This is becoming very tiresome.  After the last reasonable attempt at compromise to keep one person (Rothbard) happy as well as everyone else by making the language neutral, Rothbard returned to remove an important qualifying word ("some") and to change "parliament" to "government" and to delete documenting links.  That shows lack of good faith and also lack of understanding of parliamentary government.  Regarding the first point, to criticize a mullah or a priest is not to criticize Islam or Christianity, and to criticize one activist in a movement is not to criticize "the antiwar movement."  That is simple dishonesty to claim otherwise.  Regarding the second point, in a parliamentary system, the word "government" refers to prime minister and cabinet, not to members of parliament.  To advise "government" you are advising the prime minister.  Nothing states that Palmer ever met the prime minister, but he spoke to members of the parliament.  Rothbard is perhaps no political scientist, but there is a major difference between them.  Even under the American system, if someone speaks to members of the Congress, it would be dishonest to write that she or he had come to Washington to "advise the government."  We had reached a compromise and Rothbard indicated that he could live with it, but he has now gone in without any reason and changed the entry to be misleading.  The agenda at work seems more to defame a person than to provide neutrally articulated information. The issue is raised and it's time for Rothbard to simply back off.  Others here will have to revert his attempt to introduce errors into this entry.