Talk:COINTELPRO

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IamCorleone34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Malware?

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)

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)

Academic standards, please.

• 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)

• Um, what? Where are you getting the idea that terrorism is a "forbidden word?" Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

FBI COINTELPRO

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)

Because with no citations it would be speculation. Wikipedia does not speculate 31.185.43.96 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just give up on trying to make this whole FBI-killed-Malcolm X thing happen. It won't happen. Heck, even the leader of NOI pretty much admitted to NOI killing Malcolm X a few years ago. 90.184.72.43 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

deletion of edit

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)

Political assassinations

This article suggests that the FBI conducted political assassinations. If this is true, why is not one example of such an assassination provided? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the following section of "Methods" and its associated sources, especially those having to do with the assassination of Fred Hampton:

Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[18][19][20]

The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various factions the black militancy movement, for example between the Black Panthers, the United Slaves and the Blackstone Rangers. This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were the United Slave assassinations of San Diego Black Panther Party members Jim Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[18]

The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homes—often with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws—which resulted directly in the police killing of many members of the Black Panther Party, most famously the assassination of Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[18][19][20]

See, especially, Special Agent Swearigan's testimony, as well as the supporting statements in the Church Report--"D. Cooperation Between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Local Police Departments in Disrupting the Black Panther Party"

Apostle12 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of this sounds like original research, or at least a shifting of weight towards a minority POV. Whatever our personal interpretations, I don't believe most mainstream sources describe these events as political assassinations, nor do they list political assassinations as one of the purposes of cointelpro. ClovisPt (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe mainstream sources within the US in that era could report that kind of news (they still probably can't) due to the nature of government being able to clearly claim that under Eminent Domain within the country and mutual ties withing nearly all first world countries. However, the evidence point (however inconclusively) at the FBI and thus it merits keeping within the article. I mean, you have a confession from an Agent within a somewhat covert Bureau that is well respected and widely cited. How much more evidence do you need that it was at least said? 31.185.43.96 (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article stays on point by confirming that the purpose of Cointelpro was to protect national security, prevent violence, and maintain the existing social and political order through infiltration, disruption, marginalization, and subversion of the targeted groups. That the FBI used violent means to accomplish this purpose, including provoking violence among rival Black Nationalist groups, is beyond question--the official U.S. Congressional Church Report details exactly how the FBI went about these provocations and the deaths that occurred as a direct result. Special Agent Swearigan's testimony makes it clear that the FBI's intent was to terrorize Black Nationalist groups by partnering with local law enforcement to conduct deadly raids that resulted in several assassinations, including that of Fred Hampton. These facts are supported by mainstream sources, and they are widely accepted. Apostle12 (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not OR -- many reliable sources refer to these as political assassinations, especially Fred Hampton. In fact, I know of very few reliable sources that don't call Fred Hampton's murder (a pre-planned murder, set up by the FBI once he was nominated as national spokesman for the BPP) an "assassination". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Apostle 12: Ron Karenga's US did kill the five or so Panthers, not the FBI; regardless of any ugly or illegial machinations off screen.--Radh (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify, please. I don't understand what "Karenga's 'US" refers to. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, lost the "a": 3 or 4 students from Ron Karenga's black nationalist group US shot Bunchy Carter and another Panther. There are rumors (statement by Panther renegate Earl Anthony), that the LAPD or FBI helped the gunmen get away from the scene.--Radh (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence on this page yet to suggest that any of these individuals were murdered directly on the orders of the FBI. If there is hard evidence, I suggest we provide it. If not, I suggest we remove the word "assassinations" from the page, or at least say that they have been ACCUSED of orchestrating assassinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.90.26 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And still, thirteen years later, a reader like me is confused seeing the repeated references to assassinations being part of COINTEL but without any direct discussion about it. I came to the TALK page to suggest there should at least be a list of the assassination victims instead of the casual mentions it gets now, lumped in with much lesser crimes like wiretapping. But after reading the above comments I now understand that the charge of "assassination" does not have the same evidence as the others. In fact, if I'm reading the comments above correctly, despite so much COINTEL documentation coming out proving guilt in other areas, there is *no* direct evidence of intent to murder. COINTEL is a tricky topic and it is hard for someone like me to discern what is concretely known. I wish Wikipedia would stick to proven fact for most of the article and silo important but circumstantial conclusions like "political assassination" in a clearly labeled section. B9 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

COINTELPRO Records

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)

Puerto Rico

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)

US vs. United Slaves

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)

Einstein

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)

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)

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)

"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)

@Plazak: 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)

I downloaded the PDF of the Church Report, and did a word search for "Einstein", but came up blank. Here is the working link: [1]. 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)

@Plazak: I agree. I have removed the material from the lede. - Location (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Plazak: 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)

@GPRamirez5: 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)

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)

Good article

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)

Methods: Fabricated Content

Whoever composed the section which described "psychological warfare" and attributed certain claims to Brian Glick's book appears to have wildly embellished what it actually says. A preview reveals war at home by brian glick it never said anything about family, friends, landlords etc being "strong armed" but that they were presented false media articles about people. Why do editors make this stuff up, is it that hard to translate simple English? As it stands I think this could even be called a fringe position that this amounts to "psychological warfare" and maybe it shouldn't be in that section or the lede either. There are prolific sources which describe COINTELPRO tactics, is Glick the only one who calls this psychological warfare? "Dirty tricks" is not psychological warfare to my knowledge.Batvette (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Glick's use of the term "psychological warfare" seems appropriate to me. Of course there are no FBI memos saying, "Now we are going to engage in psychological warfare," but all critics of FBI tactics during COINTELPRO agree that psychological warfare was involved. As far as the article's use of the term "strong armed" to describe tactics that Glick details, I suppose that is a matter of interpretation. In my opinion "strong armed" certainly applies--due to my involvement in Berkeley's anti-Vietnam War movement during the mid 1960s, my father was "strong-armed" by the FBI to get him to discourage my participation. Unless he agreed to co-operate, the FBI threatened to yank his security clearance, which would have made it impossible for him to continue his career at Lawrence Radiation Laboratories. He pretended to go along, and shortly my parents decided to move to Chicago where he could continue his career at Argonne National Laboratories in a less hostile environment. Again, to me "strong armed" seems quite an apt description, and I'm not sure why you object to this term. But we don't have to rely on personal stories such as my own, since to do so would constitute original research. Glick details a number of tactics and examples that could also be described as "strong arming." Or perhaps you don't think physical threats count, even when people's lives are threatened. In fact we know that the FBI's COINTELPRO tactics resulted quite directly in fatal clashes between the Black Panthers and the U.S. Organization. I think "psychological warfare" and "strong armed" should remain. Apostle12 (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick to what the reference states and avoid any embellishment, whether based on OR or an overall perception of what the program was about. Isn't that why we use references and provide them for people to see for themselves? On a separate note, I don't believe yanking someone's security clearance (which ultimately terminates their employment)constitutes a "physical threat". Security Clearances are funny things, they can and do yank them for some pretty silly ****. As for psychological warfare, the basis for wondering if it's relevant is because if it were widely believed to be the case, you'd think the term would appear somewhere in the Church Committee report- but it doesn't, not once. The reason this even came up is the continued claim by people who claim to be victims of "gang stalking" continue to reference COINTELPRO as a precedent to validate their claims- some are real and are likely the targets of some program, many others- perhaps the majority- appear to be suffering from delusions, in particular claiming people surround them all day jangling keys, pretending to talk on cell phones, wearing certain colored clothing, even automobiles driving by them with a license plate of a certain numerical sequence only having significance to them- to torment them with "psychological abuse". One gentleman even claims up to a thousand cars are parked daily in his city along the route he walks in specific color order, part of his ruination.

So I'm not here to minimize or trivialize what's happened to you, in fact if anything I'd like to prevent that by avoiding such silliness to be associated with COINTELPRO, because if it were, then people would eventually associate COINTELPRO with being delusional- and if such a program IS going on still today, allowing it to be claimed by the delusional that it's happening to them, provides cover for it and keeps them from treatment which could benefit them. In the end I'm about the facts, and what is verifiable. Not believed. With all the above in mind let me know if there's a way we can modify this to your satisfaction.Batvette (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the FBI's threat to yank my father's security clearance constituted a "physical threat." I offered it as an example of psychological warfare--the FBI wanted to get to me by threatening to end my father's career as a nuclear physicist, which began with the Manhatten Project and ended with research into ceramic bead storage of nuclear waste in 1983. You do seem to want to "trivialize" what the loss of his career would have meant for him, my mother, and the rest of our family. Plenty of other sources use the term "psychological warfare;" that the Church Committee members didn't happen to use that particular phrase is hardly a reason not to use it. Perhaps you just haven't read widely enough among the sources offered, Glick among them; psychological warfare, physical threats, and physical attacks were quite common during COINTELPRO.

(BTW, I did not write the section in question, though I do agree with it.)

I'm going to relate another OR example to underscore the fact that the FBI's use of physical threats was a common ploy. At the height of my involvement in the anti-Vietnam war movement, I arrived home one day to find a man in a dark suit sitting on the living room couch in my Berkeley home. "Who are you?" I demanded, startled to see him. "I'm here from the FBI and I need to ask you some questions," came his reply as he flashed a badge. The front door had been locked and he had let himself in. He had also searched the entire house, as was evident from the open drawers and personal belongings tossed about. "Do you have a warrant?" I asked. To which he replied, "Look,(my last name), I don't need no fucking warrant. If I really wanted you I'd just hit you over the head and take you with me, and that would be the end of it!" We were alone in the house, and I decided my best protection was to take it public, so I turned and walked out the front door, despite his protests. It was a busy street, and I wanted witnesses if he was going to assault me. I shouted for anyone to hear, "This man is an FBI agent. He broke into my home and is threatening to assault me!!!" Obviously enraged, he quickly walked away.

I can't address the issue of "gang stalking" and the nut cases who use COINTELPRO to justify their fears. The article as written is factual and duly sourced. I don't see any "embellishment." Apostle12 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to work with you here and be reasonable and frankly it's hardly important enough for us to get in a pissing contest over. The fact remains the embellishment is the content of the article provides a cite to a reference which does not reflect what the content says. The passages that appear here in the article are thus fiction. We don't do that at wikipedia, it's just plain irresponsible and your personal experiences cannot be used to provide a rationale for keeping material that amounts to someone else's OR they pulled out of their tookas. I didn't touch the article and have offered the opportunity for you to tinker with it in a way that meets wiki standards but if you don't want to do that I'll just delete anything that isn't reflected verbatim in the reference because I won't walk away and leave such OR in the article. If we have to go down the road of RFCs or other means if you're insisting this OR remains its not going to be helpful that your input has been providing more OR when I'm asking wiki policy be followed, surely this can't have slipped by you.

However since the reference also mentions verbatim psychological warfare it will remain. As a side note your father's experience is interesting but the last thing that is would be psychological warfare, I suggest you take at least a superficial glance at the subject Psychological_warfare and recognize they were actually applying direct coercion tactics. Interestingly enough once the OR content is removed from the passage it actually resembles the wiki article's description of psychological warfare (use of false printed materials presented to relatives) so I have no grounds to remove that in this case. (however it's up to you if you care or not that thousands of yahoos with every silly notion of gov't conspiracies messing with their heads are going to use that to say COINTELPRO targeted them too- I think it isn't healthy for them OR its historically verified targets, and like it or not they are out there in droves- why facilitate it? my personal injection that isn't wiki policy related) So in summary the content must reflect the reference and not contain OR. And never forget "factual" is not wiki policy. Verifiable IS and that's what I'm asking. Batvette (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We are in agreement then. Apostle12 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Viola Luizzo case

