Talk:COINTELPRO/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Add info about court cases and tactics

One notable omission on this page is the fact that the federal government was taken to court over COINTELPRO, and that the case was successful. I wish someone would add a section about that. It's important to know that the courts were successfully used to fight COINTELPRO, or at least to obtain a remedy for its violations against people.

Another section that should be added is a little more about tactics. One of the most important things to note about COINTELPRO is that the FBI agents involved used the program to try to split the left in America, including with racial methods. For example, the FBI tried to trick black activists into believing that white activists the black activists were cooperating with were racists. The FBI did this by means of, for example, forged notes. All this kind of information is available in the opinions in the court cases over COINTELPRO, so the omission is really amazing.

173.3.104.127 (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Swan

Remove box with FBI shield

I think that leaving the name of the FBI and the shield insignia at the top of the page lends an unnecessary air of credibility to this sting operation in the eye of the ignorant reader who just gives the page a casual, quick glance before surfing away. It gives the perception that this is some kind of ongoing, legitimate department or function of the FBI. To be more concrete about how misleading this is, let me provide an example: If some person who has never heard of COINTELPRO hears someone railing against it, and then goes and checks it out on Wikipedia to see what it's all about, they may see that logo and think it means that COINTELPRO is alright, instead of an illegal, banned program. Then they may stop reading the article, and just conclude the people who rail against COINTELPRO are flakes who don't know the facts or don't care to learn them. The result of this of course is people being misinformed by Wikipedia.

The real story about COINTELPRO is that it was an illegal operation that revolted many Americans, that the FBI was taken to court for, and that the USA federal courts ruled against as a violation of law and constitutional rights. The program was banned by the courts. There is no FBI shield logo at the top of pages for other FBI sting operations, like the ABSCAM operation, so I don't know why this illicit, unethical FBI operation from 40 years ago that was rightly destroyed by the courts would sort of have a big FBI sticker slapped on the top of it. If the FBI or other federal agencies are doing anything like COINTELPRO today, it is just as wrong, heinous and illegal as COINTELPRO was.

I'm going to take the graphic down myself, and if someone else wants to argue it belongs there, they of course can go ahead and make the case. I think putting the insignia there is about as legitimate as putting a modern German flag at the top of a Wikipedia page about Adolf Hitler, a Nazi flag at the top of a Wikipedia page for Germany, or a confederate flag at the top of the page for any modern southern politician or southern American state.

People who are a little too lazy or uninterested to give a page a quick glance shouldn't be misled by Wikipedia just because someone liked the way the FBI shield looked (or whatever the motivation might have been) and therefore decided to stick this totally unnecessary graphic at the top of the page.

173.3.104.127 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Swan

Update: I don't see how to take the box off, so I'd appreciate if someone else who can figure out Wikipedia a little better than me will do that. Thanks. 173.3.104.127 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Swan

Remove scare quotes

I have gone ahead and removed the scare quotes around 'far right' in the opening paragraph. Neo-nazis are without a doubt members of the far right; don't know why they were there in the first place. 82.228.195.39 (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo or misspelling of quote from Church Report? (Minor)

This is a teeny-tiny minor thing, but: can anyone verify whether the misspelling of "propagation" appeared as "propogation" in the original Church report document? If so, [sic] should be added. If not, the spelling should be corrected. I'm referring to:

"Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propogation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence."[2]

Thanks. Dr. B 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be verified?

I don't understand the flag--what does it attach to?--Cberlet 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

This page should be linked into a large group with the same general background. Like Mississippi, Missouri, and Maine would all be under states of United States. COINTELPRO would be under fascism and/or (for sure most definately) techniques of "state repression."

A commendable suggestion but too many Flag Waving boneheads would cry foul and start a revert war. -- LamontCranston 22:22, 5 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Note: you must cite a published source calling a specific work mentioning COINTELPRO a "conspiracy theory" otherwise it violates WP:NOR--Cberlet 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that COINTELPRO is an unproven conspiracy theory. That would be foolish. COINTELPRO was, however, a conspiracy, and thus theories about it are by definition conspiracy theories. See the relevant WP article. The main point of this section is that some radical activists have developed conspiracy theories about COINTELPRO. The point is self-evident in the City Pages article I cited, and hundreds of other examples are easily found. The original research rule does not demand that editors abandon common sense, or replicate the precise wording of sources. However, in accordance with your objection, I will add new cites that should ease your concern about OR.Verklempt 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, and cute that I get cited in my nowiki-aka. Here is the problem:

• Some authors have accused COINTELPRO of actions and motivations that have yet to be documented. For example, several authors have accused the FBI of deploying COINTELPRO tactics against the American Indian Movement, alleging that the federal government intended to acquire uranium deposits on the Lakota tribe's reservation land, and that this motivated a larger government conspiracy against AIM activists on the Pine Ridge reservation.

Who is making this claim other than you? I suspect some folks have claimed this, but to add this text you need to cite something specific. For example does the City Paper article state that Ward Churchill and James Vander Wall move beyond what they can document? ANd is this called a conspiracy theory? If yes, you have a proerly cited sentence. Otherwise...  :-) --Cberlet 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is made in all three of the books cited, all of which addess COINTELPRO in a critical manner, and none of which document the theorized connection to subsequent events. They are prime examples of the conspiracy theory approach to 70s Indian politics. For critical views on such theories, see Woidat, cited in my last footnote. I think Ferguson Bordewich's book also addresses this IIRC. This stuff should not be controversial for folks who know the subject.Verklempt 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the subject, but the issue is proper citation--which is now accomplished. Thanks.

New title for Conspiracy theory section

This is the place for people who want to change the title to make their case. The case for retaining the current title is that it is well-supported by the scholarly and journalistic literature cited in the section. "Conspiracy theory" is the standard term used by people who write about such topics. Any theory about a conspiracy is by definition a conspiracy theory. There is nothing POV about it.Verklempt 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is used to associate this controversy with odd stuff about UFOs and the like. Guilt by association. Jacob Haller 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about UFOs in the article at all. Where do you see such an allusion?

Here is Wikipedia's definition of Conspiracy Theory", from the article of that title:

A conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations [...] The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[1] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

It is obvious that the literature and folklore surrounding COINTELPRO fit the definition perfectly. So where's the problem?Verklempt 19:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In everyday usage, "conspiracy theory" does not describe the contents of the theory; rather, it is used to label the theory and group the theory with other ones (particularly UFO crap) which are generally regarded as delusions.

The wikipedia definition hardly fits these arguments anyway. These are not about the "ultimate cause of an event or chain of events" or the "concealment of such causes." These are about the continuation of part or all of COINTELPRO under different names, or the continuation of similar programs under different names.

Since COINTELPRO was itself a conspiracy, does the label "conspiracy theory" apply to all discussion of the original program? If not, why would it apply to any discussion of successor programs? Jacob Haller 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When you define the term yourself, you exceed Wikipedia policy on original research. This is why I cited the Wikipedia definition.

I don't understand your objection in your second point. The conspiracy theories about COINTELPRO explicitly indict it as the "ultimate cause" of all sorts of outcomes. If you don't understand this, then I would suggest that you need to familiarize yourself with the sources cited in this section.

As to your third point, yes, "conspiracy theory" applies to any theory of a conspiracy perpetrated secretly by powerful agents, as per the Wikipedia definition. Certainly COINTELPRO fits that definition. Even if you were to limit your definition of conspiracy theory to incorrect theories only, the post-COINTELPRO theories would still meet the definition, since evidence shows precisely when the program was closed.Verklempt 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First, to be an "ultimate cause" for various events, COINTELPRO would have to be necessary for those events, not just influence their course. COINTELPRO simply did not cause the movements it spied on, e.g. the civil rights and anti-war movements.

Second, COINTELPRO had run in secret for several years, and the same practices which allowed it to run in secret could allow it to continue or resume in secret as well. It isn't extreme speculation to say that "this happened here before, under these conditions, this happens elsewhere now, under similar conditions, thus could easily happen here now, under similar conditions." If you have been following the news for the past few years, the current United States administration has authorized other secret, illegal, espionage programs against its own citizenry, so it's not unlikely that this administration, or past administrations have revived elements of past programs like COINTELPRO. Are you suggesting that at this time, in the United States, there are no such programs, when for the past century, in every country, there have been internal espionage programs? Are you saying that people can't prove enough continuity to call it the same program, or are you suggesting that you can prive enough discontinuity to call it a different program? Jacob Haller 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(1)The conspiracy theories do not indict COINTELPRO for causing the movements. They indict COINTELPRO for any disruption or setback experienced by the movement. Again, you may want to read up on the topic a little before you edit this section of the article. (2) Your second argument reproduces the very conspiracy theory explicated in this section. Whether the theory is valid or not is beside the point. An NPOV article will not take sides on that question. The point of this section is that such theories exist -- which you just proved by articulating the theory yourself.Verklempt 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences three and four, concerning possible COINTELPRO activity against the AIM, are closely tied to COINTELPRO proper, and not well-substantiated.

