Talk:Political Research Associates

Request for Comment: Validity of sources

This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to comb through the encyclopedia and delete any references sourced to DTN. Hipocrite claims that DTN is in violation of the guideline WP:RS. The only evidence presented by Hipocrite is here where he states "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." I posit that until we have reached a consensus about the reliability of said source, Hipocrite should cease his deletion of sourced material from this and many other articles. Cheers. L0b0t 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest that editors job is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and the barrier to entry for sources about living people a reasonably high one - a high one that is not lept by sites that gather their information from anonymous tips presented via web interface. I also suggest that no good-faith edit is ever vandalism, but labeling such is not a good faith edit. I further suggest that stalking good contributors like myself from article to article using edit summaries of "rvv" to revert all of their changes is a violation of WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The information at DTN that I saw was well-sourced, with easily corroborated facts as far as I know. To prove the site is unreliable would require a minimum of one example where it presented any information that was known to be erroneous, false, or unreliable. Not just because you don't like the information. Do you have even one example? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, much of the information on DTN about PRA and Chip Berlet (me) is false, defamatory, and churlish. I have responded to specific falsehoods here. Attempts to get DTN to remove the false claims have been met with silence. See also "The Art of the Slur: From Joe McCarthy to David Horowitz, by Aaron Barlow, The Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2006: "...it was Horowitz who actually codified lying, making it into a tactic rather than just a careless mistake."--Cberlet 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• As to the accusation of violating WP:STALK, I had noted the following at [1]: Hipocrite said "I'm reviewing your edit history also. So are scores of other people. If, while doing such, we find errors in articles you have contibuted to, we're gonna fix them." Sauce for the goose... (I don't see it on the current page, but it should be in the History. I gotta run.) Andyvphil 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• In a recent AfD for Common Dreams Newscenter several (?) conservative editors claimed that DTN wasn't a RS, and IIRC, argued against linking to it as well. - FaAfA 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

At [2] I see Hipcrite and MortonDevonshire rejecting your claim that the article on Common Dreams at DTN counted towards CD's notability. They were wrong. Is there anything at [3] you wish to identify as being in error? Andyvphil 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits are not appropriate

The recent edits add material that has been cherry-picked to imply a criticism of PRA that is not accurate. Most of the quote deals with two other organizations. This is biased POV and should be removed.--Cberlet (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the professors are making an important and highly appropriate criticism that while they may use PRA (mentioned specifically) and other named groups' information for "general information" purposes, as sociologists they consider them prejudiced and have to warn readers that even using only general info, errors may creep in. (Unfortunately, they don't make the statement as clearly and succinctly as they could.)

Throughout the book they use 5 references from PRA - and three from Chip himself. It seems like an important criticism from people who have studied the same groups as PRA has but more objectively. I don't have a problem with quoting more of what they say until the point becomes clear. Any more neutral editors have anything to say?? Carol Moore 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

POV Misrepresentation

User:Carolmooredc is a well known conspiracy theorist with a grudge. Outside of Wikipedia I am a colleague of Dobratz and Shanks-Meile, and the quoted material is taken out of context. I asked months ago that this be reviewed, and nothing has been done. Please discuss this here.--Cberlet (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Please remove the personal attack per Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
• 2) Obviously it's a WP:conflict of interest for you to remove material from the article that summarizes a criticism of your employer, and especially to use personal attacks in doing so.
• 3) Who did you ask to review this entry, where?
• 4) You certainly can comment on or offer a counter summary to correct any inaccuracies. I've tweaked the summary below and would put it in chronologically as the first criticism.

Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), in their introduction to The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride”, admit that they "at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement," naming Political Research Associates as one of those organizations. They consider these groups to be "watchdog" organizations that "are setting particular agendas." They note that "what the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America." REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3. (See Books.Google.com or Amazon.com versions.) Carol Moore 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The material does not appear to directly discuss PRA, but rather makes more general points about "watchdog groups". Please restrict the article to material that is directly about PRA, not about "watchdog groups" in general. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here :-) Here is the actual paragraph that I am summarizing. It clearly is referring directly to PRA as well as other groups.

Since little social scientific writing on the current movement exists, we at times used the observation of organizations directly opposed to the movement. The most prominent ones that publish their own materials are the Anti-Defamation league of B’Nai B’rith (AD), the Center ofr Democratic Renewal (CDR), Coalition for Human Dignity (CHD), Political Research Associates (PRA), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with its Klanwatch Project. In a sense, we consider these groups to be ‘watchdog’ organizations that engage in claims making, ‘promoting the ‘assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions’. Claims makers no only draw our attention to certain conditions (Spector and Kitsuse 1975:75) but also “inevitably choose to focus on particular aspects of the condition” (Best 1989:xx). In giving attention to certain causes, they are setting particular agendas. What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fac that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. Carol Moore 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

<-------- And if that whole paragraph was used, the comments would not be framed in such a biased perjorative way as the text crafted by Carolmooredc. Note that this text is part of the book where the authors discuss their POV and possible issues of bias--a practice common in social science. It is the twisting of the words and context that I object to, especially since they both have a favorable view of the work of PRA and my work outside of Wiki as Chip Berlet.--Cberlet (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they are talking about the biases of some of the sources they use --as they put it -- "at times". So obviously they found the material of some use. I think my summary fairly reflects what they say.

As for whether they favor some other PRA writing or project or the organization itself, you could always provide a quote from one of their published works to counter their criticism in this context.

