Talk:Agent of influence

message: Cberlet, I fail to see how the inclusion of the removed text is any kind of dommentary on the term agent of influence, its a mildly critical book review of "Treasonable Doubt" and not a critique on the term "agent of influence". As such, I have removed it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Section

message: How can you include two definitions in the first paragraph that are entirely contradictory in nature?
Is the person knowing and conciously serving a foreign government OR an unwitting dupe?
If it is both than the initial sentence must be reworked so that both definitions can be used else you fold in the dupe with the active agent and the whole thing becomes another smear technique.
--Ken 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first two lines. 

message: This article provides a list of agents of influence, from one organization, but the list then appears to be an objectively determined list. This is a potential BLP problem for any still existing org on this list, with people associated with that org. WP:WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST WITCH HUNT might apply.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the Methodist Federation for Social Service!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is in a very sorry state overall. It should be about the term "agent of influence," not a list of every person and organization ever accused of being an agent of influence or front for a foreign power. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with the above comment, and I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the list, as there seems to be a clear consensus against it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic, agreed 

message: In the See Also section, an entry saying 'Influence Operation of the Muslim Brotherhood' turned out to be simply a link to the Huma Abedin article. I see a section there on false allegations made a few Republican politicians, widely condemned, as a smear of some kind, and I think the entry above was clearly a partisan echo of the allegation, there is nothing else in Abedin's article about espionage or the Muslim Brotherhood, so I removed the entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakedEel (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious entry to See Also: 

message: The CIA is the least neutral source possible for the claims being made, they have a direct interest in justifying their own actions against both the USSR and the domestic peace movement.  This was classic redbaiting used against those opposed to the U.S. wars of aggression in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to name the most prominent examples.  Really very transparent propaganda serving official state interests.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.177.12 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is not very neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article is too bad to be salvaged by editig. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. But I'm too tired of fights on Wikipedia to do what is needed  JQ (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major conflict of interest mitigating neutrality