The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first place. This was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with malicious intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source. This evidence has been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
To prove good faith, I remained silent for 1 year. The matter did not resolve itself, and I was rebanned. So I began openly reciting the story.
In the next few months I will begin an unblock request on my main account, and let's all hopefully put this entire unfortunate & embarrassing episode for everyone involved behind us once and forever.
Nobs01
I hesitate to bring up something that's apparently pretty contentious, but let me ask one small question.
Rob Smith wrote:
The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first place. This was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with malicious intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source. This evidence has been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
Thanks,
William
On 2/24/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I hesitate to bring up something that's apparently pretty contentious, but let me ask one small question.
Rob Smith wrote:
The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first
place. This
was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with
malicious
intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source. This evidence has been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
Thanks,
William
Yes. The article was created primarily so nested criticism in another article could be removed, using a source citation to allege Mr. Brandt was associated with, or somehow aligned with an entirely unreputable organization. In fact, that claim remains in the PIR article, although I have thoroughly documented the source of the claim is ( a ) self publishing, ( b ) violates WP:ATT Questionable and self published source.
a ) the slanders in PIR wiki entry are cited to a self published source, Chip Berlet, *Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo- Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected*, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, December 16, 1991.
( b ) the genesis of *Right Woos Left* was Chip Berlet, *Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left*, The *Guardianhttp://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html *(NY), September 11, 1991 http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/hulet.html, p. 3.
( c ) the *Guardian* is the subject of Chap. 9, p. 125http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58647856of *Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis%2C_Communists%2C_Klansmen%2C_and_Others_on_the_Fringe *, John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books (Buffalo, New York), 1992, ISBN 0-87975-680-2.
Brandt's bio was created *prior *to BLP, and a different standard was used to determine notability. BLP was created largely out of the Siegnethaler/Berlet/Brandt/Marsden controversies. Mr. Brandt was never afforded the opportunity for fair input into his article, not knowing the reason *why* it was created. All he knew was he work up one morning and had been smeared.
Sorry, but I may need a little more context.
Rob Smith wrote:
Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
Yes. The article was created primarily so nested criticism in another article could be removed, using a source citation to allege Mr. Brandt was associated with, or somehow aligned with an entirely unreputable organization. In fact, that claim remains in the PIR article, although I have thoroughly documented the source of the claim is ( a ) self publishing, ( b ) violates WP:ATT Questionable and self published source.
Which organization are you saying the current article incorrectly claims he's associated with? I didn't see anything like that in the article. For what it's worth, I'm looking at the Google cache, as I don't have access to the most recent deleted version.
And just to be clear, I'm explicitly not asking about the history of the Brandt article or the interactions around it. I'm sure it's fascinating, but I strongly like to avoid bringing up something that is apparently a sensitive topic.
Thanks,
William
On 2/24/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Sorry, but I may need a little more context.
Rob Smith wrote:
Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
Yes. The article was created primarily so nested criticism in another article could be removed, using a source citation to allege Mr. Brandt
was
associated with, or somehow aligned with an entirely unreputable organization. In fact, that claim remains in the PIR article, although
I
have thoroughly documented the source of the claim is ( a ) self publishing, ( b ) violates WP:ATT Questionable and self published
source.
Which organization are you saying the current article incorrectly claims he's associated with? I didn't see anything like that in the article. For what it's worth, I'm looking at the Google cache, as I don't have access to the most recent deleted version.
And just to be clear, I'm explicitly not asking about the history of the Brandt article or the interactions around it. I'm sure it's fascinating, but I strongly like to avoid bringing up something that is apparently a sensitive topic.
Thanks,
William
Footnote 1 in the PIR entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research
is a self published source (alleging a link with IHR, which I believe is on the spamblock list). The introduction from the self publishing source references the original Guardian article, a questionable source per WP:ATT.