Sentences two and five, concerning generalized espionage against activist groups, may take COINTELPRO as an example, but need not assume any organizational continuity between COINTELPRO and more recent spying. I'd suggest moving them to an appropriate general article on internal espionage by the United States government. Jacob Haller 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences three and four are very well documented by the references in FN14. I suggest that you read them if you want to be an informed and productive editor on this article. Re sentences two and five, the groups in question often indict COINTELPRO specifically and by name, even today. This is also well documented by the various references in this section, and a no brainer for anyone's who's ever had much contact with, say, what's left of AIM or the BPs.Verklempt 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The above by Jacob Halleris all original research and speculation--the very reason the title was restored along with the text. The rewrite totally misrepresented the cited material, changed the underlying allegations, and inserted language that valorizes conspiracy theory over what the cited authors actually wrote. Please stop this. --Cberlet 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the OR? Where is the speculation? I can't find either in my edit above. Jacob Haller 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem.--Cberlet 12:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I do not agree with some of the authors claiming concerns over COINTELPRO continuing (under a different name) are "conspiracy theories." And there is some evidence to suggest that COINTELPRO against AIM was at least in part due in part to pressure from eceonomic interests. But If I want to insert these ideas into the entry, I need to find a reputable published source that makes the claim, then quote it or sumamrize it. The truth is out there--in libraries.--Cberlet 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I would agree that COINTELPRO-like tactics were certainly used against AIM, but COINTELPRO itself had been officially ended by the time the FBI took a serious interst in AIM. Second, according to Conspiracy Theories, a theory does not have to be invalid to meet the definition. It would be unusual if there were not economic influences on any government action. The theory could be totally correct, and still meet the definition.Verklempt 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would help to create one page for Domestic Spying by the United States Government (or whatever appropriate title) and address the non-program-specific issues on that page, but I can't find any such page, or much cross-referencing between the relevant pages on specific programs and controversies. Jacob Haller 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but how about Surveillance abuse or Political repression?--Cberlet 22:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Jacob's idea for a new article is a good one, and I think his suggested title for said article is more NPOV.Verklempt 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A Rose By Any Other Name....

Yeah, Cointelpro was scrapped. But just look at what happened twenty years later during the 90's with the right-wing militia movement. The FBI admitted infiltrating the Montana Freemen, Richard McLaren's Republic of Texas group, and every other militia organization. McVeigh and Nichols too were under surveillance from within--the Oklahoma City bombing HAD to have been under the purview of the FBI. No, the FBI didn't plan and execute the bombing of the Murrah Building, but they for sure had to let it get close to happening to build their case...and they screwed up.

You may not want to call it "Cointelpro," so what should we call extra-legal infiltration and harassment of off-brand political organizations today? Doesn't matter, really. Extra-legal means, used by both the FBI and the CIA, are condoned to accomplish what they consider to be legitimate ends. Not quite a police state, but definitely a police-state tactic.

What we have to do, as per Tom Wait's song, is to keep the FBI and the CIA on notice that we are watching, ready to expose them. That's what happened in '71; the only reason Cointelpro came to light is that FBI files were stolen by true American patriots. The stolen files incriminated Hoover and his gang; they couldn't deny it. "Got to keep the devil way down in the hole..." Apostle12 (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There was the Scaife-funded Arkansas Project but that always seemed like an absurd distraction to me. LamontCranston (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

Please do not substantially rewrite the lead without discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The descriptive adjectives are blatantly POV, and can only cause problems. Much easier to simply remove them altogether.Verklempt (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I initially agreed with you, with the recent changes it seems OK. Apostle12 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "militant" and "violent" is still POV.Verklempt (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference being that the term militant implies that they were more than merely violent. I cannot think of one militant group that claims to be non-violent. There may in fact be some but they would clearly be in the minority. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Gandhi and MLK practived "militant non-violence," and the term "militant" is frequently used to make a distinction from groups that are "violent." The term "militant" is frequently used in reputable published sources to describe the BPP. Please do some homework before making baseless and easily-refuted claims. It is a waste of all our time to have discussions based on un-researched POV.--Cberlet (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why describe the BPP as "militant" but describe the KKK as "violent"? Both groups had members who engaged in politically-motivated violence. This is easily substantiated in the scholarly literature. The BPP's shoot-out at UCLA is one example. AIM is in the same category. It seems POV to describe one group as violent but not the other. What is your rationale for making this distinction?Verklempt (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A highly dismissive attitude, Cberlet. Apostle12 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with calling the KKK militant unless someone can make a case for the opposite. They have a history of being both violent and militant. Perhaps both words should be included in both cases. : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and as I said before the term militant is largely used to describe violent political groups. There are some and perhaps more than a few exceptions but the majority of them certainly seem to willing to resort to physical violence to get there way.So please Cberelet do not waste your

time trying to intimidate me or any of the other editors, Even if I am wrong about every single thing I have to say I have as much right to edit and :::make comments on wikipedia as anyone else. So please be civil. And consider reading this and consider changing that article to suit your own POV. The list they provide certainly seems to back up what I am saying but ..... : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read the Wiki entry on the word militant, Albion moonlight. It does not support your claims. I am not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to get you to do some more research and cite your claims. This is basic to Wikipedia. The KKK has a history of violence and terrorism according to numerous scholars. The BPP practiced militant armed self-defense. What scholarly sources can be cited to argue that the BPP ever engaged in terrorism or launched a violent attack?--Cberlet (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at "The Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America" by Hugh Pearson, and then follow his citation trail if you need more. There is no question that the BPP had extremely violent members, who used their politics to justify violence.Verklempt (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious research: doing some homework

Let me explain what I mean by doing some homework. I just rewrote the lead and cut some uncited text about the Venona papers. Here is what I found. There was text in the lead plagiarized from Paul Wolf at ICDC; the actual scope of the FBI COINTELPRO program in terms of targets was not accurate; the text about "expose, misdirect," etc. was wrongly attrubted to a founding COINTELPRO document when it actually was in a later FBI document. The American Indian Movement was not a target of COINTELPRO, but the target of a vicious FBI program that came later. The BPP is identified in COINTELPRO documents as "militant," but not at the time "violent," and a key aim of the "Black Nationalist" COINTELPRO operations was to prevent the BPP and other "Black Nationalist" groups from turning to violence.

Our purpose here is to edit text, not waste time on discussions that are not based on cited published research. Please do your homework. Everthing I found and cited was online.

I still object. The Church report states: "The Bureau's titles for its programs should not be accepted uncritically. They imply a precision of definition and of targeting which did not exist. Even the names of the later programs had no clear definition. The Black Nationalist program, according to its supervisor, included 'a great number of organizations that you might not today characterize as black nationalist but which were in fact primarily black'." Chip, you have uncritically replaced the FBI's labels in the lead, even though your own source describes them as POV and unreliable. There is a place for this in the article, but not in the lead. The issue of labeling should be moved down, and the Church report's criticism of the labels must be included in the article as a balance.Verklempt (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable published source that supports your claim. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. I was quoting from the Church report -- the source that you inserted. Are you now suspicious of your own source? I really do not understand your objection here. It saeems to me a very simple and reasonable request.Verklempt (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I understood your comments. They were an uncited POV opinion. I am asking for cited text. Really quite simple. Requires tapping the keyboard a few times and reading a few sentences before posting comments here. Hope this explains.--Cberlet (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you do understand my comments. I am citing the Church report, from which I excerpted a quote above. That is hardly "uncited POV opinion". What exactly do you disagree with here?Verklempt (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on newest edits, a question

Your work on the lead and other sections looks great, CBerlet. I do have one question:

You list a number of New Left organizations that came under FBI purview, and I wonder if you found reference to those groups that were formed specifically to protest the Vietnam War? I was active in that movement and lived in Berkeley during the mid-1960's. One day I returned home and was shocked to find a man sitting my the living room. I asked him who he was and how he got in. He flashed a badge and told me he was from the FBI, adding that he had let himself in and he had a few questions to ask me. I asked him if he had a warrant and he replied:

"Look (referring to me by my last name) I don't need any warrant. If I really wanted you I'd just hit you over the head and take you with me, so you're going to answer my questions right now."

Needless to say I found this appalling, and we later discovered that not only had he broken into our home, he had conducted an illegal search. When Cointelpro came to light during the 1970's, I realized that this agent had probably been operating in accord with the officially sanctioned mandate from Hoover to harrass and intimidate those whom Hoover considered "enemies." Apostle12 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Happened a bunch. It was called "The Game" and was used as a way to let activists know they were under survellance as a form of intimidation to make activists self-limit their work. We discovered it in depositions of FBI agents in some of the lawsuits I was a paralegal invesitigator on.--Cberlet (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. With me it actually backfired, since I was so offended by his intimidating tone and the blatant illegality of the whole thing. I became more committed after his visit.Apostle12 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cointelpro "New Left" net

Actually I just found this quote from the Church Report:

"As noted earlier, the lack of any Bureau definition of "New Left" resulted in targeting almost every anti-war group, and spread to students demonstrating against anything. One notable example is a proposal targeting a student who carried an "obscene" sign in a demonstration protesting administration censorship of the school newspaper, and another student who sent a letter to that paper defending the demonstration."

So it is clear that the Cointelpro "New Left" net was cast very widely indeed. I have changed the lead to make this more clear, since otherwise readers might assume that only the most radical and dangerous political groups were targeted. Apostle12 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And you did a good job of it too. Thanks for that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that in the lead to a controversial entry it is best to use actual cited text. Here we should avoid POV opinions about who was "militant" and who was "violent." We are making the lead better by adding cited text with enough detail to make it clear that the FBI terminiology was vague and was criticized by the Church Committee. Actual editing text using cited material is far more constructive than blogging-style commentaries on discussion pages. Just my opinion.--Cberlet (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been arguing for all along, so where's the problem?Verklempt (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your current edit of the lead looks very good to me. It conveys the reality of what occurred using cited material from irrefutable sources. Apostle12 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Cberlets recent edits too. He is a professional writer and a respected one at that. With that said I still encourage other editors to not be intimidated by other editors who think they have the perfect wording or perfect insight. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is for everyone to edit not just professionals. I am not sure whether the reference to Dr King in the opening is still necessary because the opening no longer hides just how despicable and pervasive the Cointelpro was. I can live with it either way. : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not a Wiki editor is a "professional writer" or "expert." The issue is whether or not a Wiki editor is willing or able to write NPOV entry text in a collaborative and constructive way, citing reputable published sources. A review of the past two weeks will reveal that Apostle12 and I have been doing just that, while two other editors have mostly been adding or deleting words without any references to reputable published sources. The point of this discussion page is not to have a blog, but to focus efforts on writing NPOV text. My criticism of "failure to do homework" was not an attempt to intimidate, but an attempt to shift people into a constructive editing mode. --Cberlet (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what everyone here has been attempting, in a manner that -- except for you -- has been remarkably collegial for political topics on Wikipedia. Your condescension ahnd refusal to negotiate in good faith is the major stumbling block.Verklempt (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a personal attack suggesting that I lack civility. I have a sense of humor too. Always like a good laugh. Glad you have lightened up. Cheers.

Reread our exchanges above. I asked you to make an argument to justify your edits. You ignored me. You repeatedly demanded that I provide a source for a quote from a source that you yourself entered. You did this twice, and then bailed. That, my friend, is wilfull obtuseness, not collegial editing. It is rare that Albion Moonlight has a cogent point to make, but I think he is right about you.Verklempt (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can slice it up anyway you choose to but the facts remain that you are not in control of this or any other article and thereby have no right to direct anyone to do anything. Not me and not anyone else. I have reviewed some of your more recent contributions to talk page articles and discovered that you often use the talk pages as a "blog" just as you have accused others of doing and you do it often. You do not have a patent on what is neutral or well sourced. If there is a dispute over content we can and should use the wiki dispute process to settle it. So please stop making excuses for yourself and get back into a constructive editing mode. On wiki you are just another editor. Please get used to that fact. I like what i have seen of your edits on this article but your attitude is another matter altogether. Albion moonlight (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Have you calculated the ratio of your talk page complaints in the last two weeks (including the complaints you posted on my talk page} to the number of words you have added or deleted on the entry page for this entry? Let me know...--Cberlet (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then don't be civil and thus continue with your obnoxious behavior. It isn't going to do you any good in my case and will likely cause you unnecessary trouble in the future. It is really too bad that you do not have the strength of character to admit your mistakes and apologize in earnest for your errant behavior.: Albion moonlight (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I wish Albion moonlight could just let this go, Cberlet, you could make it easier for him by acknowledging that your approach might have been less than exemplary and by pledging to do better.Apostle12 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just let this go ?? Now there's an interesting Idea. I do an did intend to drop it in hopes that Cberlet can learn to be civil. If he goes too far over the line I will lodge a complaint against him. Otherwise there is no reason to pursue it any further. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Glick quote

According to Chip, this entire section is a quote from Glick. There are two problems. First, its is not identified as a quote. Even if it were, it is entirely too long. Second, the quote contains POV assertions that can be improved on simply by rewriting.Verklempt (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Academid Peer Reviews

This statement does not just apply to this particular article.

In the past, Wikipedia has received a ton of flak for being "inacurate" and for having "questionable" sources. To solve this problem, certain articles, namely articles dealing with science, history, philosophy and other fields ruled by academics, should have peer reviews. I understand the emphasis of "wisdom of the masses" and, for certain topics that's true. Entertainment, news even, and events that go on. The news can not be trusted not because of some "conspiracy" or this or that, but the fact that reporters are just human beings doing their job, and they can not be everywhere at once. In this particular instance you need the wisdom of the masses. That is, the more points of view you have on events in discussion forums or discussion sections, the better. However such a perspective can not, and should not apply to academic articles. Way back in late 2005 I got away with using a wikipedia article for an academic paper I typed in college. A lot of people did before Wikipedia was more carefully scrutinized.

As a frequent user I apreciate the freedom but for more serious academic oriented articles, I think the input from actual experts is in order. The last thing I was taught in college, because the assumption was that I was going to go on to grad school, was this. Before reading an article, or citing as a source, a credible source, you need to look at three things. If an article does not comply, or meet these three standards, it is not a reliable academic sources. The standards are;

1) Sources 2) Credentials of the author; its not enough, that they write about something, they have to know what they are talking about. 3) Peer reviews; its not enough that an article is well-sourced and that the writer or researcher followed all the rules, and has the degree to back it up. In the academic world the majority of articles have to pass through a rigorous review and editing board. So, assuming you have the credentials you source your article well, and then it is filtered by more experienced experts in your field.

If an article does not successfully pass through these 3 filters, then it is not a reliable academic source. Wikipedia, among other forms of internet media can have tons upon tons of sources, hundreds of thousands of pages worth of information, but the expertise of the writers though, can be highly dubious. For example, can anyone reading this be sure I even made it past the 8th grade? I can also claim I hold 10 PhD's. Forgive the sarcasm but I think I made my point.

I think this article, and wikipedia itself, would be greatly helped if some articles were classified as "filtered" or something along those lines. As a wikipedia user I apreciate the freedom, but for certain subjects there has to be rules. I hope this comment helps both the article, and maybe, hopefully, Wikipedia.

206.63.78.51 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Methods: murder?

In the section 'Methods,' it says: "Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, beatings, and murders." (My emphasis.)

