Talk:COINTELPRO/Archive 1

message: For a legal filing concerning the ongoing FBI use of COINTELPRO tactics, see http://www.judibari.org/COINTELPRO-OOP_020514.pdf --user:Daniel C. Boyer
"Burglarize" is not an Americanism unless "Americanism" means a traditional English word that everyone in England used in 1750 that has recently (since about 1900) been replaced in England by a new word while continuing to be used in America.  There are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of those.  American are more traditional that the British (who are in turn more traditional than continental Europeans). 131.183.81.100 21:16 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
:What has that to do with "burglarize"? Internal evidence shows it isn't an older usage in English (it ends with "-ise" or "-ize", which means a recent derivation from Latin or Greek), and the latter ending strongly points at an American-only usage. While some Americanisms are indeed archaisms, this is no archaism. PML.
"Burglarize" is a common term defined in most dictionaries. The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) defines it:
:transitive senses
::1 : to break into and steal from
::2 : to commit burglary against
::: burgled is very rare, at least in the USA. Because Wikipedia allows both British and US usage, this term should have been left alone.  Arthur 21:36 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
Well I'll be... it looks very odd... Cgs
----
This article should be merged with cointelpro. -- BenRG 20:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Discussions

message: :Wiretapping and other intrusive techniques were discouraged by J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director in the mid-1960s and eventually were forbidden completely unless they conformed to the Omnibus Crime Control Act.
This makes it sound like J. Edgar Hoover acted as a bulwark for good government, and tried to rein in these activities.  I find this doubtful.  Would be great if a knowledgeable person could eliminate that line, or expand and explain it. Tempshill 00:28, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoover 

message: In the COINTELPRO#External links section I have added links to the main body and topical subheadings of the Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Senate report.  This is for easy reference. There is a great deal more information in the COINTELPRO#Further Reading texts. 
I've started internal citations.  The Google link is not ideal, because it does not break.  
If the failure to break is a problem, please substitute this link: 
* http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm. The cited text is in the fourth paragraph of the document. DJ Silverfish 03:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Looks like many links were removed, and apparent POV word choices were added.  I will let frequent contributors to this article decide the validity of Tony Marvin's edits. zen master    T  06:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  So Tony.  Please do not edit the quoted material from Brian Glick. The numbered points are quoted from his book. There was no FBI COINTELPRO against milita groups. They did not exist as a large movement until the 1990s.  The quote in the lead was from the FBI document launching the subprogram for Black Nationalist groups. Please do not make it factually false by attribting it to the entire program.  Congress specifically found that many of the groups targeted by COINTELPRO were not violent.  Calling the Black Panther Party of the 1960's and 1970s a "hate" group may reflect Bureau rhetoric, but it is POV and not supported by the historic record. The FBI perception that there was KGB influence on most of the groups targeted by COINTELPRO turns out to be largely false with the exception of some influence on the CPUSA. ANd on and on.  Please cite any further changes becasue you have shown a tendency to insert unsubstantiated POV claims on this page.--Cberlet 17:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to: TonyMarvin. Your last edit was clearly vandalism. Brian Glick has a published book from which quotes have been taken (with permission). Please cite your sources here before making any more changes. The revert by Zen-master was entirely appropriate.--Cberlet 13:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Tony Marvin remove info? 

message: Accusing FBI and police of "assaults" and other POV doesn't help this article. Am thinking it should be merged with FBI. Any thoughts. Coqsportif 03:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article relies on highly partisan sources

message: The article is currently very vague. It doesn't describe any specific cases or incidents. It could use a discussion of the Viola Liuzzo case, in particular. What's the reason for the TotallyDisputed tag at this point? I don't see anything controversial in the current version of the article at all.--Bcrowell 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: needs specifics; what's controversial?

message: I got involved in the H. Bruce Franklin article simply because he's done some literary criticism on Robert A. Heinlein. He was a radical Marxist. Recently an anon deleted a lot of material from the article and inserted this:
:According to FBI documents obtained under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), by 1969 the FBI decided that Franklin must be "neutralized" and that the FBI was no confident that it could accurately imitate his writing style. Accordingly, the agency planted phony "interviews" and even wrote articles and messages signed with Franklin's name and forwarded them to key media opionion makers.
I reverted the changes, and have tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but since this is an anon, that probably won't happen. Does anyone have any information about this, or suggestions on how to find out about it?--Bcrowell 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: request for information about [[H. Bruce Franklin]]

message: I've removed the TotallyDisputed tag. The "Methods" section now has more detailed footnotes to less partisan sources. IMO, if there is any further dispute about the article's accuracy, it should be handled by making relatively minor edits to the text, and/or by people finding specific references to back up some of the general statements that COINTELPRO did certain bad things (e.g., are there any specific examples anyone can provide of COINTELPRO actually carrying out assaults and  beatings?).--Bcrowell 21:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed TotallyDisputed tag

message: The "Background" section is really awkward. It reads more like conclusions or a summary than an introductory background section. It also refers to the Church committee, which only later is discussed in any detail.--Bcrowell 05:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The language was worked out in an exhaustive edit war in April 05, initiated by some who wanted to question the existence of COINTELPRO.  A lot of the documentation and journalistic language was introduced by people attempting to shore up the article.  Chip Berlet did the heavy lifting.  You've been very careful to add references for your changes, so you've limited the opening for erosion of the article.  It seems like an improvement.  The early mention of the Church Committee was probably replacing some contradictory claim. DJ Silverfish 11:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Background" section is awkward

message: The last paragraph of the methods section quotes Hoover out of context.  Hoover was not making an Orwellian argument about the malleability of facts.  The true context of the "immaterial facts" quote is that a rumor need not have factual corroboration to sow distrust among the BPP. Hoover's quote in context: 
"The second Detroit proposal to consider directing an anonymous communication to Newton accusing David Hilliard of stealing BPP funds and depositing them in foreign banks does have merit and the Bureau does not concur with San Francisco's observation that this would have little effect since there is no record that Hilliard is skimming large amounts of money. Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge. If facts are present, it aids in the success of the proposal but the Bureau feels that the skimming of money is such a sensitive issue that disruption can be accomplished without facts to back it up." 
--Herb West 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. The sentence you deleted was very POV. I think the text that's left is still somewhat misleading, since it makes it sound like the FBI was fooling itself, rather than attempting to disrupt the BPP.--Bcrowell 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoover memo 

message: "Communist Scare gave the government excuses do go beyond legislation and enforce thougher methods of dealing with suspected domestic terrorists organisations (but which organasations could be called terrorist organisations is of course to the government disgression) and attack and branding opposition to the government as terrorist groups. "
This needs to be rewritten. It makes almost no sense at all as it is current phrased. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  02:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small section removed from 2nd intro. paragraph - here 'tis 

message: Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment