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.
Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?
Ding dong the witch is dead. Good riddance, I hope he goes the way of Adam Carr.
For somebody who ranted so often about fanatical POV pushers, I found his edits to be rather ironic in that light.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 10th October 2007, 4:43pm)
Isn't Chip's message an outrageous breach of protocol?
QUOTE
I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.
Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"? I don't know a lot about the guy and he's only shown up on my international radar via the wiki-wars, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notorious for any of those things. Not outside of Berlet's weird circle of anti-LaRouche campaigners who have been trying to smear the guy for decades, at any rate.To be fair to the Chipster, the bigots certainly drag a good faith editor down. Unfortunately, Chip isn't a good faith editor.
It's a world of incivility and duplicity he worked to shape; now he rages about the monster he himself helped create.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 10th October 2007, 11:43pm)
Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"?
So far as I can see, LaRouche isn't a notorious anything, at least in Britain. Wikipedia has inflated his status beyond all reason, possibly as a counterweight to their inflation of Ayn Rand.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(guy @ Thu 11th October 2007, 8:50am)
So far as I can see, LaRouche isn't a notorious anything, at least in Britain. Wikipedia has inflated his status beyond all reason, possibly as a counterweight to their inflation of Ayn Rand.
LaRouche is inflated for the same reason that Pokemon monsters and minor characters from Harry Potter get inflated; a few dedicated editors who are passionate about the subject. In LaRouche's case, this is amplified by the determination of editors on both sides to get the "truth" out.
The same phenomenon is evidenced by [[Jack Hyles]], a minor evangelist about whom a small number of editors feel very passionate about exposing "the truth." Since you can't outright call a preacher a pervert (or LaRouche a notorious fascist homophobe), you add 5000 words of other people saying it and call it [[WP:RS]].
Posted by: Kato
The matter here isn't really about LaRouche as we know, it is about someone who is prepared to write that a subject is a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on their user page, who spent years attacking the subject in print in the real world, and then goes on to wikipedia http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche about this person on various pages.
That is the prime example of what they call a "POV pusher" with a "Conflict Of Interest"! 
But when anyone complained about it, RFCs were deleted, individuals were bundled away, and Chip was protected by a core of familiar names. Of course the irony was that these familiar names were banning people for lesser crimes than Chip all the time. Eventually, LaRouche became a unique figure on WP, and normal BLP practice was suspended by Arbcom in order for Chip to indulge his life long passion of smearing this guy.
Just a completely fucking ridiculous state of affairs, and anyone who couldn't see it was either corrupt or an ignoramus. Wondering around aimlessly and then stumbling upon that festering ants nest - and finding out that it was being endorsed from the top - ranked as one of the key moments of realisation that WP had gone badly awry.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 11th October 2007, 7:14am)
The matter here isn't really about LaRouche as we know, it is about someone who is prepared to write that a subject is a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on their user page, who spent years attacking the subject in print in the real world, and then goes on to wikipedia http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche about this person on various pages.
Interestingly, Thatcher131 has now redacted "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on BLP grounds from the talk page versions of Chip's little manifesto.
Posted by: dtobias
I've known about Larouche since the '80s, and my (not so NPOV) opinion is that he's a raving nutcase.
Posted by: nobs
Berlet quits in a huff. Accuses the Admin community of "disgusting" behavior,
QUOTE
Is there no sense of moral obligation left among administrators? It is time to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Misrepesentation.2C_Evasion.2C_Orwellian_Summaries.2C_and_Wiki_Sanitation_Squads.
This is the same activist who writes,QUOTE
Train others to step forward if leaders are arrested, and arrange beforehand for legal support for all those who are detained. Be aware that some people, especially http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/countering_repression.html, need to avoid arrest,
but does not mention a word about the wisdom of taking children and the elderly to violent protests. One wonders how many times agitators like this have http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/countering_repression.html out of his own eyes.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 11th October 2007, 3:29pm)
Interestingly, Thatcher131 has now redacted "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on BLP grounds from the talk page versions of Chip's little manifesto.
Despite being on strike, Chip's been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cberlet&action=history on his user page to maintain his diatribe that LaRouche is the devil, furiously stating:
QUOTE(Cberlet)
Denial of racism, sexism, homophobia is wrong, Well-established facts should not be deleted
He did this repeatedly until... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet...