I can find no version of this article prior to the 17 March 2008 revision that contains the term "murders." The version immediately before the 17 March 2008 revision (7 March 2008) says: "Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings." There is no mention of "murders."

The source of this section, I presume, is Brian Glick's book "War at Home." I found it online here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO60s_WAH.html. In the section "COINTELPRO in the 60s," I found the section in question. It reads: "Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings." Again, there is no mention of "murders."

So, I have removed the term "murders" in accordance with the source. I also added the reference tag to the book, which can be found online.

129.237.169.175 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)marshall

Why do you assume this was the source for inclusion of the word "murders"? Murders were indeed committed. Apostle12 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Ward Churchill's book "Agents of Repression" comes right out and accuses the Cointelpro of murder. It is definitely a good read but I do not have the time to research it. And yes murders were indeed committed and that fact should be included in the article. Perhaps the murder of Fred Hampton is a good place to start. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added references to the murder of Fred Hampton in the relevant place. 84.90.16.198 (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have read Cberlets assertion that the word "murders" were included in the original quote I am highly inclined to take him at his word. Excerpts from a book posted on the internet are more suspect on than the original quote on any given day. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I checked the actual quotes from the book against the Wikipedia entry. I'll do that when I get in the office where the library is, just to be sure.--Cberlet (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I checked the book and corrected it. Will check again next week for other text. Please do not link to www.thirdworldtraveler.com. It is notorious for violating the copyrights of numerous authors and publishers.--Cberlet (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I hope that you or somebody else find a way to make it clear that murder too was a part of the COINTELPRO'S agenda as it can now be seen in retrospect. :Albion moonlight (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and for the record I was not the anonymous editor who made those edits or contributions. And thanks for the heads up on the thirdworldtravler. :Albion moonlight (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tinfoil hats, anyone? Please. I would check this, but have resigned myself to the fact that Wikipedia is drivel. The truly sick/sad thing, though, is that there are legions of teens and teachers (especially the latter -- we do have a few intelligent teens) out there who swallow this effluvia whole. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

citation needed

I am new to the site, so I apologize if I am posting in the wrong place. However, it seems that the statement 'The FBI motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order,"' really ought to have a reference cited, especially as it appears to be a quote. CopanTheCat (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. Actually reference 2 covers this and the entire section before it. This section was written directly from the Church report, which if you click reference 2 you will see. The Church report is available online, and it is easy to document the quote in question. Apostle12 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

holy cow, you're quoting chomsky? {{POV}} template goodness ensues

quote Chomsky on linguistics, and I'll back you up, to an extent. Otherwise he is perhaps a stereotypical case of {{POV}}. I'm not gonna template the article yet.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets even worse. This article also quotes Ward Churchill, even though he has been proven to habitually falsify, fabricate, and plagiarize.Verklempt (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is actually, according to the New York Times the 8th most cited scholar of all time, right behind the bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice Churchill— {{POV}} added. Research time! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat reverted the POV tag. I'll be happy to give him/her 48 hours to get rid of the POV bias in this article by doing (at the very least) the following:

1. getting rid of Churchill altogether (since he is utterly discredited as an academic.. he is a fraud).
2. Justifying the use of Chomsky (who is not an expert... outside the field of Linguistics, he is no more qualified to comment than is Paris Hilton. I am not joking; the comparison is apt.)
3. making sure the entire article is completely free of wholly spurious "cites" like this one:

Afterward COINTELPRO spread false rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americans involved in the civil rights movement.<ref>[[http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/violaliuzzo.html http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/violaliuzzo.html] "Viola Liuzzo", ''Detroit News'', April 9, 2004]</ref>.

The link goes to uua.org, which is certainly not WP:RS nor is it a secondary source nor (probably) is it WP:NPOV.. the link does not go to the Detroit News.. it's a particularly misleading WP:EGG.. and a search of the Detroit News website turned up no info regarding Liuzzo Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ling.nut your demands are spurious. Churchill was one of the first writers to point out the wrong doings of the FBI. Your threats are inappropriate.

And your personal opinions are academic, Your demands will be ignored and your threats to delete as you see fit are duly noted and will be dealt with through the proper channels should you decide to follow through on them. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Ling.nut let's compare Paris Hilton and Noam Chomsky...Chomsky has written over 200 books on the subject of politics and world events, many of them have been bestsellers in the U.S and England and Canada and Latin America. Noam Chomsky gives talks and speeches at Harvard, Cambridge, Sussex to throngs of people interested in hearing him speak about world affairs. Oh man that sounds like something straight out of a Paris Hilton sex video... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been seeing this meme a lot lately. LamontCranston (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Apostle12 reverted my deletions

I discussed this passage immediately above; the sourcing is spurious... I'm not threatening to revert again immediately, but in general, I certainly will delete text until the editors of this page get their collective act together. I will certainly re-delete that passage in 24 hours, unless the sourcing is corrected.. and will continue to check for more substandard sourcing. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again. Your threats will be falling on death ears and your reverts will be restored. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you care about WP:5P? Then show me the source, and prove its reliability. The burden of proof is on you, since you are defending existing text. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to wikilawyer with you. Your reverts will be reverted. Your threats are falling on death ears. If you want to commence the dispute process then go for it. Otherwise..... Albion moonlight (talk).

