Talk:Chip Berlet bibliography/Archive 1

Needs updating?
Just wondering. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible. If you go to the authors wikipedia page you could ask him.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was just coincidence that at the same time he was doing a BLPN criticizing his bio and this page, I happened upon it and asked. Something in the ether, I guess. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I never realized he opened a BLPN.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure he has any other books. The other part is just a random list and not complete or meant to be. His complaint being that this information isn't used alot over in the main article. Honestly his complaints aren't very constructive. He whines alot and occasionally adds a giant wall of text. And that doesn't seem to different from the previous account that claimed to be Chip Berlet. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically he wants this to be merged back with the main article. Well that is my understanding. The only legitimate reason I see to do that if this lacks notability in itself. Which honestly he really didn't provide an argument for I don't think. What do you think? We could possibly start a RFC. If I recall in the AFD for his main page the consensus is his work made him notable. I guess the question be if this list of work is notable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Being an inclusionist, I have no problem with lots of bios having separate bibliographies. However, actual articles usually won't have this many listed items, so any merge would have to cut some out. Also he says some good ones are missing. It would help if he listed somewhere what he thinks is missing that should be in the article and/or bibliography for whoever wants to check it out. Looks like no one has energy to merge this or repair it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Often many authors have a biblio. Just reviewing his comments a merger or deletion is what he's aiming for. I see no reason to delete but I thought it should be asked if there would be any reason to merge. I really don't see one but thought since you had a little interest it would be helpful just to ask you to weigh in. The situation as I understand is his page over time has been attacked by the Larouche movement. Also I'm not sure if his efforts are actually helping his cause.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I assumed re: perpetrators. Having had problems with people who pull the same numbers he complains about on Bios of people falsely accused of bigotry on Wikipedia, it is interesting to see Chip complaining about some other faction pulling those numbers on him. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak as a whole but some of his claims do seem to be true. However I don't see his efforts as a whole helpful. He dropped this giant wall text and opened an RFC in the middle of it. I think the RFC is still open now he's on BLPN. I can't remember all of what he said on his page but I think one of the reasons for removal was this here causes him an embarrassment. I hear him but I'm not sure that right now he isn't being given a fair treatment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also he wants a lot of work done - and for most of us it's "so many articles, so little time." I've seen far worse articles than his; some that were cleaned up - even by admins - and then reverted to a near libelous version by biased editors. However, now that I'm more familiar with arbitration and they've made it easier to complain about real problems in BLPs under several arbitrations, I'm hoping some old and new severe issues can be dealt with more easily. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)