Talk:COINTELPRO

message: The first cited source on this page is throwing a malware warning on Google Chrome. I haven't touched it but I urge editors to find an alternative or delete this link to protect users. Apologies for breaking tradition and editing at the top but this is time sensitive (even if it's a false flag or whatever it will alarm Chrome users like myself). 84.13.88.32 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, as it's a simple text-based website with squeaky clean HTML. Someone could probably find another source, though, as it's from a government document. Better yet, it could become a Wikisource page. groupuscule (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malware? 

message: * Citing a PBS webpage (basically, an editorial) is emphatically not up to academic standards for an assertion as strong as "assassination." 
* Assertions of terrorism are no go as well.. that's an editorial stance, plus the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is verboten in Wikipedia (unless referring to the US, apparently). Ling.Nut (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Um, what? Where are you getting the idea that terrorism is a "forbidden word?" Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't personally use the word "terrorism" (too imprecise), however I see plenty of references to "anti-terrorism" on Wikipedia, which would seem to indicate that "terrorism" shouldn't be off limits.  Please explain: are you one of those editors who just make up rules and state them in an officious way hoping to hold sway with other editors?Apostle12 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the fever swamp that is Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Using "terrorist" or "terrorism" or whatever with respect to any individual or organization has been strictly nixed by folks who support the IRA and similar organizations. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: you can't use it with respect for US organizations, either. Cheers Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see what you are talking about, but it's not that it's totally forbidden, WP:TERRORIST says "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." so the issue is one of being absolutely certain that a reliable source described them in this manner. Al-Queda has an example of this, of course they've been called terrorists by lots and lots of sources, probably not the case here... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic standards, please. 

message: In the 1960's, when COINTELPRO was active, Malcolm X was assassinated. The alleged perpetrators of this were thought of as related to the FBI as agentes provocteteures. Why is there no discussion of this topic, though it appears germane, and the "target", was well within the scope that is documented the COINTELPRO's range?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.30.160 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because with no citations it would be speculation. Wikipedia does not speculate 31.185.43.96 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI COINTELPRO 

message: I am a lawyer.  I tried to cite legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum.  My edit was deleted within seconds.137.148.217.216 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of edit 

message: I have acquired and posted FBI records pertaining to the COINTELPRO operations directed at Violence Prone Yugoslav Emigres in U.S. http://historyanarchy.blogspot.com/2010/08/newly-declassified-cointelpro-files.html I tried to add them but the link got nuked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historypunk (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  COINTELPRO Records 

message: I have to ask...why in the beginning is the independence for Puerto Rico in quotes ("")? Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. The fact that it is in quotes, supposes somebody's personal and subjective belief that puertorricans have no sound, legal claim for independence. The quotes imply that "independence for Puerto Rico" is a concept invented by a group. The UN has repeatedly spoken against US colonialism in Puerto Rico, and in favor of our claim for independence (as a distinct nation that was invaded and robbed as a geopolitical experiment in the Caribbean). I won't change it, but I ask here that the quotes be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.202.38 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico 

message: While it is technically correct to refer to the US Organization by its formal name, much of the literature (both official and academic) refers to the US Organization as "the United Slaves."  Perhaps we should mention this fact, since it did become common usage. Apostle12 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US vs. United Slaves 

message: Albert Einstein is listed as a target of CoIntelPro.  Einstein died in 1955, and the article states that the CoIntelPro program began the next year, in 1956.
Can someone elaborate?
Aoss (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were trying to disprove parts of his Theory of Relativity and travel back in time to harass him? Who knows? 69.42.13.45 (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Early FBI counterintelligence programs operated during the Roosevelt (FDR) and Truman administrations.  Einstein became a U.S. citizen in 1940, and overt racism in Princeton, New Jersey inspired him to become involved in civil rights causes beginning in the late 1940s; his experiences with racism in Nazi Germany had sensitized him to this issue.  Because American Communists attached themselves to the Civil Rights Movement, the movement itself attracted the attention of the FBI; Einstein came under surveillance during the years just prior to the official 1956 inaugeration of centralized counterintelligence programs under the COINTELPRO label.  The article has now been corrected to reflect these realities and avoid the apparent contradiction. Apostle12 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Surveillance" is a very imprecise word. To the average reader, it might suggest that the FBI covertly followed him around, opened his mail, or tapped his phone; none of which appears to have taken place. The FBI certainly has a large file on Einstein, primarily concerning his allegedly pro-Soviet views, membership in what the FBI regarded as communist front organizations, and an effort by the USSR to persuade Einstein to move to the Soviet Union. Typical of these old FBI files, a lot of the material is newspaper and magazine clippings; in Einstein's case, there are also letters from patriotic groups denouncing Einstein. I have not seen anything in the FBI file concerning his pro-civil rights views; there may be some in these hundreds of pages, but it was clearly not a major concern of the FBI. The file documents that the FBI investigated Einstein, in the sense of reviewing media reports and making some inquiries to third parties about his views of, and possible ties to, the USSR. I don't believe that Einstein belongs in an article on COINTELPRO, because he died before the program began. But if it stays, the wording for this article should at least more accurately describe what the FBI did and did not do to investigate Einstein. Instead, we have the vague term "surveillance," and some off-topic cited sources. The source describing his pro-civil rights views does not mention the FBI. The other sources are dead links. The Church Committee report on FBI excesses does not even mention Einstein, so there is no point in citing it.  Regards.  Plazak (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tagged the dead links that refer to the Church Committee. I'm sure the Church Committee's report can be found elsewhere. If you've looked it up and it doesn't mention Einstein, then it should be removed. - Location (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I downloaded the PDF of the Church Report, and did a word search for "Einstein", but came up blank.  Here is the working link:  .  I did not fix the dead links because they are irrelevant to Einstein.  If you want to see the FBI's interest in Einstein, the only source I know of is the FBI FOIA files on Einstein, which run hundreds of pages.  As far as I see (but MEGO), there is nothing that I would call "surveillance", and nothing that merits mention in a Wiki article on a program that began after his death.  Regards.  Plazak (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I have removed the material from the lede. - Location (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text:   It is stunning to me that you did not see this, which is on the first page of Google results for "Einstein, FBI".  The FBI absolutely did follow him around, open his mail, and tap his phone, and this violation was connected to his civil right work GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  For my part, I only searched "Einstein, COINTELPRO". I think your addition is an acceptable one as it properly notes what the FBI actions were and that they occurred prior to COINTELPRO. - Location (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I can only say that the Einstein surveillance was not in the cited sources, and my skim of the 1,400+ page FBI FOIA files missed it.  Good work.  Plazak (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein 

message: Well done to those who have contributed to this page. This is a very well sourced article with great presentation.--217.35.82.108 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: It's very important to have information like this be well documented. Otherwise any errors can be used by those who want to dismiss the subject at hand as a mere conspiracy theory. It's certainly a distinct possibility that a racist organization would use character assassination without requiring the prompting of the FBI.
Of the four citations given in that part of article two make no reference to COINTELPRO.  A third, now dead, was a book review of the fourth citation. The review makes no direct reference to COINTELPRO, though it's a bit closer to what I'm looking for. I think this could best be resolved by a page number or chapter reference within Mary Stanton's book. It's quite important to know exactly where the author is getting her information. I was unable to find such a reference via the horrific Google Books interface. 
I was able to fix the dead link via the Wayback Machine, and am holding off tagging the disputed section while awaiting a response to my concerns. C_J_E (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  What you added resolves the issue nicely. Apostle12 (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Viola Luizzo case 

message: * Expand "range of targets" section. E.g. a section on "civil rights" movement with a paragraph on MLK. This surveillance was across presidencies. Move the list of presidents who ordered surveillance, perhaps to the history section.
* Move "Program exposed" to the end - makes sense to organize the article a little more chronologically, plus you don't know what's being exposed until you've read about it
* Move historical details on BPP from "methods" to "targets"; combine "methods" and "intended effects"
* Delete "Illegal Surveillance" section, fold contents into other sections.
Thoughts? groupuscule (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The claim that COINTELPRO targeted Scientology is sourced to a Usenet posting. Really, is that what passes for reliability? Or is it just a leftover from the whole "Chanology" craze that should be removed? 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology as a target

message: User:Thargor Orlando has now made two attempts to delete all of the external links section except government sources. Their edit summary invokes WP:EL, but there is nothing in our external links policy to exclude these videos, documents, etc. They were not added by spammers and they enrich the utility of the article for our readers. This seems to be part of a larger initiative on Thargor Orlando's part to simply delete sources they don't like. As far as I'm concerned, these deletions should be treated as vandalism. I'm interested to know the opinion of others. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, WP:EL quite clearly says to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article," and WP:NOT quite clearly states that "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files."  That's all most of those links are.  If you can incorporate them into the article, great!  If you can't, we should remove them per policy, as I will do again right now.  I do not believe them to be spam, and it has nothing to do with what I do or do not like. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion, this seems in keeping with previously noted tendentious editing from same editor. petrarchan47tc 23:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to delete the external links section 

message: I understand that COINTELPRO might be a favorite subject of conspiracy theorists, but does it really need to be connected to that topic? It dilutes the definition of "conspiracy theory."  COINTELPRO was not a 'theory,' but a real, validated, proven program...  Maurizio689 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories? 

message: "One of the great mysteries of the Vietnam War era has been solved. In 1971, a group of peace activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, and lifted files that helped reveal the FBI’s elaborate program of illegally spying on political groups. The documents, given to journalists at the time, provided the first hints of a secret counter intelligence program, or COINTELPRO, the FBI’s secret program to infiltrate, monitor and disrupt social movements. The burglars called themselves the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI."  SOURCE  petrarchan47tc 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery solved 

message: I question whether Ward Churchill's book can be considered a reliable source, given his extensively-documented history of research fraud. I would prefer that other, reliable sources be substituted.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: using Churchill as a source

message: The last time I saw this article, it stated that 85% of COINTELPRO resources were dedicated to targeting "subversive" groups, particularly leftists. It now states that 85% were dedicated to targeting "patriotic" and "conservative" groups. It now makes no mention of the SWP or the Black Panthers in that paragraph, but apparently includes "a broad range of organizations labeled "Anarcho-Capitalist" (dead link)", something I've never encountered in my studies of COINTELPRO or the U.S. government's response to the movements of the global 1960s. The edit was made by IP 68.199.99.160 and was clearly ideological. They even kept the same citation for the opposite information.
I'm a historian, but I'm not an active Wikipedia editor, so could someone who knows how to revert the old page please do so? This ideological vandalism will give anyone who visits the page a horribly inaccurate idea of this important piece of history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.13.181 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major ideological changes to the article 

message: See Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 47#Take a deep breath... (permalink ) Maybe the third paragraph of the lede does contain the longest sentence in Wikipedia, or maybe again it doesn't. Either way, as sentences go, it is actually a lot more intelligible than others I've seen (and quite possibly written), but might merit at least a look for the sake of us older readers, who sometimes have trouble remembering the start of such constructions at the half-way point, never mind the end (and per Mark Twain, will never master the German language ). Just a thought. Not a criticism (because I'm not sure I could do better) but a thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to rewrite it, I would need to be able to tell if all of those entries are uncited or belong to the Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones cite that precedes them. Hard to tell since the GBooks version is 2007 without page numbers. - Location (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the lede 

message: The quoted source talks about FBI and Malcolm X. It does not mention Martin Luther King. I have not come across any notable mention of schism between Martin Luther and Nation of Islam. Even if such schism existed and can be supported with sources, I have not heard of this supposed schism leading to Martin Luther's Death. Please elaborate further.--Wikishagnik (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The According to whom? tag 

message: There is an early bias in this page against popular progressive Democratic political figures (RFK and FDR). The term "antecedents" is used to implicate FDR in COINTELPRO when FDR's minimal involvement in surveillance (as described in this very page: asking the FBI to file the names of persons sending him letters opposed to his wartime national defense policy) followed DECADES of Federal government surveillance and/or active violent repression of leftist or labor groups under every administration since Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in 1908-09. Since the prime target of COINTELPRO was "communism",ANYTHING the FBI did to destroy socialist or communist organizations prior to COINTELPRO can be defined as "antecedent" so why single out FDR? If this singling out is solely referenced here because of the Church Committee report then that should be cited so in the text. A false impression is created here that FDR started or was instrumental in creating COINTELPRO when, in fact it was the Republican Eisenhower Administration under which this formally began, and another Republican administration in which "anarchist" illegal activities and repession began in the first place. The Palmer Raids were far more invasive and illegal than FDR's involvement, yet we aren't reading here "antecendents to COINTELPRO operated under Woodrow Wilson." Why not?
As for RFK, he only authorized wire tapping of MLK for "a month or so" but Hoover extended that for years and went way beyond the scope RFK had intended. Taken together, this page exhibits a bias. 2606:6000:C5C2:CA00:2D6E:9B66:91E5:699B (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antecedents DEFINE 

message: In Brian Glick's War at Home of primacy is detailed in the following quote:
Director Webster's highly touted reforms did not create a "new FBI."They served mainly to modernize the existing Bureau and to make it even more dangerous. In place of the backbiting competition with
other law enforcement and intelligence agencies which had previously impeded coordination of domestic counter-insurgency, Webster promoted inter-agency cooperation. (pg.20)
AND
The combined experience of these veteran covert operatives has given rise to a growing literature and theory of counter-insurgency. (pg.37)
For example, an FBI memorandum in the Church Hearings concerning the American Indian Movement (AIM) refers to violent members as 'insurgents'.
So the evolution could possibly be COINTELPRO to modern day counter-insurgency as Brian Glick maintains.
Counter-insurgency domestically is most likely Homeland Security & Public Safety.  At the onset of the Ferguson unrest the headlines were "counter-insurgency cops". 
Outlook.redirect (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-insurgency 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on COINTELPRO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130922223022/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The New York Times article "The Black Panther Toll is Now 28" (found here) is used multiple times in support of the assertion that the FBI targeted Fred Hampton. Neither the FBI or COINTELPRO are mentioned in the article, so I am removing the source per . - Location (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I noticed that there were opinions from the people like Dhoruba Bin Wahad and groups such as the Church committee; however, there seems to be a lack of expressed opinions from FBI Agents themselves or other people working within the government or COINTELPRO. This could possibly add more viewpoints of the how COINTELPRO was viewed, not only from the outside or by those affected, but also by those who were affected on the inside. Otherwise, this may lead to a more favorable viewpoint to the reader rather than the article just being neutral. 
Also, there could be more of a representation other groups that were targeted by the FBI in COINTELPRO. The article largely focuses on the experiences of people within the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement. While this is great, there could be a comparison of how other groups may have been affected by COINTELPRO. This may articulate how some groups may have been affected by COINTELPRO on a more severe level or if the experiences by the saboteurs were similar. This could possibly be fixed by adding quotes from members in groups like the Klu Klux Klan or other feminists organizations.
TDFergus (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how a reader would have a favorable view of government activities during COINTELPRO, but here is a link to the official FBI archive: https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favorable to one side of the experience? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on COINTELPRO. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019170937/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019170937/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/10/pratt.release/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001422_pf.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www25-temp.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/violaliuzzo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019170937/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: MOS:LEAD states the following about images in an article lead: As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."
With that in consideration, I don't think a photo of Viola Liuzzo makes sense as a photo in the lead. The lead mentions Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Hampton, J. Edgar Hoover, and others, but not Viola Liuzzo. As far as I can tell, Liuzzo is one of a number of victims of COINTELPRO, but not the face of COINTELPRO. 154.160.17.72 reverted my removal of the image, stating that "She was part of civil rights groups int he [sic] 1960s, which is in the lead." But I think this is a pretty tenuous connection to make to justify inclusion. There were many people who were part of the civil rights groups mentioned in the lead. If there is a better justification for her inclusion, I would like to hear it. Trinitresque (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Trinitresque, I concur that the photo of Viola Liuzzo does not belong in the lead. I support leaving it where it is now situated, immediately before the paragraph beginning "In one particularly controversial 1965 incident…" KalHolmann (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The lead talks about the Civil Rights Movement, which Viola was certainly part of. I see no reason why she can't be included in the lead. Also, I disagree with this edit  Black owned book stores is not mentioned in the broader left category. It needs to be reinstated. Raddude89 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Raddude89, how did you decide that, among all the activists of the civil rights movement who were targeted by COINTELPRO, Viola Liuzzo alone should have her photo in the lead? KalHolmann (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could easily edit her name into the lead. I'd really like to keep her picture at the top. Raddude89 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Raddude89, you evaded my question. Why does Viola Liuzzo, alone among all the activists of the civil rights movement who were targeted by COINTELPRO, deserve to have her photo in the lead? I hope it's not because she was white. KalHolmann (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. Other victims of COINTELPRO are posted on this page. I really don't see any reason why she can't be at the top. She was a victim of COINTELPRO because she was part of the Civil Rights Movement. It even states this in her caption. It mentions civil rights movment activist were targeted, hence why I think it's fine for her picture to be in the lead. Raddude89 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Raddude89, I'm disappointed. I've asked you twice to explain why her photo exclusively should be in the lead. You haven't done so. Let's wait for consensus to form. KalHolmann (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? If it's more at the top of the page, the more likely people will learn about her. She was a civil rights target under COINTELPRO. Raddude89 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Raddude89, at Wikipedia, we don't make editorial decisions based on "Why not?" KalHolmann (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason is because civil rights activist are mentioned in the lead. She was a civil rights activist. If you'd rather her not be in the lead, fine. I'm in the opinion that she should be. All we can do is discuss to agree or disagree. Raddude89 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Trinitresque and KalHolmann. No sufficient arguments have been made thus far as to why Viola Liuzzo in particular should be the lead photo Velon1 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also don't believe she belongs in the lead, there are more notable activists that were targets of COINTELPRO. It would be hard for anyone to argue that Dr. Martin Luther King is the not the most notable and among those most consistently harassed. His picture makes the most sense to me. "In the light of King's powerful demagogic speech. ... We must mark him now if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security." That is from the program director and says all you need to know. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think [[Viola Liuzzo]]'s photo should be included in the article lead 

message: The lead as well as the article mention "assassination" and "murder" as being one of the ways in which COINTELPRO could "neutralize" subversive targets.
However, is there any actual evidence that the FBI knowingly used "murder and assassination" as a tactic? I haven't seen any, so I suggest that the lead be changed, since it gives the impression that assassinations were a part of CONINTELPRO.
PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying that nobody died as an eventual consequence of COINTELPRO. There is no doubt that some of their tactics (creating splits and encouraging dissent within Black movements) led to people dying. But the FBI couldn't possibly have known that NOI or US would end up killing Malcolm X or Black Panthers. At least there is no evidence of that.
Likewise, while Fred Hamptons death seems suspicious, there is no evidence that FBI was involved. Sure, the FBI cooperated with Chicago PD. But even if we suppose that he was murdered in a premeditated way by Chicago PD, that doesn't mean that the FBI/COINTELPRO were involved or even knew about it.
Regarding the reference to a "Secret Army Organization" there is incredibly little material on this group, aside from Choskys claims. I certainly don't see them being mentioned by reputable sources much. Given this fact, and the fact that the SAO didn't really seem to do much of anything, I suggest that we delete the reference. 
90.184.72.43 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This history monograph published by University of North Carolina Press holds the FBI directly responsible for Hampton's "political assassination." -GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and "Secret Army Organization" ref. 