You're the one making threats. ;-) I am following the dispute resolution process; I'm discussing on Talk. That's Step One, isn't it? In the next few days or a week or so I'll find time to check every reference, and do research to see if anything is left out. If you would like to collaborate, then jump in. If not, then we'll go one step at at time. I hope we love Wikipedia more than we love our POV on this topic— that is the only way to avoid ending up in various content-related dispute fora. But if we don't, then... then regrettably that's what happens. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, but you are not listening to the other editors and your demands are not reasonable. The article is fine the way it it is. I personally don't mind if the article is tagged with a NPOV label or not. I will however back anyone who wants to delete your tagging or revert your reverts. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making this personal. Your refs need help. One of them (noted above) is.. please.. note this .. word.. spurious. It is not real. It is fake. It is contrived... Your sources need help. Churchill is disgraced. The man was fired for plagiarism; his name should never even be mentioned in academic contexts, except in discussions regarding plagiarism. Any Churchill refs should be deleted en masse; no compromise available on that question. May as well quote Bozo the Clown as Churchill... as for Chomsky.. he is a titan in linguistics, but outside linguistics he holds as many uninformed, biased opinions as everyone else in the world... Let me say something you won't expect, though: I fully expect to find the majority of your refs to be quite acceptable. But taking a well-reffed article and spreading talking head crap (Churchill, Chomsky) all over it changes it from a well-reffed article into a POV one. I'm surprised you can't see that. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not my refs. and this is not personal. Some of the other editors have worked hard on this article and I fully intend to back them irregardless of your opinion of Churchill or Chomsky. I also have noticed that you have failed to respond to the comments of the other editors. It is becoming fairly obvious that responding to you is just a waist of time. So until you start responding to the others I am going to ignore you...Albion moonlight (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, will try to check refs

Noting that Churchill was not even within a decade of being one of the first to break this story, since Churchill's book came out in 1990, and fifteen years earlier we have:

• Nelson Blackstock, COINTELPRO: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom (New York: Vintage Books, 1975).

I'm saddened by the personal and acrimonious stance contributors to this forum have adopted, and the unwillingness to critically examine/discuss the contents of the article. But will continue to try to check refs, whenever I can.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I took part in the early construction of the COINTELPRO entry. We have been down this road five years or so ago. The Churchil and Chomsky books were attacked on account of the personal aversion some editors felt for the authors. The books themselves are well referenced to the primary sources and so they stayed. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Five years ago, Churchill's record of fabrication and falsification was not so well-documented. The problem with Chomsky is one of expertise. The man is a linguist, not a criminologist or a historian. An article as sensitive as this one should be founded on impeccable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources. They do exist.Verklempt (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The alleged fabrications of Churchill have nothing to do with the case at hand. We would have to prove that the particular information he is being cited for is incorrect in order to call it unreliable. The fact that a few editors dislike him and Chomsky intensely is irrelevant. Expertise is not required in the case of Chomsky, but notability is . Chomsky has written over 200 books on the subject of politics and world events, many of them have been bestsellers in the U.S and England and Canada and Latin America. His quotation was added as a matter of human interest and relevance to the subject matter. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that editors must engage in Original Research in order to disqualify Churchill as a Reliable Source. Do you see the problem here?