Then, Chip lets rip with one of the most preposterous political diatribes I've seen on wikipedia, apparently comparing his block to Kristallnacht. Showing his true colours, Berlet reveals that his political / historical mindset is largely that of a hyperbolic, slow witted demagogue. Wikipedia is better off without him. Let someone who understands neutrality deal with these LaRouchies.
QUOTE(Cberlet)
Please do not try to engage me in a conversation during my period of rethinking my particiapation on Wikipedia. It is far too late for that. When the Foundation members, Arbcom, and Jimbo decide to get a backbone and deal with this issue, please send me an e-mail. Otherwise, the issue of Kristallnacht is far more important than any bullshit anyone tries to post on this page. History judges us. What do you see when you look in the mirror? All posts on this page will be deleted until the commemoration of Kristallnacht on November 9th. What would you have done? Where do you stand? History judges us!
Never Again!
¡No Pasarán!
Deal with it.--Cberlet 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Never Again!
¡No Pasarán!
Deal with it.--Cberlet 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Oh, and how dare he invoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah!
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 2:03pm)
Oh, and how dare he invoke ¡No Pasarán! in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah!
Così fan tutte …
Jonny
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 11th October 2007, 12:47pm)
Berlet quits in a huff. Accuses the Admin community of "disgusting" behavior,
QUOTE
Is there no sense of moral obligation left among administrators? It is time to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Misrepesentation.2C_Evasion.2C_Orwellian_Summaries.2C_and_Wiki_Sanitation_Squads.
This is the same activist who writes,QUOTE
Train others to step forward if leaders are arrested, and arrange beforehand for legal support for all those who are detained. Be aware that some people, especially http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/countering_repression.html, need to avoid arrest,
but does not mention a word about the wisdom of taking children and the elderly to violent protests. One wonders how many times agitators like this have http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/countering_repression.html out of his own eyes.It depends on the context and nature of the demonstration. When my son was of portable age he attended many demonstrations while in my care. He always was fond of the police horses, and would bring apples and carrots to feed them.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 12:03pm)
He did this repeatedly until... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet...
Wow. Berlet has a wiki criminal record finally. Another milestone in WP history is crossed.QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 12:03pm)
QUOTE(Cberlet)
Please do not try to engage me in a conversation during my period of rethinking my particiapation on Wikipedia. It is far too late for that. When the Foundation members, Arbcom, and Jimbo decide to get a backbone ...
PS. Oh, and how dare he invoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah! Thanks to SlimVirgin, ArbCom & the cabal may have finally looked at the evidence -- the fact that SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Will Beback, El-C, and Goodoldpolonius all, unanimously, rejected Chip Berlet as a reputable source for inclusion in a WP mainspace article in 2005 -- and then covered it up. Here is the gist of the evidence that was presented in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#I.27ve_been_attacked_without_foundation_in_this_proceeding case
QUOTE
SlimVirgin told ArbCom,
"'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"
The complainant in that case stated,
"Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?
The "attack site" Berlet and SV complain about, is cut and pasted from WP's "Roots of Anti-Semitism" talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F"'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"
The complainant in that case stated,
"Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?
"Roots of Anti-Semitism," Mr. Berlet's alleged "specialty," was deleted and redirected because Berlet was the only source for it, and Goodoldpolonius told SV and everyone else, Berlet's material was bunk.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 11:03am)
Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Derktar @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 11:03am)
Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 2:40pm)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 11:03am)
Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
I've marked the http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet on Conservapedia. Like Larry Sanger, Wikipedia may whitewash its official history again. Might have to wait till over the weekend to expand it. Sourcing and citations welcome.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:40pm)
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(guy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 3:20pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:40pm)
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?
Berlet's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cberlet&oldid=162876950#Identity_Spoiler implies that he's not; but then again, all we have is the credibility of the author to on.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:31pm)
QUOTE(guy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 3:20pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:40pm)
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?
Berlet's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cberlet&oldid=162876950#Identity_Spoiler implies that he's not; but then again, all we have is the credibility of the author to on.
It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.
Some may view this as a sign that Berlet is holding a middle ground. It isn't. It is a sign that his POV is so damaged that he pisses everybody off. It is perfectly possible to hold a flexible POV on a difficult subject, working alongside other editors with different views, creating great articles for their own sake, not to push some view, dare I say it: collaborating. It isn't easy, but there are people who have done it a lot better than Berlet did. And in the end, the main threats to these good editors have come from powerful bullies like Berlet, SV, Jayjg etc.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(guy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:20pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:40pm)
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?
It was sarcasm Guy
.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 2:20pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:40pm)
It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!
What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?
He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet, because his parents were great admirers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 13th October 2007, 12:19am)
He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet, because his parents were great admirers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
"According to Stephen Kinzer's 2006 book Overthrow, the firm benefited from doing business with the Nazi regime, and throughout 1934, Dulles was a very public supporter of Hitler. "
EDIT: I'm surprised Chip didn't remove that!
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 12th October 2007, 6:00pm)
Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.
Hmm very intriguing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardindr
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Hardindr&namespace=&year=&month=-1
He shows up yesterday and begins editing Berlet's page and Lyndon Larouche, clearly he is familiar with wikipolicies as well:
QUOTE
Appeal of Indefinite Block to Arbitration Committee
I am appealing this indefinite block to the Arbitration Committee. I am emailing clerk User:Newyorkbrad to make a formal request. --Hardindr 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I am appealing this indefinite block to the Arbitration Committee. I am emailing clerk User:Newyorkbrad to make a formal request. --Hardindr 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So it's either Berlet or someone trying to make Berlet look foolish.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
How can anyone make Berlet look more stupid than Berlet is able to make himself look stupid?
In Lobster, #24, 1992 (yes, that's 1992!), I wrote this:
QUOTE
Berlet hand-delivered a letter to Oliver Stone dated January 16, 1992, in which he called on him to "distance yourself publicly from attempts by racist, anti-Jewish and pro-fascist groups to use your film JFK as a vehicle to promote bigoted theories claiming Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy and the CIA..."
Oliver Stone? Come on, now. Mr. Stone may take a snort occasionally, but he's not in serious danger of being used by that vast right-wing conspiracy. Berlet is a maniac, and the sooner Wikipedia blocks him permanently, the better off Wikipedia will be.
He's been pulling this shit for a long, long time.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 11:05pm)
QUOTE
Berlet hand-delivered a letter to Oliver Stone dated January 16, 1992, in which he called on him to "distance yourself publicly from attempts by racist, anti-Jewish and pro-fascist groups to use your film JFK as a vehicle to promote bigoted theories claiming Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy and the CIA..."
Was he even watching the right movie?
Because y'know, 1992... that was back in the days of VCR's, before everyone had DVD players. It was pretty easy to record over your copy of JFK with a completely different movie, such as Der Ewige Jude, or maybe a Leni Riefenstahl picture such as Triumph of the Will.
It would actually explain a lot of things...
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Derktar @ Fri 12th October 2007, 6:21pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardindr
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Hardindr&namespace=&year=&month=-1
He shows up yesterday and begins editing Berlet's page ...
...a few hours after Cberlet was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet
Posted by: Poetlister
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 13th October 2007, 12:19am)
He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet
Berlet is a WASP name?
Posted by: JohnA
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:59pm)
It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.
Wrong. Berlet is a Trotskyite. He is no liberal as his writings clearly show.
Posted by: Cedric
Hee hee! I can never read one of these self-pitying "goodbye, cruel wiki!" messages from one of the cabalistas without thinking of the refrain to http://ingeb.org/songs/idontwan.html
I don't want to play in your yard,
I don't like you anymore,
You'll be sorry when you see me,
Sliding down our cellar door,
You can't holler down our rainbarrel,
You can't climb our apple tree,
I don't want to play in your yard,
If you won't be good to me.
And with alternate lyrics, probably more appropriate to Wikipedia:
Say say old enemy
Come out and fight with me
And bring your bb gun
And we'll have lots of fun
I'll scratch your eyes out
And make you bleed to death
And we'll be jolly enemies
Forever evermore.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Sat 13th October 2007, 2:06am)
Berlet is a WASP name?
I don't see why not...? I have a pet hornet named "Montreaux"...
I tried to think of a relevant acronym for his name, but the best one I could come up with was "RFC: John, Hitler's top bee." But that would just invoke Godwin's Law, I suppose.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:45am)
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:59pm)
It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.
Wrong. Berlet is a Trotskyite. He is no liberal as his writings clearly show.
Berlet's a Charter Member of the http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1243, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.
I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 7:25pm)
Berlet's a Charter Member of the http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1243, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.
I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.
That nonsense is just as wrong headed as Berlet's own missives, Nobs.
QUOTE(Discover the Network)
Possessing a genuine affection for Stalinism, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the "Chicago Area Friends of Albania," an organization whose mission.... BLAH BLAH BLAH
Berlet has all the attributes of the ex-Trotskyite scribe, the denunciations and the hyperbole. But that's about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(conservative_writer) is another screaming ex-Trotskyite scribe, Nobs. Why can't the pair of them just f-f-f-f-fade away.
Posted by: dtobias
Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, Stalinist... who cares? Just like horseshit, bullshit, chickenshit, and goatshit are all somewhat different from one another in composition, but they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 13th October 2007, 2:48pm)
Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, Stalinist... who cares? Just like horseshit, bullshit, chickenshit, and goatshit are all somewhat different from one another in composition, but they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.
So there is no meaningful difference between Pol Pot and Canada's New Democratic Party?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:38pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 7:25pm)
Berlet's a Charter Member of the http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1243, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.
I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.
I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.
That nonsense is just as wrong headed as Berlet's own missives, Nobs.
QUOTE(Discover the Network)
Possessing a genuine affection for Stalinism, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the "Chicago Area Friends of Albania," an organization whose mission.... BLAH BLAH BLAH
Berlet has all the attributes of the ex-Trotskyite scribe, the denunciations and the hyperbole. But that's about it. The guy who wrote your link is another screaming ex-Trotskyite scribe, Nobs. Why can't the pair of them just f-f-f-f-fade away.
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:10pm)
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 13th October 2007, 9:48pm)
they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.
What about Christian socialism?
Posted by: JohnA
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th October 2007, 10:26pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:10pm)
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.
My point is that Chip is no liberal.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th October 2007, 10:26pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:10pm)
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.
My point is that Chip is no liberal.
I think back when he had honest politics he was left of liberal. I doubt he has any principled beliefs at this time.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Forgive me for my habit of taking exception to financial news that is not quite "fit to print," but,
gold peaked in and around 1980 at approximately $800 per the troy oz. It then declined for the next 20 years. (Very quickly (actually) in the early 1980's to around $300 per ounce.) It became free to trade in the late 1970's and moved in sinc with inflation and oil and the commodity bull market of the 1970's, as well as, the last major decline in the U.S. dollar.
Political turmoil can be cited as a partial cause for gold as a "hedge," however, it has never worked as any such thing. For nearly 20 years people have lost money owning gold. Like owning many "blue chip" tech. stocks such as Microsoft in the NASDAQ bubble of 1999-2000, people
that bought gold or Microsoft at peak valuations are "bagholders." By the way, Microsoft is still less than 1/2 of what it was in the year 2000.
Gold is making a mighty comeback for many of the same reasons it ran up in 1978 to 1980.
It may reach the zenith it reached in 1980; after nearly 30 years the gold bugs will be even.
Since I cannot eat it and it does not pay any dividends, it is not an appealing anything to me.
* edited by Nathan: fixed quote
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sat 13th October 2007, 4:34pm)
Since I cannot eat it and it does not pay any dividends, it is not an appealing anything to me.
Nacho cheezy debentures. Yum.
Posted by: alienus
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th October 2007, 5:59pm)
I doubt he has any principled beliefs at this time.
I'd say that's exactly right. And speaking of right, Conservapedia's incredibly far in that direction. I have trouble reading it without laughing and/or spitting.
Al
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:59pm)
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 13th October 2007, 10:26pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th October 2007, 3:10pm)
Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12900&pid=52679&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry52679, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dennis comes back in the picture.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, http://www.conservapedia.com/Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.
The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.
Laird Wilcox, according to the peer reviewed Military Law Review is one of the "foremost experts on extremism," writes this of PRA & its Senior Researcher:
QUOTE
Guidestar, the internet search service of http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&ein=36-3193323., lists Political Research Associates as follows:
"PRA is a research center that analyzes information on anti-democratic movements and trends and publishes materials that explain their ideologies, strategies, agendas, financing and links to each other."
What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of PRA itself, including the fact that those "anti-democratic" movements fail to include Marxist-Leninist and extreme leftist movements unless they are in sectarian dispute with PRA.
Source: http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Second Edition, Part 2, Chapter Four: Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties," Editorial Research Service, 1999, pgs. 20 - 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.
"PRA is a research center that analyzes information on anti-democratic movements and trends and publishes materials that explain their ideologies, strategies, agendas, financing and links to each other."
What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of PRA itself, including the fact that those "anti-democratic" movements fail to include Marxist-Leninist and extreme leftist movements unless they are in sectarian dispute with PRA.
