Talk:Philip Agee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip Agee article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Cold War Wiki Project Philip Agee is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] false accusations

I reverted the article back to my last version. TDC, please read my discussion contributions before you throw out all my changes (even the ISBN for 'CIA Diary'). You don't own this article.

The accusations of KGB collaboration are based on only one source, the "Mitrokhin archive" as presented in "The Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrew. The accusations made in that book are factually wrong in at least one respect, namely that "Agee removed all references to CIA penetration of Latin American Communist parties from his typescript before publication." (p 231) That's why I removed that claim from the article, and provided ample evidence here on the discussion page. I'm moving my earlier contributions up here in the hope that TDC and others will actually read them.

In fact, the "CIA Diary" is full of such references. Here are a few excerpts from my 1975 Penguin edition: "[Our] most important penetration operation against the Coummunist Party of Ecuador [...] consists of two agents who are members of the PCE and close associates of Rafael Echeverria Flores, principal PCE leader in the sierra. The agents are Mario Cardenas, whose cryptonym is ECSIGIL-1, and Luis Vargas, who is ECSIGIL-2. They have been reporting for about four years..." (p 116) "The recruitment of the PCE agent, Atahualpa Basantes Larrea, ECFONE-3, is one of the more interesting recent station accomplishments... Basantes had no trouble expanding his activities in the PCE and soon he was reporting valuable information." (p 117) All of these agents make frequent appearances later in the text, e.g. on p 171: "One of our most valuable PCE penetration agents, Luis Vargas, recently reported on what he thought was the beginning of serious guerilla operations here. ...his close and frequent association with the leaders of the group gave significant intelligence. Rafel Echeverria Flores, the number one PCE leader in the sierra, and Jorge Ribadeneira Altamirano, also a PCE leader in Quito ..., were the leaders..."

So much for that point. I have only read a few excerpts of "The Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrew, but its quality seems to be quite low if one important claim it makes is so easily disproven.

I would expect that anyone making large edits to this article has at least looked through the "CIA Diary". Even if Christopher Andrew has obviously never read a single page of it. It's easy to get a copy via Amazon. Chrisahn 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the claims made here, but I will point out that Wikipedia is not about Truth, but about verification. Please read these policies. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Agee did *not* remove all references to CIA penetration of Latin American Communist parties from his book. This can easily be verified. See above. What other verification do you want?
The first rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources". The book "The Sword and the Shield" is obviously not reliable, so no Wikipdia article should contain any material from it. We should remove them. Wikipedia:Verifiability also says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately", so the first rule is even more important for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability also says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources". As I demonstrated, Christopher Andrew has done hardly any fact checking - he did not even look into the book about which he is making very bold statements. Chrisahn 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Sword and the Shield" meets WP:V.
How's that? Christopher Andrew got some 'facts' about Agee completely and utterly wrong, and it would have been very easy for him to get them right. He's not a reliable source, at least not in respect to Agee. I just ordered the book through Amazon, I'll have more to say when it arrives. Chrisahn 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If you doubt the relability of "The Sword and the Shield" then provide verifiable sources which contradict "The Sword and the Shield", and add them to the article, not to the talk page.
Please add the "CIA diary" references, but please do not delete "The Sword and the Shield" references.
The best way to disprove the relibabilty of "The Sword and the Shield" is to show contradictory references, not delete all references to "The Sword and the Shield".
RE: "You don't own this article" "TDC and others will actually read them" "Please read these policies."
Please WP:AGF.
I removed a false statement from the article, I provided ample justification, and TDC didn't even bother to discuss them before reverting all my edits. That hasn't been very polite, but I'll do my best to AGF. ;-) Chrisahn 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to both of your contributions.Travb (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that an encyclopedia should contain a quote that is so obviously wrong. I don't see a sensible way to include both the false claim that Agee "removed all references to..." and then a few quotes from his book that show that he did *not* remove these references. It's just too ridiculous. I still think the most sensible solution is to drop that paragraph. Chrisahn 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Think about how to add a referenced quote some more.
TDC and I are actually polar political opposites, and have argued alot, but on keeping referenced material in an article, I agree strongly with TDC, and think the section should remain.
Any referenced addition I will support, regardless of its position.
You could write:
"Reference X contradicts Refernence Y..."
...and then the quote from your reference...if TDC then demands that it be removed, I will then flip, and support your position....Should be interesting to see your edit and the reaction. Travb (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is not that one source contradicts another, but that source X makes a statement about source Y. Andrew claims that certain facts have deliberately been left out of the 'CIA diary', and that is wrong. So the 'CIA diary' is not really a source here, but the matter of another source. What if source X said that this page did not contain the word 'Advertising'? Would that be a reliable source? Would this page be just another source? I really don't get it. Chrisahn 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Sword and the Shield" meets WP:V.
You still haven't told me why you think so. I explained why I think that it's not a reliable source as far as Agee is concerned. Simply stating 'The Sword and the Shield meets WP:V' is not much of an argument. Chrisahn 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the words "Employees who worked closely with Agee said" because there's actually nothing in John Barron's book to support that statement. Here's what Barron says about Agee, in its entirety:

The CIA in 1968 forced Philip Agee to resign for a variety of reasons, including his irresponsible drinking, continuous and vulgar propositioning of embassy wives, and inability to manage his finances. Gradually he became embittered and began to consort with the Cuban intelligence service, the DGI, and later the KGB. He eventually proclaimed himself a Communist and emerged as a fierce ideological enemy of the United States and open ally of the KGB. But it appears that his conversion did not occur or even begin until some time after he left the CIA.

Page 228 in the second impression of the 1985 edition by Coronet, UK. ISBN 0-340-35212-4.

The only other reference to Agee in the index is to page 246:

Philip Agee has credited NACLA activists with assisting him in efforts to undermine the CIA.

That's it.

It seems that the "...who worked closely with..." part was added 8 September 2005 by TDC [1]. Unless you can provide new sources, please don't add such a phrase. Barron himself does not give his sources for his claims, unless I missed them, though I thoroughly looked through the footnotes for chapter 5 (p 195-248).

BTW, Barron's claims are actually wrong on one count and debatable on another.

It's wrong that Agee "proclaimed himself a Communist", although the line may be hard to draw. He talks about socialism and revolution a lot, but even after his resignation there are sentences like this:

...led on the student side by a national strike committee strongly influenced by former leaders of the National Liberation Movement (MLN) and the National Center of Democratic Students (CNED) - both influenced in turn by the Communist Party of Mexico. Even so, the movement is a spontaneous popular demonstration...

CIA Diary, Page 553. While this is not a strong statement against the Communist Party of Mexico, it's not very sympathetic either.

The debatable part is that Agee was an "open ally of the KGB". I'd really like to see his sources for such a strong claim. Chrisahn 00:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "alcoholism, financial mismanagement and adultery with the wives of diplomats", which was, again, more than the source (Barron) supports: "alcoholism" is not the same as "irresponsible drinking", "adultery" is not the same as "continuous and vulgar propositioning". I replaced it with the exact quote. Chrisahn 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just added the proof that Agee did not remove "all references to CIA penetration of Latin American Communist parties". I deliberately made the sentence blatantly POV since I really find it too silly to include that ridiculous claim in the article. We should remove it. But if you really want to keep it, then please try to find nicer words for it than "this claim is patently wrong", but keep my contradicting quotes. And BTW, I can deliver dozens of other quotes in that vein. Chrisahn 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We should find a more neutral replacement for "support the charges". This is an encyclopedic article, not a pleading to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty. Chrisahn 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the KGB bit is that important, the actions of Agee speak for themselves. Intangible2.0 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] omits certain important things about Philip Agee

This short brief omits certain important things about Philip Agee

He was forced to resign due to alcoholism, poor financial management and attempts at adulterious affairs with wives of American diplomats.

He tried to offer his knowledge of the CIA in 1970s to the KGB, went to Cuba and leaked information that blown the cover of individuals including Richard Welch - who was later murdered in Greece while serving as station chief.