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)

I was able to find the allegations as to Hoover's direct involvement in the Mary Stanton book at Pg 190 Chapter 7. I'm going to make a slight change to the problematic wording in the article, which should resolve the dispute here in a mutally agreeable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My initials were taken (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What you added resolves the issue nicely. Apostle12 (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations vs. facts

Conspiracy theories—even published ones—should not be implied to be commonly accepted facts, and certainly not as they pertain to the still-living persons who may have been involved. As stated previously in the thread above, there is little or no evidence to support accusations of state-sponsored "assassinations". We're not talking about Watergate or Iran-Contra; these allegations have not been tried in any court. While it might be frustrating that the courts have been reluctant to try any COINTELPRO cases, this article should not be a soapbox about it. This all needs to be clarified as allegations, or in some cases (to avoid undue weight), removed entirely. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A few examples:

1. What makes Noam Chomsky a reliable source for facts—not theories, but facts—about FBI operations? He is free to offer us his analysis, but we are not to treat that analysis as fact. And we are not required to give equal weight to unsubstantiated fringe theories.
2. I removed the examples from the "intended effects" section. Deciding which actions (if any) fit which examples, unless they are listed in an official mission statement, handbook, or set of orders, is original research.
3. While some may claim that Black Panther Party members were assassinated, others (such as the police and FBI) claim they were killed in the course of legal, anti-crime operations. Until and unless a court finds differently, we can't state that any other way.

Myriad other problems here, but these are a few I've tried to address. We're in desperate need of some neutral (as in, not famously anti-establishment), reliable (as in, not by outside theorists but actual participants) sources. I'll try to find time for that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. I appreciate that this is a contentious article and we have to tread carefully. I was unsure of how to feel, recently, about the removal of the FBI template from the top. But I haven't reverted that change because I wanted to see how others reacted. In response to your comments and your edits:

• Wikipedia does not use trial in court as its standard of evidence. (If it did, there are many statements we do sign off on that we couldn't; conversely, we'd have to accept the 1999 jury's decision that the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was a government conspiracy).

• We already have a page on "assassination". Some of the events you describe clearly fit within this category. Assassination is a more precise word than killing because it implies that the political motive for the killing is known. AFAICT there is ample evidence that the killing of Fred Hampton was an assassination and not a killing of some other sort.

• I agree that 'conspired' is strong language. But it's known that the FBI worked with local police departments. No reason to change all the way to 'believed to have worked with.'

• I strongly agree that more sources are needed for the article, and that the left-wing rumor mill can produce unsourced and exaggerated claims. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Groupuscule.

• Wikipedia does not only use trial in court as the standard of evidence, but we do require some kind of evidence, or at least general agreement by historians in the absence of actual proof. None of that is presented here. It's really not accurate to compare the 1999 MLK civil case to this: On one hand, it did go to trial whereas this did not; and on the other, in 2000 the US Department of Justice found no basis for the 1999 finding. Juries in civil cases can only hand out awards; they can't dictate reality. According to WP:BLPCRIME, we do need to have proof (such as a verdict, in a criminal case) to include what could otherwise be considered potentially libelous claims. Presumption of innocence is mandatory, even on Wikipedia.
• I agree that assassination implies that the political motive for the killing is known. We don't have that here. The political motive for the killing has been suggested. Conspiracies have been asserted. Nothing has been proven. The motives—and, in fact, the actions—are not known. Not even the claim that Hampton was drugged and murdered; the presence of barbiturates in his system was disputed by the FBI's medical examiner. There were armed guards, there was shooting, people died. That sort of thing happens all the time. We don't know that the killing was politically motivated. This wasn't a president in a motorcade, or even a resistance leader killed at a rally. It was an armed criminal shot by police while (supposedly) resisting arrest. We'll probably never know the truth of what happened, but it's too great a leap to conclude that it was definitely a political assassination. Even if the FBI actively wanted him dead, that doesn't mean it was an assassination.
• It is known that the FBI worked with police departments, but it is not known that the FBI worked with local police departments "to target specific individuals, accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them." We can't ascribe that specific motive without evidence. We can state that some third party has made that claim, but we should not be adding credence to the claim by treating it as a fact.