Source: http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Second Edition, Part 2, Chapter Four: Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties," Editorial Research Service, 1999, pgs. 20 - 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.
"Sectarian dispute" is the best way to describe it. Right Woos Left is Berlet's call for ideological clarity, and the controversy Berlet started on Brandt's board was an open manifestation of that dispute.
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sat 13th October 2007, 4:34pm)
gold peaked in and around 1980 at approximately $800 per the troy oz. It then declined for the next 20 years. (Very quickly (actually) in the early 1980's to around $300 per ounce.) It became free to trade in the late 1970's and moved in sinc with inflation and oil and the commodity bull market of the 1970's, as well as, the last major decline in the U.S. dollar.
Political turmoil can be cited as a partial cause for gold as a "hedge," however, it has never worked as any such thing. For nearly 20 years people have lost money owning gold.
Gold floated in the $500-600 range for at least three years after 1980, largely because Soviet/KGB buyers and sellers worldwide manipulated the price, playing both sides of the market, bidding the price back up when it sunk to about $450, and unloading again around $600. True, most people lost money; the only people who made money was Brezhnez/Chernyenko/Andropov, et al, trying to keep the USSR aloat, and people like Berlet's buddy Richard Dennis. Jimbo Wales it appears, is a protege of Richard Dennis's book.Political turmoil can be cited as a partial cause for gold as a "hedge," however, it has never worked as any such thing. For nearly 20 years people have lost money owning gold.
The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.
Posted by: Kato
Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.
We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.
QUOTE(Nobs)
The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.
Utter codswallop!
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 14th October 2007, 7:08pm)
Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.
We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.
QUOTE(Nobs)
The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.
Utter codswallop!
Yeah, Cod's udder wallop.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 14th October 2007, 7:08pm)
Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.
We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.
QUOTE(Nobs)
The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.
Utter codswallop!
The http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/gold1980.html. And my source has impecible credentials.
*John George & Laird Wilcox, http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp, Prometheus Books, 1996 (ISBN 1-57392-058-4).
*Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159, p. 7.
QUOTE
"One reader who saw the chart I posted yesterday pointed out:
"One thing I've continually seen overlooked in the explanation for the rise of gold during 1979-80, especially the final parabolic spike, was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
Quite true. It may seem like ancient history now, but only because we know how the story ends. At the time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began around Christmas 1979, was a terrible global shock. The Soviets had just signed a "bilateral treaty of cooperation" with Afghanistan in 1978, but by the next year relations had deteriorated.....
"One thing I've continually seen overlooked in the explanation for the rise of gold during 1979-80, especially the final parabolic spike, was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
Quite true. It may seem like ancient history now, but only because we know how the story ends. At the time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began around Christmas 1979, was a terrible global shock. The Soviets had just signed a "bilateral treaty of cooperation" with Afghanistan in 1978, but by the next year relations had deteriorated.....
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
May I respectfully suggest that we either find our way back to the Chipster (in his Wikipedia incarnation, please,) or else split some of this material off into the new off-topic political discussion subforum?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 15th October 2007, 3:54am)
May I respectfully suggest that we either find our way back to the Chipster (in his Wikipedia incarnation, please,) or else split some of this material off into the new off-topic political discussion subforum?
Please do. What was a critique of Chip's wikipedia exploits has deteriorated into something entirely different. All we need left is someone to link him with the Illuminati and our efforts will be completely wasted.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
And behold! The matter is now before the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cberlet_and_Dking The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.
It looks like a few other senior Wikipedians are tired of the Chipster and his clone. Except for Morven. What's the story on him? He seems like a bit of a dolt.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 16th October 2007, 8:14am)
And behold! The matter is now before the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cberlet_and_Dking The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.
It looks like a few other senior Wikipedians are tired of the Chipster and his clone. Except for Morven. What's the story on him? He seems like a bit of a dolt.
Marvin Diode makes a pretty good statement, linked above.
Posted by: Mndrew
I believe HK was referring to this statement by Matthew Brown aka Morven:
QUOTE(Morven)
Reject. I see no need to re-examine things here; the people and issues involved here have been up before the committee before and I see little change. That the LaRouche supporters are back under different names changes little. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the history behind the whole Chip Berlet thing, but from the looks of it, it seems that all the LaRouche opponents want this to be slipped under the rug as quietly as possible - which is why Cberlet has taken his month-long "wikibreak".
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 16th October 2007, 8:14am)
And behold! The matter is now before the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cberlet_and_Dking The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.
Will Beback says,
QUOTE
Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Will_Beback
I'd call it a major breach of BLP. Will Beback himself basically endorses Arbitration,QUOTE
The mediation request ...did not seek to resolve content issues....[Complainant] claimed that [Respondant] has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 12th October 2007, 7:00pm)
Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.
HK, I think this might be a Berlet sock, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wysdom. He was editing both Fred Newman and List of Americans in the Venona papers. Can't think of another editor with such diverse interests.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 16th October 2007, 7:14am)
And behold! The matter is now before the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cberlet_and_Dking
A significant number of editors has come forward to criticize the Chipster. He must be serious about his Wikibreak, to refrain from holding forth on such an occasion. Of course, his clone Dking is quite capable of doing exactly what Chip would do.
Posted by: blissyu2
It is currently at 2/3/1 against it being accepted by ArbCom. It was at 3/0/0 earlier, but Charles Matthews changed from Accept to Undecided, and the last 3 all rejected it.
Looks like it might be swept under the carpet.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.
Posted by: The Joy
"Hardindr?"
Hmmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber
Maybe not relevant. Maybe an attempt at WP:POINT by the Chipster?
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
And, the latest: JzG claims that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=165414757#Statement_by_JzG Another loyal reader!
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 17th October 2007, 8:38pm)
Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.
I've long suspected he flips a coin every time he makes a comment, vote, proposal, or mailing list post, to decide whether to be completely fair and reasonable, or totally nutty. It's similar to how the Batman villain Twoface flips a coin to decide whether to be good or evil.
Posted by: nobs
JzG says
QUOTE
Will has been tireless in monitoring this issue. Will is regarded with great respect by those who are not fighting one or the other corner of this fight, and I do indeed urge ArbCom to look into his actions, to support them, and to congratulate him on a difficult job, done well and against very considerable opposition.
In relation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others,1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Willmcw&diff=prev&oldid=15575556, 21 June 2005.
2. I encouraged another user in the Nobs, et al case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rangerdude#Willmwc_nomination
3. I declared on this Forum, 16th January 2007, " I would have voted for Will Beback for Arb if I had been allowed to back in December."
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 18th October 2007, 2:22pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 17th October 2007, 8:38pm)
Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.
I've long suspected he flips a coin every time he makes a comment, vote, proposal, or mailing list post, to decide whether to be completely fair and reasonable, or totally nutty. It's similar to how the Batman villain Twoface flips a coin to decide whether to be good or evil.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 21st October 2007, 11:42am)
What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.
We know he doesn't like WR much, for one thing... though he clearly does read much of what's discussed here.
You're presumably referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=164632650, correct? My assumption would be that Mr. Thatcher, being a right-winger himself, resents Berlet's and King's characterization of Larouche as a right-wing extremist ideologue/demagogue, or whatever right-wing (insert epithet here) thing they happen to be calling him this week. Other than that, he's just stating the obvious - Berlet and King are obviously as far from "neutral" as it's possible to get on the subject.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:42am)
Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.
Sorry, but I'll have to vote against that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=107602592
I don't know who he is, but I know where he is. He's in Rochester, New York.
http://auralmoon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=329
From http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#search:
Thatcher-131 (n=Thatcher@cpe-72-226-224-86.rochester.res.rr.com) 72.226.224.86 | ROAD RUNNER * UNITED STATES
Thatcher (n=Thatcher@urmc-nat18.urmc.rochester.edu) 128.151.71.18 | UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER * UNITED STATES
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 21st October 2007, 11:42am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:42am)
Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.
Sorry, but I'll have to vote against that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=107602592
"Bloody brilliant."
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 21st October 2007, 6:42pm)
I don't know who he is, but I know where he is. He's in Rochester, New York.
There are quite a few WP people round there. Why has nobody accused them of being all socks?
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 21st October 2007, 6:33pm)
You're presumably referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=164632650, correct? My assumption would be that Mr. Thatcher, being a right-winger himself, resents Berlet's and King's characterization of Larouche as a right-wing extremist ideologue/demagogue, or whatever right-wing (insert epithet here) thing they happen to be calling him this week. Other than that, he's just stating the obvious - Berlet and King are obviously as far from "neutral" as it's possible to get on the subject.
Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.
Posted by: Yehudi
QUOTE(jorge @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:04pm)
Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.
I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.
And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great!
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:34pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:04pm)
Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.
I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.
And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great!