I'll respectfully ask the author to include more details or either someone else should. -17 November 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindingCranium (talk • contribs)

You can do it, Cranium! If you have some facts about this man, edit the page yourself! 13 April 2005 Paul Tracy
Blinding Cranium: "He was forced to resign due to alcoholism, poor financial management and attempts at adulterious affairs with wives of American diplomats.... and he pissed in the sink of the embassy": C'mon Cranium, this was a smear used against Agee, can't you smell one from a mile away? 4 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.128.12 (talk • contribs)
Well, that is your interpretation of the matter. TDC 22:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
"He tried to offer his knowledge of the CIA in 1970s to the KGB": interesting thing about Agee is that in his 30 plus years of being a CIA dissident he always kept his distance from the Eastern Bloc and the USSR. He always chose to live and work in Latin America". 4 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.128.12 (talk • contribs)
Vasili Mitrokhin provided the documentation from the KGB archives that confirms this. TDC 22:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
"went to Cuba" --so what? I've been twice (at least ....) 4 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.128.12 (talk • contribs)
You are right, it should read that he works for the Cuban governments intelligence agencies. TDC 22:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
TDC: Mitrokhin material implied that Agee had received assistance from East bloc intelligence services -- but not everyone puts as much stock in the authenticity of all that material as you (or my friend Christopher) do -- and in any event at no point suggested that Agee "worked" for either the KGB or the DGI.
In any event, do you not think that the insertion of the phrase "with the help of both the KGB and Cuban DGI" prior to the phrase "Agee said" is a little dishonest, since many readers of the sentence would assume that Agee said this. If you want to modify the paragraph in which I have corralled anti-Agee allegations to say that 'Mitrokhin archive material suggested that Agee had the assistance of the KGB and DGI', I would accept that.
It might help readers too if you (or I) explained that the word "destabilize" as Agee used it in the 1970s was a very specific allusion to what contemporaries believed the US government had been up to in Jamaica (the phrase is used circa 1976 by Michael Manley), and three years before in Chile.
Context is everything, and you need to explain why people do what they do, and not simply give a loaded description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.237.163 (talk • contribs)
Well, context is open to interpretation, facts are not. I dont know if you have read Mitrokhin, but he does not simply imply that Agee received help from Soviet bloc intelligence services. He directly states that Agee was a "defector" and that Agee was completely aware of the role that the KGB and the DGI played in the propagation and dissemination of his work. Agee actively worked with KGB agents in London, knowing full well who they were, what their motives were and who they worked for. Oleg Kauglin, also testifies to this as well. If there are people who can credibly challenge any of this, I would sure like to hear what they have to say.
As far as individuals who doubt the authenticity of Mitrokhin, well what can I say, some people never lose hope. But those who question Mitrokhin usually have very little outside of wild ass conspiracy theories and bluster to back up their arguments. TDC 00:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mitrokhin

Well, on Mitrokhin, may I direct you to David Turner, "Stalin's granny, Christopher Andrew and the Cold War" in LOBSTER, Winter 1999, issue 38:

"The much-feted KGB defector, Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin, far from being the high-minded 'dissident' he seeks to pass himself off as, seems to be yet another plodding Stalinist functionary reinventing himself as an opportunist on the make following the collapse of the system to which he devoted his working life. If his motive was to expose the crimes of Stalinism, why would he wait seven years after his retirement, until the Soviet Union was dead and buried, before defecting away from an 'Evil Empire' that had ceased to exist?"

The Mitrokhin material has never been made fully available to scholars in the National Archives in the United Kingdom: there is no independent critical examination, it has only been entrusted to tame historians who are trusted and who haved signed the Official Secrets Act. It was organized (and some suggest massaged to new proportions) by the British intelligence services-- who sought a media coup. For comment on this, and on the role of the indeed brilliant historian Christopher Andrew as the 'court historian' of the intelligence services, you might also turn to David Walter's article in the Guardian of February 18, 2003.

There are many fishy things about the so-called "Mitrokhin material". In particular we might note the volume of the material in Christopher Andrew's book which deals with material after 1984, when Mitrokhin had left the Soviet intelligence services and had no more access to the raw material. Whole pages of that book are not at all based on new source material, but simply reprint material from Andrew's earlier service to MI6's propaganda wars -- his "The KGB from Lenin to Gorbachev" ["co-authored" with Oleg Gordievsky]. Genuine Mitrokhin material is being used as the cover to sell a lot of old MI6 infowars sexed-up myths, rather as a fishmonger might sell some rotten stuff in packets by placing some fresh fish in view.