Hope that clarifies some of my points. I'll look into better sources soon. They might not exist, though, so we may be stuck with an article full of theories and suppositions. In which case, we just need to be more careful about how we handle them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Kafziel, there is more than enough evidence to prove that the FBI not only worked with local police departments, but worked with them "to target specific individuals, accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them." If you review the original trial and the exoneration of Elmer Geronimo Pratt, you will see that his release from prison and the large monetary award he received are definitive in this regard. I have followed this subject carefully since 1966, when the FBI specifically targeted me because of my involvement in early anti-Vietnam War activities in Berkeley, California. I arrived home one day to find an FBI agent sitting in my living room; he had forced open the locked front door and searched my house without permission, a typical "black bag" job. The agent started to question me, and when I demanded to see a warrant he responded, "Look, (name deleted), I don't need no fucking warrant. If I really wanted you, I'd just hit you over the head and take you with me." I realized that I was dealing with an agent who had no respect for my Constitutional rights, so I turned, exited through the front door, and took it public. Once on the busy street, I announced to anyone who would listen that an FBI agent had broken into my home, searched it without a warrant, and was illegally harassing me. Fortunately, he left as quickly and quietly as possible.

Freedom of Information Act requests have been extremely useful in documenting FBI motives and approach during this era. Especially with respect to the Black Panthers, Curtis Austin's work has been seminal. His book, UP AGAINST THE WALL: VIOLENCE IN THE MAKING AND UNMAKING OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY, meticulously documents FBI harrassment of the Panthers. Even journalists who have been very critical of the Black Panther Party (e.g. Hugh Pearson, SHADOW OF THE PANTHER) agree with Austin's conclusion that Panther Fred Hampton was assassinated--the Chicago Police Department even took the macabre step of making sure the the involved officers were black, and we know that a police informant led them to the bed where Hampton was sleeping with his girlfriend.

With respect to Viola Liuzzo, there is no question that the FBI spread rumors that it knew were false specifically to discredit her and undermine her efforts during the civil rights movement. Similar fates befell several Hollywood figures who offered support to the Panthers.

I am reverting your edits because they undermine the fine work of multiple researchers who have devoted years to PROVING that FBI actions and motives were unlawful and immoral. I do agree that the article needs more sourcing, however even the sourcing we have at present is sufficient to establish the facts presented. Apostle12 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you say there's enough information to provide reliable sources, then do so. Wikipedia is not your soapbox, nor is it a place to import conflicts. Sorry you had a bad brush with the feds, but that's not sufficient reason to violate WP:BLP. My edits do not "undermine" the work of others; you do not own this article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, whether you agree with me or not, you do not have the right to remove maintenance tags (such as {{cite needed}} or {{refimprove}}) without fixing the problems they were meant to address. You've been here long enough to know better. Please add cites as needed and/or discuss your other issues here without reverting wholesale. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my removal of the maintenance tags was heavy-handed. It is just that we have worked so hard to source every claim this article makes. I will review each of the edits you made, and which I reverted, to verify sourcing and add more sourcing if that seems necessary. I do believe you are setting the bar too high here; you seem to be asking not just for more sourcing, but for more sourcing that passes your "neutral" and "not famously anti-establishment" test. Sources need not pass your test to be considered reliable; they are reliable if they are reliable, no matter how 'famously anti-establishement" they may be.