message: This edit tells: "COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day, and have been alleged to include ... harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination." I quickly looked at the sources provided and do not really see support for this text. Which source it was? Moreover, this page only covers a period of time from 1956 to 1971. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "I quickly looked at the sources provided..." You delete things without fully reading the sources. Interesting.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So speaking about recent FBI assassinations, who were the victims? Perhaps I simply do not know something? I thought this is something CIA does; I did not know anything about the FBI doing this domestically up to this day... My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Filiberto Ojeda Rios https://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/26/fbi_assassinates_puerto_rican_nationalist_leader GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: This page is about a historical program (yes, the bad one) which ended in 1971.  Rios was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire with FBI agents after they surrounded him in 2005. However wrong that could be, this is not a targeted assassination, and it certainaly does not belong to the lead of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for an example, I provided it. Now you move the goalposts like a naughty person. Naughty!-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Being killed in a gunfight with law enforcement falls far short of assassination. 2) Even if it were assassination, one could at most say correctly only that the tactic was used as recently as 2005, rather than "to this day."  Regards.  Plazak (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The precedent for calling an FBI killing an assassination is the Fred Hampton death. Hampton was also killed in a gunfight.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that being killed in a gunfight with law enforcement cannot be assassination, only that such circumstances are far from sufficient to demonstrate an assassination. People are killed in shootouts with police every day, and certainly they are not all assassinations. Neither is a conclusion that the FBI "illegally caused the death" of Mr. Rios, which seems to refer to the FBI not following proper procedures. An assassination would require that the FBI's motive in the raid was to kill, rather than arrest, Rios, which does not seem to be in evidence. The Hampton case cannot be used as "precedent" to call any or every police shootout an assassination. The Hampton case is different, as it has additional evidence that Hampton was killed after being taken into custody. To state as a fact that the FBI assassinated Rios is not justified by the material presented here. Plazak (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the article is assassination stated as "fact." The original edit spoke of allegation. It is a fact that one of the allegations of assassination came from a United Nations General Assembly committee, which is highly notable.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassinations by the FBI to this day?

message: Why was this material below reverted?
"According to a report by the Inspector General (IG) of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI improperly opened investigations of American activist groups, even though they were planning nothing more than peaceful protests and civil disobedience. The review by the inspector general was launched in response to complaints by civil liberties groups and members of Congress. The FBI improperly monitored groups including the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh-based peace group; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Greenpeace USA, an environmental activist organization. Also, activists affiliated with Greenpeace were improperly put on a terrorist watch list, although they were planning no violence or illegal activities."
I maybe not have sourced it all properly, but if you read that pdf file, all that information in that above paragraph is sourced there. Lylefong94 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you look in this? That paragraph above is sourced all right here Just ctrl+f stuff like "Thomas Merton Center" " People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" "Greenpeace" etc. If you can, can you source this preoperly while keeping that paragraph above intact as much as possible? Thanks. Lylefong94 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of sourced content? 

message: The section about this really needs to be cleaned up and clear examples included: In the 1980s they were infiltrating and spying on a Communist group even as it was suing them for the COINTELPRO-era activities (the details are in Betty Medsgers book The Burglary), William Blums book and other sources have claimed they were infiltrating Central American solidarity groups in the 1980s, Eric McDavid was entrapped in their campaign against 'eco-terrorism', the 2009 Bronx terrorism plot is just one of numerous examples of Muslims being similarly entrapped, a couple years ago they admitted to infiltrating the Church groups that protest outside the School of the Americas,  at the Dakota Access Pipeline protest an FBI informant was sleeping with one of the leaders and somehow his pistol wound up on her when shots were fired at private security. And it is claimed that numerous cases of terrorists being apprehended by the FBI are entrapment: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-244905/ LamontCranston (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued COINTELPRO actions 

message: Did the program actually start in the 30s? I've heard that Anarchist and whatnot were rounded up and deported. Did this not take place under COINTELPRO? 46.109.144.132 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding start date  

message: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-244905/
Can anyone summarize this and post information regarding this in the "Later similar operations" section? 129.45.59.227 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing ‘Terrorists’ – and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook 

message: There is a Request for Comment at the Fred Hampton article which may interest folks at this page. You are invited to participate! GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC at Fred Hampton page

message: , Please state a valid rationale for keeping those lines, as just saying that the Dutch Wikipedia keeps it doesn't mean anything. The lines are very much implied and are just pointless bytes added to the file size. puggo (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  On whether the lines "for example" are unnecessary or not 

message: In the section "Notable people targeted", a man named "John Branch" is listed at the very bottom. I believe the linked person is the wrong John Branch (born 1782 and Florida's territorial governor) and someone else is supposed to be linked. FredModulars (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people targeted 

message: The source for Malcolm X being targeted is the nation of Islam's webpage. Seeing as they're the ones that assassinated Malcolm X, I would assume they're an unacceptable reference. Keytud (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm X as a targeted person