It is also most implausible that this volume of material could actually have been copied. As a Russian commented: "simple calculation makes clear that working through the roughly 400,000 documents which were taken from the country, was physically impossible .........If we assume that he really took notes from archive documents over a period of twelve years, from 1972 to 1984, which came to roughly 2400 working days, then we are talking about 150 documents a day! Is it possible to work through that much text?"

The "Mitrokhin archive" is yet another piece of post-Cold War propaganda, a bit of the genuine mixed with a bit of invented. 7 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.235.78 (talk • contribs)

A few points here: I doubt you have even read the material in question, as the Mitrokhin material does not comment on issues after 1984, although Andrew does. As far as only select people being allowed access to Mitrokhin’s material, it only makes sense considering just how much of it is still relevant to current intelligence work and how many prominent British citizens are implicated in its content (Michael Foot is still smarting over its revelations). Also, very few “documents” were taken by Mitrokhin, it was mainly thousands of notes on tens of thousands of documents.
And seriously, who the hell is David Turner anyways? What qualifications, despite writing for some obscure left wing “watchdog” journal (several of whose contributors have themselves been connected with the KGB) does he have except an axe to grind? The current resurgent wave of Cold War revisionism is nothing surprising; far too many academics have gone down an intellectual spiral since discovering that much of “propaganda” the west disseminated during the cold war turned out to be true. The Comitern was a tool of Moscow, the CPUSA was funded and controlled from Moscow, thousands of western citizens in sensitive areas were KGB assets. Had I spent the better part of my academic life defending the Soviet cause (i.e. Eric Hobsbawm), I too might be reluctant to give in to recent developments, but that is neither here nor there. I mean, for Christ’s sake, there are still “serious academics of the left” who think that the Hitler-Stalin pact is a fabrications based on forged documents. “Serious Historians” are still clinging to the myth that the Rosenberg’s were guilty of nothing.
But since you only know what you are told about the material in question, instead of looking into it yourself, I consider this debate over, TDC 15:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well perhaps we might debate the changes I made in the article which you keep removing by reverting-- have you considered working in the Wikipedia spirit by editing my article to add to it, injecting your concerns, while preserving the detailed information that I (and others) have added?
Fact 1: how did Agee himself explain his own turn from loyal agent to critic of the CIA? --- you believe, and for the sake of argument lets imagine it were true -- that Agee was a sloppy drunk who was recruited by the KGB --- say that if you want, but it is important to note
(a) his own explanation for his motivations -- his background in Notre Dame midwest middle class Catholicism, and his view of what the CIA was up to in Latin America
(b) There is no point talking about Agee without mentioning the Church Commission and what it revealed to the public about what the CIA had been up to
(c) It is important to link Agee to John Stockwell and the other CIA dissenters --- maybe, as you think, they were all KGB agents -- but you need to note their existence. The Dirty Work collections were collaborative products of many CIA alumni, as they make clear.
(d) whether or not it was true, and since Agee has not subsequently been described as having a drink problem the evidence points against, the provenance of the allegation in the 1970s that Agee's resignation was due to "alcoholism, financial mismanagement and adultery with the wives of diplomats" and screwing the embassy cat, must be noted. It comes out of the same operation led by Ted Shackley to discredit INSIDE THE COMPANY.
(e) Agee's odyssey from Europe to Grenada to Nicaragua finally to Cuba deserves description-- you could even use it to support your view that he was a Commie agent -- but one interesting thing is that long before the collapse of the USSR, Agee always kept some serious physical distance between himself and Eastern Europe-- he never at any point agreed to live there, preferring Latin America, to which he had given his heart.
so put in your Mitrokhin information if you like; edit what you think is incorrect; but do not try to conceal the fact that Agee was only part of a remarkable development in the 1970s, unparalled in any other modern western democracy, in which the workings of the national intelligence services were brought to light. I would have thought, if you think about it carefully, that you could use Agee --- and Stockwell and the Church Commission -- as evidence for a certain kind of vivid energy in the American civic spirit, an example of what is healthy in American democracy. 7 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.237.163 (talk • contribs)


Italic textTDC: Thanks for your compromise version. I will do a few edits now of my own which will preserve your content, but present it in a more neutral way.
Look over my version when you have a chance. 9 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.235.78 (talk • contribs)
why should any patriotic American view avowed supporters of communism good for our society? and you say "Commie agent" like this is just some wild McCarthyist fingerpointing. i think TDC documented it pretty well. Dr. Trey 07:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Studer

The article makes a strong but completely undocumented claim about a conversation between Agee and Peter Studer. In checking, I find only identical undocumented claims in several websites, some referring back to Wikipedia as their source. Who is Peter Studer, and when and to whom did he report this conversation with Agee? For the sake of the credibility of this article, we need something better than just an undocumented claim. If no documentation can be found and properly referenced, then the claim should be deleted. Aetheling 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph moved to talk

I moved this to talk:

Philip Burnett Franklin Agee also wrote "On The Run", published in 1987, which documents how he was marked by the CIA as its enemy, was hunted, arrested, threatened, expelled from cuntry after country ( often illegally) and sometimes prosecuted. Rather telling the CIA's story, he tells his own. Not only did he study at the University of Notre Dame, he also studied at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. As a result of his writings and political activities, Agee has been expelled under U.S. pressure from five NATO countries. His U.S. passport was revoked in 1979 and since then he has travelled with passports from Grenada and Nicaragua. He is married, has two sons, and as of 1987 resided in WSest Germany. "On The Run" is his fifth book.

Thanks for the contribution Anon. There are a couple of reaons I moved this to talk:

  • Everything on wikipedia should be verified.
  • Much of what was said here was already in the article. Reference to "On the Run" is already in the article, the 1979 passport being revoked is in the article, and I can only find 5 books that he wrote, see the bibiography section. I think this contribution is great and can easily be intigrated into the article, but can you verify the information about this, with page numbers?:
  • he also studied at the National Autonomous University of Mexico
  • and since then he has travelled with passports from Grenada and Nicaragua.
  • He is married, has two sons, and as of 1987 resided in West Germany. (I believe he know resides in Cuba.)

Welcome to wikipedia anon, I look forward to working with you some more soon. Travb (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Struder part II

I Removed the reference to Studer because the source you site is the David Horowitz who can not in any reasonable sense be called a credible source. Horowitz is an extreme right winger who sees commies everywhere. If you a more credible source can be found for this claim fine, but if the main source is Horowitz than this claim is extremely POV based. I've often noticed that the more right wing elements of Wikipedia will continually delete a source because they see it as coming from what they see as left-wing source. I personally disagree with the people who do this, but if were gonna play that game than you've got to fair both ways. Only an extremely deluded soul would consider Horowitz an unbiased source. As I said if a more neutral source can be found for this claim I might reconsider, but for now I'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.39.45 (talk • contribs)

Hi 68.18.39.45, thanks for taking the time to write on the talk page, most anons simply delete or change portions of the article, which is often reverted, by myself included. First of all Horowitz is a creatine (that is not good BTW), but I added the source or at least added the cite template to boost the credibility of the source.
Anons are like butterflies in South Texas. Here one day, and forever gone the next. I won't spend vast amounts of time explaining why IMHO the asshole Horozitz should stay in the article, until you reply to this post. When you do, we can discuss this in length. Best wishes, welcome to wikipedia, yada-yada-yada, hope to see your response soon. Travb (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I was merely making the case that Horowitz is not a balanced source and that I have repeatly seen wikipedia users delete references to sources they consider biased because they come from a left-wing source. On the Hugo Chavez page someone talked about deleting a reference simply because it came from Saul Landau. I think Saul Landau is an extremely credible source personally, but I understand how some people could see him as unbalanced. Fine, but you can't have it both ways. I Notice that when ever somene deletes a source like Landau theres no complaining about users going on mad deleting rampages, but when I delete a reactionary loon like Horowitz suddenly I'm the irresponsible troll that won't listen to sound arguments. It seems lately that's it's damn near impossible to delete anything on wikipedia. All you can do is add things to the article till it becomes so big that you have to divide it into multiple sections. The only argument I was making that If I have give up my partisans, you shuld also have to give up yours. I'll give up Landau if you give up Horowitz. However, I get the funny feeling that in this case that no matter what say your going to keep the quote and not even attempt to find a more credible source. It seems that at wikipedia once you write someting, no matter how biased or innacurate the source is, it's somehow a mortal sin to delete it. All am asking for is a more balances source, is that too much to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.39.45 (talk • contribs)
First of all, welcome to wikipedia, fellow liberal, AKA User:South Texas Butterfly (albiet if you are American, you unfortunatly probably don't even admit you are a liberal--a conversation for another day perhaps--you can take the user name: User:South TX Butterfly if you want, as the commercial says: membership has its priveleges).
Second of all, you can sign all your posts using ~~~~. You can either type those four ~~~~, or you can click the little purple button:
Insert: – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your name: ~~~~
Below the save page button. Kewl huh, I absolutly love wikipedia.
But you didn't come here to talk about:
  • the history of US suppresion of the left, or
  • using the user name User:SouthTexasButterfly or
  • about the many wonderful features of wikipedia...
...you came here to discuss the slug Horowitz. Sorry to ramble, it is 6 AM and I should be fucking sleeping. Damn cat woke me up.
More in a second User:STXButterfly, I want to save what I wrote thus far, in case there is a edit conflict....you will probably learn about these really soon the hard way, if you stick around.
Okay, here we go:
User:STXbutterfly wrote: I was merely making the case that Horowitz is not a balanced source
Agreed. That is non congrata or non cuspis or however you say "that isn't the point" in latin....See below for the explation why....
User:STXbutterfly wrote: On the Hugo Chavez page someone talked about deleting a reference simply because it came from Saul Landau. I think Saul Landau is an extremely credible source personally, but I understand how some people could see him as unbalanced. Fine, but you can't have it both ways. I Notice that when ever somene deletes a source like Landau theres no complaining about users going on mad deleting rampages...
Let me play the arrogant role of the know-it-all-veteran-of-wikipedia, even though I have only been editing here for a year. The vast majority of wikipedians who actively edit political articles are "POV warriors" they use POV to mask their own narrow ideologies. This masking of political bias and narrow ideology by using wikipedian policy disgusts me even more than Horowitz does. Trust me, I have gone up against the most intellegent, cunning, and deceitful conservatives on wikipedia. The sad thing is the liberal ideologues are just as fucking bad.
So when you write: I have repeatly seen wikipedia users delete references to sources they consider biased because they come from a left-wing source. my response is: this is wrong, and should be actively stopped. In the future tell me who does this, and I will destroy their weak and fallacious arguments. I have absolutly no patience for this POV-pushing using wikipolicy as a smoke screen.
Horowitz deserves a voice on wikipedia too. And as I have argued often, I just did last night on the Lenin page, that different sources, even sources you abhor, strengthens the article and your own POV. Most wikipedians, especially the piety, arrogant, insecure policital wiki-ideologues are too dense to see this.
User:STXbutterfly wrote: but when I delete a reactionary loon like Horowitz suddenly I'm the irresponsible troll that won't listen to sound arguments.
A your words, not mine. Please don't assume what I think about you. The "ass" in assume saying is all to true. Trust me, I have learned the hard way on wikipedia and on other web blogs, never, ever assume anything, especially when you are in a heated argument with an extremely intellegent conservative ideologue.
Please don't get me wrong, you are not an ass, you are not a troll, and I don't think you "won't listen to sound arguments", because when you wrote this I had presented no "sound arguments".
User:STXbutterfly wrote: It seems lately that's it's damn near impossible to delete anything on wikipedia. All you can do is add things to the article till it becomes so big that you have to divide it into multiple sections...It seems that at wikipedia once you write someting, no matter how biased or innacurate the source is, it's somehow a mortal sin to delete it. All am asking for is a more balances source, is that too much to ask.
True, to an extent, but often generalizations, such as "damn near impossible to delete anything on wikipedia" have exceptions. In fact, you stated yourself conservatives delete libs all the time. I am actually quit good at deleting stuff, I do it all the time. The most radical delete was the entire article U.S.-Colombia military relations.[2] Granted, there was no guardians watching the page, as you probably have run into. As the The New Yorker article says: Know it all:Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? [3]
"Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone"
There are also wikipedians who also jealously guard articles. I have about 300 that I guard myself, some less jealously than others.
I have found that to win any political battle on wikipedia, you must outsource the person. I cannot empahsize this enough: to win any political battle on wikipedia, you must outsource the person. In addition, you must be tolerant of different views, and instead of being a wiki-POV-warrior, become a wiki-POV-diplomat. Diplomats use there tongues as swords, and on wikipedia, diplomats will beat warriors any day.
Also register an account, anons are given little if no respect here on wikipedia. As I mentioned a little it above, I revert anons all the time, with no explanation, because I know 99% of the time they will never come back.
User:STXbutterfly wrote: The only argument I was making that If I have give up my partisans, you shuld also have to give up yours. I'll give up Landau if you give up Horowitz. However, I get the funny feeling that in this case that no matter what say your going to keep the quote and not even attempt to find a more credible source.
User:STXbutterfly you seem to assume that despite my words above, I am a Horowitz fan. My partisans are probably more liberal than yours. I am a huge fan of Ward Churchill, and as I mentioned above, I have actively, ruthlessly, fought for liberal POV bias in dozens of articles. If I knew who the fuck Landau was, I would probably embrace him as much as you do. I wrote a big huge post on the talk page of Hugo Chavez. I support Hugo Chavez. See, it is really rare for someone to support another ideology on wikipedia, it is so rare, that you assume, based on your past terrible experience with conservative ideologues, that by supporting Horowitz inclusion on this page, I support Horowitz. Again, I despise Horwitz, a few weeks before finding dear wikipedia, I argued for one straight week with all of the conservative ideologues on frontpagemag.org. I felt like I needed a shower inside afterwards. It was not pleasant. I was called every word in the book, but I managed to hold my own and control the conversation.
Fuck, I need to go ASAP, my wife is going to kill me. I will right more if you desire...—Preceding unsigned comment added by travb (talk • contribs)
This is an interesting coversation to stumble upon. It was me who requested that we not use Saul Landau for a particular citation on the Hugo Chávez page. [4]. There's a reason for it, and each citation, each page in fact should be judged on its own merits. Funnily enough I also called for the removal of a Front page magazine citation on another page shortly after [5]. Again this is for a particular case. If we can avoid using more opinionated and quite frankly less credible sources when addressing an issue, then we should. But it's subjective. My reservations about Landau were based on extensive reading of his output, in relationship to the credibility of the point the article was trying to make. --Zleitzen 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how ever edit a person makes, eventually comes back to bite him in the ass huh?
User:Zleitzen, you are a liberal (see liberal comment above), so of course you feel like Front page magazine is biased. I say leave it up to the reader. wikieditors always seem to downplay the average readers intellgence. i.e. if we include x source, it is biased and these stupid wikieditors will never figure it out.
Unfortunatly, this whole "biased" argument is often a smoke screen for wikipedians pushing there own POV.
"If we can avoid using more opinionated and quite frankly less credible sources when addressing an issue, then we should. But it's subjective" Agreed. whole heartedly. Whenever humanly possible I use Chomsky as a study source only, to find better, more balanced, less biased, less contoversial sources. My POV stays in the article, and everyone is happy.
Caveat: If I am repeating myself from above, I am sorry. It is a constant theme that bothers me. If you want to make some suggestions at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room I would really appreciate it your input. Travb (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not a liberal, Trav. I'm just from a different continent and political culture where even the term liberal means something else (as are the subjects of the articles I was referring to). Don't try and pin your American political straitjacket round me! ;) --Zleitzen 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

The following was removed today:

Philip Agee's son teaches Political Science at the City University of New York.[citation needed]

Travb (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] illegal activities

which cast a critical light on the role of the CIA in assassinations, domestic espionage, and other illegal activities.

It is unclear from the article under whose laws the activities are illegal. I believe rewording "illegal activities" to "activities illegal under ... law" would be an improvement. Readin (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where is Tacoma Park ?

I've searched on the net, but I find no links with Tacoma Park and Florida--Ezzex (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)