I am particularly concerned that you seem to want to ignore the clear evidence in Geronimo Pratt's case. It was an informant for both the FBI and the City of Los Angeles who testified in Pratt's favor. It became clear that exculpatory evidence had been suppressed by the bureau and the city, with Pratt accused of the 1968 murder of Caroline Olsen, a murder he could not have committed because witnesses placed him at a distance of 350 miles from the murder scene. He was falsely incarcerated for 27 years, and his murder conviction was vacated on June 10, 1997. A combined judgment of $4.5 million was paid, $2.75 million by the City of Los Angeles and $1.75 million by the Department of Justice. This judgment was approved by a federal judge. If this case does not rise to the level of proof you demand, I don't know what might satisfy you. http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/law/inrepratt82CalRptr2d260.htm

I am not using this article as a soapbox, nor am I importing conflicts. My history lends some passion to my commitment that the known facts be presented here; there is nothing wrong with that. I have no confusion about "ownership," however I will not stand by and let anyone add material that undermines the known facts. As I wrote previously, "there is more than enough evidence to prove that the FBI not only worked with local police departments, but worked with them to target specific individuals, accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them." Geronimo Pratt is a case in point; for you to write that these are merely unproven "allegations" represents a serious distortion of the facts.

Please review the sources; they are too numerous to list here. Please reconsider. Apostle12 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the source you linked to above, I don't see how it shows that the FBI did anything wrong. In fact, I read the entire finding and it doesn't even suggest such a thing. The court didn't make any statements regarding the actions of the investigators; in fact, it specifically states that Butler was listed as a confidential informant by the LADA. Pratt's conviction was overturned because prosecutors didn't properly disclose Butler's background to the defense, but nowhere does it say that that's the fault of the FBI. Not only are the courts and the prosecutors not in the same bureau, they're not even in the same branch of government. You're making a seemingly unfounded (and certainly unsourced) leap to connect the two. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Any interpretation of primary source material (such as a court transcript) requires a reliable secondary source (such as analysis in a peer-reviewed legal journal) for that interpretation.

I don't have a position on this issue, I just want the article to reflect what the available sources actually say. And, yes, sources absolutely do have standards to meet. While a radical anarchist such as Noam Chomsky might be a reliable source for radical anarchist activities, and his opinions and theories on this subject are worth noting in this article (strictly as opinions and theories), he is not a reliable source for facts about the motives behind secret government operations. If he has inside information because he saw some documents, then those documents need to be our source as well. If we don't have access to those documents, then the information is not verifiable and can't be presented as fact or given undue weight.

I think it might be useful to bring this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for help identifying reliable sources. Do you think that would help? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I linked to only one source, however I referred to the tens of other reliable sources various editors have referenced to write the article. Are you rejecting each and every one of those sources? Apostle12 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just going one at a time, and that's the source you chose to use as an example.

The changes I made here went a long way to making the text match the sources cited. Mostly just semantic changes to comply with WP:BLP, along with a few tags to request more thorough and reliable sources in addition to the ones we currently have. The only source I removed was a dead link with no other information in the footnote (and which had been tagged as dead for almost two years). As far as Chomsky and the rest, the changes I made mostly solved the problem of presenting their theories as facts. So it's already fixed! I posted here to say what I had done and what still needs attention; I didn't say anything about rejecting all of the current sources, I just said we need more and better ones. There's room for both. But you do have to let both sides be represented. It can't be all about conspiracy theories and books by angry ex-Black Panthers and counterculture leaders. Like it or not, there is another side to this issue. I'm not saying we have to gut the article, I'm just saying we need to work on making it more neutral and, in the meantime, be more careful about how we handle the information we do have. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you call Fred Hampton a criminal, Kafziel. On what basis do you make this claim? His overturned conviction for allegedly stealing ice cream bars? For someone who in the very next reply is worried about Biography of Living Persons policy violations against an inanimate, non-person government agency, no living member of which is mentioned in the entire article, it's odd that you'd make such a serious and unfounded accusation. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things, real quick.

1. Many of Kafziel's edits here reflect uncertainty about whether the FBI has performed an 'assassination'. If the Hampton case is as clear as I think it is (and I'll admit to not having looked over the evidence lately), this is evidence that it has. Maybe there are others with stronger evidence, maybe not.

2. The article right now relies heavily on the findings of the Church Committee. I think that these are actually the closest thing to a court decision that we can get, since IIRC the FBI cannot itself stand trial for anything. Many of this article's accusations are supported by this source. What is our evaluation of its credibility?

Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As a reliable source, I don't know how much better it gets than a report issued by a committee convened by the U.S. Congress. The Church Committee had the power to subpoena witnesses, which they used to evaluate the charges and prepare their final report. There is nothing tentative about their conclusions. Apostle12 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As above, this is a primary source. The committee, as any congressional committee, was under no obligation to remain neutral or fair in any way, and it covered an extremely wide range of agencies and activities. Can't be used on its own to support disparaging claims about living persons, including FBI agents. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So,let me get this straight. You allege that we can't rely on any source written by someone who is "anti-establishment" or who has formed a negative opinion about Cointelpro collusion between the FBI and local law enforcement to violate the rights of ordinary Americans, even if their opinions are based on irrefutable primary sources. Nor is it permissable simply to present the conclusions of the Church Committee, no matter how well-respected those conclusions are, in academia and elsewhere. That leaves only sources who are unreservedly supportive of the FBI, even given clear evidence that the bureau acted illegally in many cases, as per the Church Committee, based on testimony from FBI agents and citizens, like me, whose rights were violated. How does this differ from the sort of censorship that prevails in nations where only the officially sanctioned governmental viewpoint is allowed, in the People's Republic of China, for example?

Personally I know of no author who has investigated the evidence who has not concluded that the FBI and various police agencies were culpable. Are we to assume they are all, by definition, anti-establishment? By what criteria do you exclude these authors, many of whom are considered the world's foremost experts in their fields (Curtis Austin, for example, on The Black Panthers), as irredeemably biased?

Please clarify. Apostle12 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am not alleging anything. The rules about biased and first-party sources are Wikipedia's, not mine. And the burden of proof is on the person who wants to add or keep information, not on those who want to remove it. That said, I hope my comments above help clear up the rest. I'm not looking to remove lots of stuff, just looking for better accuracy and balance. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good debate here so far. I appreciate that all parties are respectful and constructive. I have a few questions. (1) While there seems little debate that Hampton's killing was a politically-motivated murder, I'm not so sure that the blame can be confidently placed on the FBI, given that the local police were also involved. This doesn't exonerate the FBI, but it does raise a reasonable doubt when it comes to accusing the FBI of "assassination". (2a) The BP witnesses re Pratt's whereabouts denied his presence in the Bay Area during the original trial. This changing story makes the Oakland BP position unreliable. (2b) Pratt's conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct in not disclosing a key witness's informant work. Does this impeach the witness's testimony? (2c) While prosecutorial misconduct in Pratt's original trial is indisputable, it seems to me a stretch to assume Pratt's innocence.Pokey8635 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• * *

I've read this commentary and will refrain from adding anything to the actual article. As one who has been a (sometimes) friend of the Bureau (and to better illustrate some of the problems here), I will add here what I know about one incident.

The allegation re the encounter between the Black Panthers and United Slaves is based on the following claimed facts, viz., that the Bureau wanted to "neutralize" co-operation between the Panthers and the Slaves by sowing dissension among the members of each organization. To accomplish that, unknown individuals believed to have been working for the Bureau burglarized the Panthers' offices in Los Angeles and stole blank letterhead belonging to that organization. That letterhead was used by someone to write an insulting note to the Slaves leader, Ron Karenga, and the said note was, indeed, delivered to him.

The intent alleged was merely to make Karenga mad and distrustful of the Panthers' leaders (including Bunchy Carter); but, Karenga flew off the handle and, in response, ordered several of his myrmidons to have Carter killed.

This, indeed, is what happened, and since the police were watching all along, they quickly solved the crime and really "neutralized" Karenga by sending him to prison for life for murder.

Now, people can castigate the Bureau for sanctioning (and even participating in) black-bag jobs; and, there is little doubt that these did occur. Indeed, Mark Felt (who eventually became Watergate's Deep Throat) was prosecuted and convicted for participating in them when the target was the Weather Underground.

Also, the same kinds of "letterhead" dirty tricks were used by Nixon's conspirators to sabotage the Democrats (and recall that Gordon Liddy was a former FBI agent who obviously learned how to do such stunts somewhere).

But, it completely stretches the truth to call the likes of that the Bureau's "assassination" of Carter.

Such a claim simply has no foundation in the evidence. Rather, it is a characterization on the part of individuals with their own ax to grind and who are offering their interpretation of the evidence.

If Wiki wants to be an encyclopedia, then these errors are precisely what it has to guard against. The Bureau can be accused of a lot (and some of it actually will stick), but a claim of "assassination" needs to be supported with solid evidence, not the opinions of random writers who can't even tell us who burgled the Panthers' office.

Robert Crim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.56.154 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• 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)

precursors to COINTELPRO

The Bureau's politically-motivated and activist investigations date back to the very beginning. Hoover's animus against black activism dates back to the Bureau's investigation of Marcus Garvey, and the Nation of Islam beginning in the 30s. IS there a place for some of this history in this article?Pokey8635 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you could include this material in the "History" section, a short addition to the following paragraph"

After the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, King was singled out as a major target for COINTELPRO. Under pressure from Hoover to focus not simply on communist infiltration of the civil rights movement, but on King specifically, Sullivan wrote: "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." Soon after, the FBI was systematically bugging King's home and his hotel rooms.

Of course sourcing is critical. Apostle12 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. 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)

Scientology as a target

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)

Attempts to delete the external links section

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)

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)

My opinion, this seems in keeping with previously noted tendentious editing from same editor. petrarchan47tc 23:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories?

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)

Mystery solved

"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)

• "It Was Time to Do More Than Protest": Activists Admit to 1971 FBI Burglary That Exposed COINTELPRO
• Burglars Who Took On F.B.I. Abandon Shadows NYT; By MARK MAZZETTIJAN. 7, 2014

using Churchill as a source

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.Pokey8635 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Major ideological changes to the article

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)

Regarding the lede

See Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 47#Take a deep breath... (permalink [2]) 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 [3]). 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)

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)

The According to whom? tag

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)

Antecedents DEFINE

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)

Counter-insurgency

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on COINTELPRO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References

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 {{failed verification}}. - Location (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Favorable to one side of the experience?

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)

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 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Viola Liuzzo's photo should be included in the article lead

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)

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)

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 [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Raddude89, at Wikipedia, we don't make editorial decisions based on "Why not?" KalHolmann (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead and "Secret Army Organization" ref.

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)

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)

Assassinations by the FBI to this day?

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)

"I quickly looked at the sources provided..." You delete things without fully reading the sources. Interesting.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Filiberto Ojeda Rios GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

removal of sourced content?

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)

@GPRamirez5: Can you look in this? That paragraph above is sourced all right here[5] 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)

References

Continued COINTELPRO actions

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)

Question regarding start date

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)

How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing ‘Terrorists’ – and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook

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)

Environmentalism in the 80's

I've heard the FBI did certain things to neutralize environmentalist in the 80's. Anyone here have any information on this? If so, can you please share any sourced information you might have? Not just the 80s, but any era what was done to environmentalist would be fine. Thanks a lot in advance. 104.0.45.37 (talk)

RFC at Fred Hampton page

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)

On whether the lines "for example" are unnecessary or not

@146.199.180.157:, 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)

Notable people targeted

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)

Malcolm X as a targeted person

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)