Kurtz source is tangential at best.

[edit]

The Kurtz article clearly says "You can see the basic technique of the conspiracy mongers in this 1994 report on the Dominionists for Public Eye Magazine and links directly to the Political Research Associates published article he is referring to. BabyDweezil 00:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pamphlet, not a book

[edit]

Article edited accordingly. Smee, the pamphlet's author has already corrected your having cited it as a book in another article.BabyDweezil 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it have an ISBN number and is listed as such in reputable secondary sources? Smee 09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's barely mentioned anywhere, as the article. A partisan magazine article, passing mention in a book or two (including one by the author). hardly notable. But its a pamphlet. i'm holding it in my hands. BabyDweezil 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. However the infobox is a useful place for displaying key information about it, including the ISBN numbers and publication information. Smee 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It was a published report with an ISBN #. It was never a "pamphlet."--Cberlet 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally published in 1987 to expose the fact that Newman's front groups the "Rainbow Alliance" and "Rainbow Lobby" were crassly parasitizing support for Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition," thus the title. The first version had only a few mentions of Fulani, and was not aimed at the election campaign. I have no control over how Fulani and Newman characterize it.--Cberlet 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the characterization is correct :). BabyDweezil 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting, restored balance

[edit]

Restored balance to the intro. Smee, since you seem unfamiliar with this pamphlet, I should point out that its 20 years old and has little support for its conclusions. Therefore, balance is needed in the first paragraph to counter its minority viewpoint (you can go to www.allstarproject.org and compare the actuality of Fulani's work with this petty political attack pamphlet. Also--why do you use both Initial caps, italics and "quote marks" in sentences? Highly claims in that way is unorthodox, and the style used by POV and propaganda outlets, not Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

[edit]

The pamphlet was written during the 1988 Presidential campaign of Marxist psychologist and political activist Lenora Fulani, and was explicitly written and distributed to dissuade progressive voters from supporting Fulani's bid and her New Alliance Party

see the Fred Newman article. it's all in there. BabyDweezil 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the link to this Fred Newman article? And even so, that would be his allegations and opinions, and not the actual facts behind Berlet's motivations. Smee 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's all in the Radical America article that I used as a source. It's summarized in Fred Newman. Smee, you are taking a confrontational approach to defending an article whose background, history and context you seem to be completely unaware of. BabyDweezil 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to characterize my actions. Per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, just focus on commenting on the content, not the contributor. Now, do you have an external link for this article??? Smee 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, its a fringe magazine that no longer exists. It might be archived on the net if you do a search. BabyDweezil 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem unfamiliar with the topic at hand. It's the fringe magazine that published Clouds Blur the Rainbow, which subsequently was made into a pamphlet by the equally fringe political partisan organization Political Research Associates and mailed to progressive organizations to attack Fulani. So if it's "removed forthright", then we would have to delete the whole article, n'est-çe pas? BabyDweezil 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can find it here http://dl.lib.brown.edu/radicalamerica/index.html. Please note however, i am not your personal research service. BabyDweezil 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. However I had already found that archive and could not find the item you are referencing... Smee 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The archive is searchable. you know the author your looking for. BabyDweezil 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One moment please..... Smee 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

the quotes from the Fred Newman article(which Berlet assisted in editing):

In 1987 Berlet's Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of the New Alliance Party appeared. Berlet then joined with others on the political left to write a series of articles for the magazine Radical America. The special issue of the magazine was written in the midst of Lenora Fulani's campaign, and contained charges of manipulation, political deceit, and cultic practices. Berlet, however, noted that Fulani “deserves tremendous credit for apparently gaining ballot status in a majority of states.” The editors of Radical America, however, concluded that there were "dangerous...implications" in failing to confront Newman and his groups: "Painful and unpleasant as it is, the time has come to expose the NAP before it discredits the Left--especially among blacks, gays and those exploring progressive politics for the first time." and

In an issue that featured a series of essays denouncing NAP, the leftist magazine Radical America wrote "We have become convinced that [various political organizations associated with Newman and the Institute for Social Therapy]... are not just other legitimate groups with whom we must coexist" adding that the New Alliance Party is not "a legitimate political organization", that it fails the journal's "basic test" for one, that NAP threatens to "discredit the left" and urges its readers to do what is necessary to dissuade "anyone" who might be attracted to them, noting "we can't be liberal about this one, comrades." [43].
Smee Do NOT remove what i wrote, since it is clearly backed up by the source, and please STOP disrupting wikipedia with your false claims. BabyDweezil 16:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Smee stop it. You are out of control. take a break from your disruptions--i am not doing any more work for you. BabyDweezil 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will disregard and not address your personal attacks, but the fact of the matter is the piece you quoted above does not exist in the citation you gave. This is factually inaccurate to cite in such a manner and not encyclopedic. Smee 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm through arguing with you. The quotes above are taken directly from the issue cited. If you keep reverting, you are vandalizing. Have a nice day. BabyDweezil 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are from the introduction to Clouds Blur the Rainbow that appeared in Radical America, explaining why they were publishing it. It's all the same. BabyDweezil 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all the same. Your assertions are unsourced. Smee 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Smee, they are sourced to the introduction of the Radical America issue that published Clouds blur the Rainbow. I properly cited it, and you keep disrupting the artcile by removing accurate citations. You are WRONG, and you need to STOP.BabyDweezil 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the quotes are in the introduction to the magazine. I have corrected your errors in this article, I have provided accurate context, I have found you citations and location of the original publication which you were unaware of and were unable to find yourself, as you note above, and I've done everything to help you short of sitting you down and reading it to you. STOP disrupting the article, and WP:AGF that the citation is accurate, since you can't seem to find it yourself. BabyDweezil 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will cite it later, for now, you should WP:AGF that I (as well as the pamplet's author, Chip Berlet, who assisted in writing the relevant section of the Fred Newman artcile) are more familiar than you are at this point with the relevant background. BabyDweezil 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vol 21 # 5, page 2-3 of the introduction. Its all correct. Please stop it. BabyDweezil 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation is wrong. Pages two and three of Volume 21, number 5 is not even the introduction yet, just the table of contents. Obviously your citation is incorrect, and thus your assertions are OR. Smee 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Um, Smee. I imagine that when he say page two, he means Page 2, as in the page numbers at the bottom of each page. --Justanother 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nader didnt join the New Alliance Party

[edit]

it was dissolved years earlier. corrected, and more "quote italics" fixed. BabyDweezil 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected this with a direct quote from the article itself. Smee 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV bias and misrepresentations

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

This section is biased and POV. The reception was that Radical America devoted an issue to condemning Newman and NAP, and in the following years, scores of progressive and gay publications issued reports condemning Newman and NAP and its ever-blossoming front groups. That should lead this section What some commentator said about The Public Eye has no place on this page.--Cberlet 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBI

[edit]

The whole section on the FBI is told from the dubious POV of the Newmanites. In print is my public statement criticizing the FBI for its investigation. Where is that mentioned?--Cberlet 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BabyDweezil 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors and POV

[edit]

BabyDweezil introduced so many factual errors into recent versions that I took the unusual step of removing the numerous errors and re-arranging the text.--Cberlet 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was in error? BabyDweezil 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not anyones personal publication

[edit]

Chip, you can't use this article to compose your own extemporaneous opinions and put "citation needed." Find reliable sources, add any appropriate text, and properly source it. BabyDweezil 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material you are adding is simply not accurate. You have the way the publications appeared wrong. You have statements by the Newmanites in the lede as facts. Some of the material critical of me and PRA has nothing to do with this page. --Cberlet 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Radical America issue was delayed in publication. It was not published until late 1988, more that a year after the first edition of Clouds Blur the Rainbow was published. The inside front cover of Radical America has a note about the delay. Also note that the version of Clouds Blur the Rainbow is a later edition, in which Lenora Fulani has more text devoted to her presidential campaign. The first edition mentions her briefly. Much of what has been inserted by BabyDweezil is based on incompetent research.--Cberlet 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor chronological issues. Fact is, ain't no disputing the report and the Radical America issue and PRA's mailing it to every lefty group they could pull off their Rolodex was simply typical sectarian nonsense that PRA was more than happy to inflame in response to Fulani's campaign. If there's any incompetent research, its what contained within the pages of this "report." BabyDweezil 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of your opinionated statements violate WP:NOR, and therefore have no place in this article. Same as the incorrectly cited "quote" above, that cannot be found in that citation... Smee 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
All quotes i supplied are in the sources cited. I really can't help you, Smee, if you can't find it. And if you are aware of any "opinionated statements violate WP:NOR" in the article, then point them out rather than make vague and unsubstantiated accusations. BabyDweezil 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to "help" me, however we can't have unsubstantiated quotes in the article. And in this case, the quotes simply do not exist in the citation you gave. Either the volume you cited is incorrect, or the quotes don't exist. Smee 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Good night, Smee.BabyDweezil 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<----------The Radical America issue was published after the election ("mailed November 1988," inside front cover). I have a print copy. The central point here is not about the Fulani campaign (which was over), but that whole sections of the U.S. Left joined to denounce the Newmanite tendency as a dangerous cult.--Cberlet 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the publishing history of Clouds Blur the Rainbow based on research using the original print documents:

--Cberlet 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this notable?

[edit]

This looks like an obscure pamphlet handed out in the late 1980s. From an outsider's perspective, I see nothing that tells me this is notable as a separate article. Maybe this material should be relocated elsewhere. Fred Newman himself is a marginal figure, so a rebuttal against him is even more marginal. Berlet himself is pretty obscure. Now, I am NOT saying that any material should be somehow censored, but I just don't think there's enough here to justify a separate article. Yakuman 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a lot of citations -- and the pamphlet was simply found among other documents. I see a lot of effort here, straining to make this thing look influential. I've published things that have gotten more than 19 citations -- and I'm not giving them separate articles! Yakuman 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One "cited by other works" was excessively POV and off-topic. I fixed it. I will not likely get involved in discussing the notability of this unless it comes up for AfD. --Justanother 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I still might have left it a bit long. Kinda weird section anyway; like scraping for importance where little actually exists. Should we take that section out completely? --Justanother 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable work.

Notability/Removal of entire section of sourced content

[edit]

1.) Nothing in that article establishes notability. It is all obscure information about an obscure pamphlet. I merely removed the most egregious example. 2.) Your frequent reversions constitute a 3RR violation . The 3RR rule applies to all articles. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing.Yakuman 05:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that it fails (1), and (5). Also, your multiple 3RR violations are evidence of a lack of civility and good faith. Please abide by policy. Yakuman

From WP:Civil:

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Yakuman 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one committing multiple 3RR violations. I'm trying to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please don't abuse my acts of diplomacy. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was asked to give my opinion of this article's notability in an outside conversation, in researching my answer I noticed that only the introduction was linked to the actual text itself. I've added links to each chapter and a main link to the PublicEYE.org homepage. Anynobody 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What do you think of the current reputable secondary sourced citations in the References section, and the related notability of the article? Smee 05:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The secondary sources themselves seem appropriate to me,

Street-Wise Impresario; Sharpton Calls the Tunes, and Players Take Their Cues. The New York Times. December 19, 1991.

for example is a reputable paper. I haven't read the cited books so I can't speak to their merits or flaws. The inclusion of court documents adds to the credibility of the article because they are a primary source. These facts alone seem to confirm notability, but since these people were running for public office under a cloud of deception it seems to tie into the broader ideas of "dirty" politics. To me the tactics described in Clouds Blur the Rainbow need to be documented. I had previously thought Jesse Jackson had created all the "rainbow" groups for nefarious reasons, now I know why he is moving toward PUSH. Anynobody 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion on notability issue

[edit]
This opinion in a nutshell: Notability is uncertain.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book fails all criteria Wikipedia:Notability (books) and can be considered self-published. It's an interestin read, but that won't make it encyclopedic. --Pjacobi 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clouds Blur the Rainbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories