The creator of the Daniel Brandt article stated he/she did not believe Brandt to be a "credible source"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=9161554

This was after two contentious Arbitration cases over an article that Brandt was used as a reputable critic. When Brandt reacted to the inclusions that he and his organization were somehow aligned or associated with a particularly reprehensible organization, Mr. Brandt perhaps justifiably reacted with indignance. Soon thereafter, Mr. Brandt as a source of criticism was nolonger deemed reputable for an article in which two prior Arbitration cases he had been adjudicated as a valid and reputable critic. The problems is, and remains, the source of the criticism against Brandt does not meet WP policies for inclusion.

Now, in examining this problem, we see both Brandt and his critic feel dredging up old disputes from 16 years ago is unfair. Nevertheless, the source of Brandt's criticism simply has more friends in WP sympathetic to his cause than Brandt does. So others not knowing the dispute get caught in the crossfire. It appears now there is enough consensus among editors more familiar with the locus of the dispute to just let it go, and let Mr. Brandt have his privacy. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and this has been allowed to go on long enough.

Guidestar, the internet search service of Philanthropic Research, Inc., lists [the critic] as follows:

[The critic] 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.89

What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of [the critic] 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 [the critic]. [bolden mine]

89 www.guidestar.org./search/ 13 March 2001.

I couldn't resist this quote from the Evening Standard (Dec 12, 2006; Francis Wheen; p. 12).

“In the 1996 presidential campaign, EIR carried the magnificent headline: "US Election is Also a Referendum on Britain's Lord Rees-Mogg".

The evil mastermind behind international terrorism is Lord Rees-Mogg: false.

...article from the Times of London by William Reese-Mogg (20 September 1999) is an inventory of Islamic terrorist groups operating along coordinated and identical ideological lines...

What common military, social and political agenda do the Nazis and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists share? .... Both the Nazis and the Islamic Jihad terrorists despise and are committed irrevocably to destroying democracy, its literature, arts and popular culture, the West's legislative structure, the concept of government by the people and for the people, elections, foreign held investment in industry, entrepreneurial commercial activity, affiliation with present international political and military organizations, the Jews, and the rights of Woman and ethnic minorities to self-determination within the framework of proven principles of international law. Both Hitler and the Islamic Jihad advocated and advocate international military councils and linkages being formed between those with like totalitarian minds with the aim to destroy Western democracy ...Given the collective budget, manpower, trouble caused so far, and more than occasional connection between what both Nazis and Jihadists say and what they do, it borders on the criminally negligent that little is being done to analyze and act on this commonality of views and aims.

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 Political Research Associates.

Rangerdude was arguing that Chip and the company he works for, Political Research Associates, should be regarded as "extremists" under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources provision, which at the time read: "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”

If I cited the hit pieces you cited, which really are nothing but bigoted hate citations in of themselves without getting a balancing perspective, I would get fired....Your citation of the ADL, which itself is a bit of an anti-Christian hate group and the TheocracyWatch whose bias is glaring