Wikipedia has rules. We can't just take your word for it they "favor" PRA in such a way that what they wrote earlier is irrelevant and should not be included herein. Just like we cannot find it acceptable for an employee of an organization to insult people who criticize their employer to try to get them to drop a WP:RS criticism. Carol Moore 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is what you posted on the entry page, Carolmooredc:

• Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” wrote about Political Research Associates and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.”

It is neither a fair nor accurate summary of the full paragraph, and an unrelated sentence about ADL and SPLC is spliced in to imply wrongdoing on the part of PRA. A biased and cooked summary.--Cberlet (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a new version in italics bold above. Cooperative editing means looking at people's attempts to deal with concerns. Plus, again, if you have some quote from the authors about how wonderful and reliable PRA is, that also could be included as a caveat. Carol Moore 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's a copyright violation. --Cberlet (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First I goofed about what my alternative summary and quotes was. It wasn't the full paragraph which is what is in italics; it is section in bold above. Second none of the versions are over 500 words and are not copyright violations. Since no other people are commenting, I'll ask for another opinion and hopefully an unbiased editor will appear to comment :-) Carol Moore 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Actually, the idea that fair use is 500 words is a common myth. It is not true.--Cberlet (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this more than complies with [wiki standards on quotations]. Using 59 odd quoted words from a source integrated into a three sentence summary is common wiki usage. Of course, if i only include a summary you'll say it's POV misinterpretation. Classic double bind. Lucking Wikipedia has lots of resources for dispute resolution. Carol Moore 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Third opinion

Allow me to ask what seems like the obvious question - what is the use of this particular quote? what are you trying to use it to say? The full quote itself does not strike me as particularly critical of Dobratz and Shanks (it seems like a fairly standard academic explanation for their choice of data); in fact the full quote doesn't strike me as particularly informative, in that all it really says is that they chose quotes from opposition groups on the grounds that they were more like watchdog groups. if someone can explain how this is being used, that would go a long way towards figuring out how to phrase it. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This quote was in the criticisms section. It is a more subtle criticism than the National Review calling PRA researchers "conspiracy mongers" or David Horowitz Freedom Center accusing "PRA mainstay Chip Berlet of engaging in "smear" tactics." But a subtle criticism from a reliable source may be more educational about the working of advocacy groups from an encyclopedic viewpoint than an insult from an opponent.

Also I remain troubled by the fact that the PRA employee/ wiki editor Chip Berlet is smearing me above (on what grounds I know not) for daring to include this criticism. Also, despite my requests, he has not backed up his claim that the authors actually regard his group highly, which I certainly would be willing to add as a sentence after their comments quoted from the book. Carol Moore 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok, but it does pose a bit of a problem, sourcing-wise. the quote is from the authors themselves, and any academic would see this as a normal declaration in a research article. i.e., academics would read this as D&S stating their reasons for making a particular choice in data collection, and D&S would write it explicitly so that other academics could make a proper analysis of their results. no academic would consider this to be an example of bias (bias would be if D&S tried to hide the fact that they used a potentially problematic source - the disclosure is considered good research practice). this makes our usage of it here a form of original research - what we really want is secondary academic sources that criticize D&S's usage of these 'watchdogs'; we can't make that critique from examining their primary research.

Of course, neither the National Review nor the Horowitz Freedom Center can claim to be giving a neutral analysis either; those are both clearly partisan opinions and not scientific reviews. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are exactly right. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy discourage the use of sources that represent clearly partisan opinions? If so, this could have a bearing on the use of Chip Berlet and PRA as sources, which is remarkably widespread at Wikipedia, quite possibly out of proportion with their notability. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant to this page, and to the discussion above. Please restrict your comments to discussions of the content of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs' comments go way beyond anything I want to argue. I guess I'll let National Review and Horowitz have at it. :-) And just find an administrator to remove Berlet's insults per wiki policies. Carol Moore 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Jayjg - I'm not certain Neils' comment is irrelevant to this page, and I think it deserves an answer regardless.

Niels - Wikipedia policy does not discourage sources that represent clearly partisan interests, so long as the particular biases of those sources are clearly presented (i.e., an anti- or pro- source is perfectly fine, so long as it is presented as an anti- or pro- source, and not as a neutral position). the way I prefer to interpret these issues is to consider a partisan source as a primary source - someone doing primary research with the effort of establishing a point, rather than someone doing secondary research that uses or explains other people's points. primary sources are useful (see WP:PRIMARY) to establish facts or opinions from a given side in an argument, but can't be taken as neutral without the editor engaging in original research. If Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources (which I can't tell without looking at them more closely) then it is very possible that they are being used to excess. the way to be sure is to consider whether editors have to use some kind of synthesis in order to make the points Berlat et al are making appear as general consensus or established fact.

let me take a moment and look at this page, to see if that error has been made here. --Ludwigs2 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the benefits of editing on contentious pages (and why I keep it up on a couple pages I edit - or try to) is you learn so much more about wiki-editing so much faster. Sometimes it can be mind boggling, like your posts above. But once one studies the comments and then compares with various policies often one comes away much more enlightened on how to be a good editor and how to deal with some of the nonsense people come up with even on less contentious pages. Thanks! Carol Moore 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Also, re: whether "Berlet and the PRA are actually primary sources" this has been discussed at least once, probably more on

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, including in archives. I am helping build this page to keep track of discussions of sources relevant to Israel-Palestine and all related issues, including groups like this that sometimes comment on the issue. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_Reliable_Sources_Discussions. It will be finished in about a week. Carol Moore 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

cool, I'll look in on that. thanks.  :-) --Ludwigs2 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No reliable sources present in the article to establish notability

Article is self-promotion and the org is sketchy Bashfan34 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)