Churchill has already been disqualified, by being crucified in scholarly journals and being booted out of academia.Verklempt (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am saying that as long as other sources back him up there is no reason to disqualify him as a source. Your opinion of him is irrelevant and so is everyone elses including mine. The same thing goes for the objection to Chomsky. You really need to pay closer attention to what is being said here. I did not mention or imply that original research should be allowed. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, we need to start verifying info and looking for gaps.... It's true that no serious, peer-reviewed journal would touch anything by Churchill any more; and I kinda doubt that a serious, peer-reviewed journal in this field would publish anything by Chomsky without labeling it "commentary" or whatever. But a small number of... dedicated editors... of this page have dug in their heels for their heroes; only a content dispute forum can help. But I am not willing to go to any content dispute forum until all the dishes have been washed (every ref checked; various sources checked for gaps). Considering the size of this topic, that will probably take weeks of slow plodding work... As I said, I'm willing to do it, not because I care about either partisan stance, but because I care abobut Wikipedia. If anyone wants to help, feel free to join in. Thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what there is to dispute here. No credible journalist would even think to argue with the facts that have been laid out clearly about this subject. The only reason that we must resort to quoting people like Chomsky (even though I believe he is just as qualified as a journalist to discuss this issue) is because the media refuses to cover the subject of COINTELPRO in any serious detail. Chomsky was one of the few intellectuals who realized that COINTELPRO was a massive breach of our freedoms and decided to take serious effort and time into researching the topic. Now I have never seen one article by any respected individual who says that COINTELPRO was a fully legal operation of spying and surveillance. Surely with only the facts presented on this page, anyone with half a brain would realize that this was a clear violation of our first amendment rights. That is not an opinion, it is fact that warrantless wiretapping and warrantless surveillance took place in COINTELPRO, just as it is a fact that assasinations were carried out on people the government deemed radical and extremely dangerous. Chomsky merely points out the kinds of people targeted by COINTELPRO, something that is not disputed at all, because the government leaked the information of the targets and the methods of spying on those targets to the public. Chomsky merely sums up what the leak shows, there is not dispute over this, and I don't understand why quoting one of the most respected intellectuals of the 21st century (the 8th most cited source of all time) should be a problem on wikipedia, a website that cites credible and reliable sources. Are you suggesting that every quote of Chomsky's in the thousands of books and articles and essays pertaining to politics is not credible? It's just as credible as quoting someone from the New York Times, or the Washington Post, people who merely have gone to schools that teach them how to sum up articles and fill them with lots of poignant words and overstatements. Also, you wont get a quote from either of those sources because the media totally ignored this whole issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the criticism of the sources which speaks directly to the sources themselves, which are adequately referenced to primary materials. The objections are ad hominem and these repeated rationalizations for removing important sources were rejected years ago. Certain users are wasting their time trying to get the Churchill and Chomsky books taken out of the references. Let's move on. DJ Silverfish (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You force me to repeat what I said earlier:

1. I haven't looked at all of your sources, but at least one is patently spurious. The bit about the rumors etc. is a quote of a quote of a.. maybe a quote, do we know?.. that is linked to a source that is hardly reliable. It fails Wikipedia's standards miserably, but is protected by (I am now forced to say) the WP:OWNers of the article.
2. I also stated earlier that all other sources need to be checked very carefully. I plan to do so, but it will probably take weeks. Am I being unconstructive by doing this? Surely there's a guideline that says "never check sources".. I must be violating it... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of filling space here with repeated vague assertions that there's something wrong here (which tends to sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT), why not use the time and energy to indicate specifically any problems there might be? You've made 14 posts pointing a finger saying I don't like this. Time for some specifics. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I deleted one piece of beef, and was reverted. Deleting again; this time pay attention. Look at the ref yourself. Follow the link. It's patently spurious. ... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of deleted refs & text: Deleted two refs for the "rumors", plus the rumors text itself. One ref (Detroit news) mentions nothing about rumors of sex with cblack men or of child abandonment. The other ref is (allegedly) a quote of a quote, from a source that fails WP:RS and WP:V, and doesn't mention abandoning children. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disengaging from these conversations; I will only research the cites. I will begin tomorrow. I will post my result on this page, one by one.... I will share everything I find, but will not engage in discussion unless it is of a constructive, non-combative nature. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography seems to me to be a good RS source, if that is what you are disputing.John Z (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To my mind editor Lin Nut seems overly aggressive in his tendency to delete good material.Apostle12 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better sources are available; the material is covered in a number of books (including some sourced in the Unitarian bio). These can be added, but simply removing the material is indeed overly agressive. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Boodlesthecat. Might you perhaps find the time to track these books down and add them?Apostle12 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic Sourcing

Many of the sources are to obviously biased writers and presses. A better article would value Athan Theoharis's research over Brian Glick's or Ward Churchill's, because Theoharis is a professional scholar, because he publishes in peer reviewed journals and university presses, and because he's never been fired for fabricating and falsifying data.Verklempt (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, unless the data itself is either incorrect and or disputed there is no reason there is no need to dis-include the source. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm stupid for replying, but.. yes there is a reason. I stated it plainly on you User Talk page. Far more importantly, we owe it to our readers to present a page containing the best scholarship possible, rather than a fanboy shrine for Churchill/Chomsky. But sine the WP:OWNers of this page absolutely refuse to accept that the readers are more important than the editors, this thread is useless². I say, check everything top to bottom, probably involving a couple of weeks of rsearch. Then if the WP:OWNers refuse to relinquish their fanboy shrine, we start crawling up the Content Dispute Resolution chain. Even there, I fully expect to lose the first few rounds, since the WP:OWNers outnumber the scholars. But the later ends of the chain have a better grasp of the concept of scholarship... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just read the article and was thinking "who is Brian Glick", and hoped there was an entry for him, or for his book, so I could judge how reliable he was. There is no article on him. I am more likely to trust newspaper accounts, than a book, who's author I can't vouch for. Brian Glick says people were assassinated. Who was assassinated under the program, and why aren't they named? Or is Brian Glick an unreliable source, and should not be used? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Secret Army Organization (USA)

I've added a brief description of the group with four sources, but I think cleaning it up, expanding it and creating a page for the Secret Army Organization would be something a more experienced wikipedian could do better than I. They're not hard to find out about just google "Secret Army Organization" San Diego. LamontCranston (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2