Talk:COINTELPRO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject FBI.
B (Rating Comments: add/view) This article has been rated as B-Class High This article has been rated as High-Importance
Editing Guidelines As this article is part of the FBI Project, we ask that if you make any significant changes be brought to the project. We have also set guidelines and conventions. Do not use the acronym FBI until you have used Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or Federal Bureau of Investigation at least once. Sometimes it might be needed to explain that this organization refers to the United States. In that case you can do ... is a division of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ...' Cite, Cite, and Cite - We can not stress this enough.

	COINTELPRO is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COINTELPRO article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Typo or misspelling of quote from Church Report? (Minor) 2 What needs to be verified? 3 Fascism 4 COINTELPRO exposure 5 Anti-american garbage 6 from nazi germany to nazi usa 7 Conspiracy Theories

[edit] 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)

[edit] What needs to be verified?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] COINTELPRO exposure

I think it's incredibly interesting to note that the COINTELPRO details were released at the time of the Nixon Watergate scandal, thereby the public were barely even made aware of what was going on and its full significance was never realized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.52.152 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Anti-american garbage

This never happened. Really? Then prove it. Paranoid fantasies of the left, that's it... and anyway, pacifist traitors need a good beating every now and then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.68.171 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I would think the fact that it's well cited should be proof enough.Jeek X 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from nazi germany to nazi usa

its sad that we have such organisations existing in usa. and they call it a free country. what a load of garbage.

[edit] 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.^[1]

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.