I'm not so sure, the extreme marxist left in the UK is known for being anti-environmentalist like LaRouche and being homophobic- a quote from Larouche:
"They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!"
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 21st October 2007, 2:34pm)
I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.
And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great!
Well, it's no secret that I consider Wikipedia to be an Unreliable Source on the subject of LaRouche. My personal take is that LaRouche's views are not simplistic enought to be placed on the right-left scale. I am generally unimpressed by both Rightists and Leftists.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 21st October 2007, 7:53pm)
Well, it's no secret that I consider Wikipedia to be an Unreliable Source on the subject of LaRouche. My personal take is that LaRouche's views are not simplistic enought to be placed on the right-left scale.
Exactimundo! Depending on who you talk to, Larouche is either "impossible to poitically categorize," or "ideologically incoherent," or simply "all over the frickin' place." I tend to hold the latter view of him, myself...
Anyhoo, the way I see it, Berlet & Co. are accusing Larouche of being a fascist mostly because Larouche has been accusing them of being fascists. Larouche has probably accused almost everybody of being fascists at some point or other, but some people take it all personal-like, I guess...
More to the point, this "Case of Walter Lippmann" book is chock-full of claims and theories that seem designed specifically to really, really piss off all sorts of people. There's the Rockefellers, "Atlanticists," "Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk), "monetarists," "aristotelians" (always lower-cased!), "proto-Tories," "Neo-Fabians" (whose ranks supposedly include Noam Chomsky), "heteronomists" (evidently this was his word for cultural-diversity advocates), environmentalists, drug addicts, the Carter Administration, the UN, the Tudors, the Hapsburgs, Albrecht von Wallenstein, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Andrew Jackson, Milton Friedman, Interpol (not the band, though he probably wouldn't have liked them either), "non-Euclidians" (I wonder if he read any H.P. Lovecraft?)... the guy attacks both ends of the political spectrum and the middle too, all at the same time! And to top it all off, here's what Lyndon Larouche says about Martin Luther:
QUOTE
Although the protestant leaders who defended and led the German peasants of the early sixteenth century were honest protestants, at that point Martin Luther himself was not primarily a religious leader, but a religious figure who had become also a conscious pawn and political agent of the Fugger and related interests. Hence, Luther could earlier oppose the papacy for looting Germany, and yet, consistently, support the destruction of entire sections of the German economy by the Fuggers. In that respect, Martin Luther of the period following the Diet of Worms was consciously a "political intelligence" agent, of a monetarist-feudal faction, whose crimes in that respect rank in principle with those of Joseph Goebbels.
For context, note that "Fugger" refers to an Augsburg-based Christian banking family, and also that at this point in the book, the editor/proofreader has obviously given up and allows Larouche to use the phrase "in that respect" redundantly in the same sentence.
Either way, this anti-Luther connect-the-dots rhetoric is straight out of the Jayjg/SlimVirgin playbook. Slimmy and Mantanweissland could have practically written it themselves.
Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I stated that there isn't any material in there that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic if cherry-picked, because there is. But only if cherry-picked. The problem for people like Dennis King and Chip Berlet is that if they want to bash Larouche, they have to make the case that he's anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic - because those are their constituencies, and not enough people are going to be offended by his tirades against "neo-Fabians" and "monetarists."
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers" —
Jonny
Posted by: Kato
I've moved an offtopic discussion about Conservapedia and the Democrats to the Politics forum
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:24pm)
Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers"...
Imagine what it must have been like for the wives. As soon as one of 'em has a kid, suddenly she's "Mother Fugger."
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 22nd October 2007, 12:48am)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 21st October 2007, 10:24pm)
Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers" …
Imagine what it must have been like for the wives. As soon as one of 'em has a kid, suddenly she's "Mother Fugger".
And when her kinder have kinder she becomes a Großmutter Fugger.
Jonny
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 21st October 2007, 7:59pm)
"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk),
Well... it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 22nd October 2007, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 21st October 2007, 7:59pm)
"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk),
Well... it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.
Well that's one way of looking at it.
That does rather remind me of the theories about the Bilderberg Group, which http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4149485,00.html by the shadowy manipulative figure otherwise known as....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2002/04/01/bopea31.xml"
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 22nd October 2007, 10:14am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 21st October 2007, 7:59pm)
"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk)
Well … it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.
Gee, that sounds oddly φamiliar …
Yes, here it is — The Kinder, Gentler Aristocraps —
http://wikipedia.org/
Jonny
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 22nd October 2007, 3:24pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2002/04/01/bopea31.xml"
Now there's an impressive eyebrow.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Flonight, back at the arbcom ranch, is calling upon the arbcom to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=166498467&oldid=166493342
I moved a few more Conservapedia-oriented posts to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
Posted by: Kyaa the Catlord
Oh Chip's fabulous!
My favorite article of his is Dominionism, where he's not only editting the article, he's pretty much the sole source.
I'd miss him if he were gone, he's my favorite whacko conspiracy theorist.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kyaa the Catlord @ Tue 11th December 2007, 2:23pm)
And Moulton, I knew a girl named Grace once. She was hot. 
Amazing.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kyaa the Catlord @ Tue 11th December 2007, 12:23pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 11th December 2007, 12:04pm)
QUOTE(Kyaa the Catlord @ Tue 11th December 2007, 7:00am)
Oh Chip's fabulous!
My favorite article of his is Dominionism, where he's not only editting the article, he's pretty much the sole source.
I'd miss him if he were gone, he's my favorite whacko conspiracy theorist.
Who's he trying to convince of what? or is this just another example of Wikipedia "scholarship"?
I'm not sure. The whole "omg dominionism" crowd is such a raving mob of lunatics it is hard to figure out what exactly their whole argument is. I think it boils down to politically motivated christians are the devil.
Or something.
So this is a major change, similiar to the Brandt episode; even when an alleged "notable expert" signs his name to a guilt-by-association smear Wikipedia is now hiding thier identity.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(UK Register Article)
"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans to some degree."
It's not clear to me that those at the helm really appreciate just how far off course Wikipedia is drifting, under the influence of dual agents who have secondary personal agendas other than accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting informative articles worthy of a respectable public encyclopedia.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 13th December 2007, 2:20pm)
QUOTE(UK Register Article)
"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans to some degree."
It's not clear to me that those at the helm really appreciate just how far off course Wikipedia is drifting, under the influence of dual agents who have secondary personal agendas other than accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting informative articles worthy of a respectable public encyclopedia.
QUOTE
The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, and The Sum of Human Knowledge
or more like the proposal http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdfQUOTE
...a scheme combining creation of a positive and proactive propaganda distribution programme and amelioration through direct action...
Posted by: Moulton
It's more like a misanthropic social networking site that has devolved into petty political wrangling dominated by a clownish and mean-spirited dominance hierarchy.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 13th December 2007, 2:48pm)
It's more like a misanthropic social networking site that has devolved into petty political wrangling dominated by a clownish and mean-spirited dominance hierarchy.
QUOTE(UK Register Article)
"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some...secret personal agendas... that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation...appear to support"
QUOTE
... a positive and proactive propaganda distribution programme and amelioration through direct action...
Posted by: Moulton
If Wikipedia is the 8th ranked site on the Web, a dispassionate and objective analysis will sooner or later emerge, notwithstanding Wikipedia's own public relations efforts to the contrary.
When I began editing on Wikipedia, I had no opinion one way or the other regarding the integrity of the site. I might have shrugged off my negative experience as a one-off misadventure, were it not for the comparable stories emanating from the media, the blogosphere, and WR (none of which I was aware of until after my own shocking and dispiriting collision with the uncongenial and misanthropic WP Cabal).
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 13th December 2007, 3:46pm)
If Wikipedia is the 8th ranked site on the Web, a dispassionate and objective analysis will sooner or later emerge, notwithstanding Wikipedia's own public relations efforts to the contrary.
When I began editing on Wikipedia, I had no opinion one way or the other regarding the integrity of the site. I might have shrugged off my negative experience as a one-off misadventure, were it not for the comparable stories emanating from the media, the blogosphere, and WR (none of which I was aware of until after my own shocking and dispiriting collision with the uncongenial and misanthropic WP Cabal).
Ultimately WP's credibility crisis was a choice they made -- it is not as if they were not warned thier behavior, attitudes, written policies, and Arbitration Rulings would not lead to this result.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 13th December 2007, 6:01pm)
I'll have to read about your case. Gimme a link somewhere you believe is a good starting point.
This is where I started writing up my experiences...
http://hardnews.ansci.usu.edu/opinion/083107_wikipedia.html
If you want to delve deeper, I can give you links to the RfC and to the now-blanked and buried material on my userpage and elsewhere on Wikipedia.