Talk:Congress for Cultural Freedom: Difference between revisions
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m Nemesis1981 didn't sign: "→LaRouche: " |
Nemesis1981 (talk | contribs) m →POV |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== POV == |
== POV == |
||
There's a |
There's a definite slant from the "LaRouchian" perspective. I have no views on LaRouche or his movement either way (though the "hating [[Isaac Newton|Newton]]" thing is somewhat puzzling), but I certainly take exception when certain views are presented as facts, as they clearly are in this article. I don't feel I have any credentials, or the history, to develop this article toward an NPOV standpoint, but I think it's important for someone to look into it. |
||
-- [[User:Yossarian|{{color|black|'''Yossarian'''}}]] [[Image:Soviet Canuckistan Flag.png|30px|]] 03:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
-- [[User:Yossarian|{{color|black|'''Yossarian'''}}]] [[Image:Soviet Canuckistan Flag.png|30px|]] 03:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:53, 7 April 2007
LaRouche
I've reverted to an earlier version of this article, as the anon IP address 198.81.26.77 is an AOL proxy address sometimes used by User:Herschelkrustofsky, a LaRouche activist on Wikipedia. The arbcom has ruled that this user may not insert LaRouche material into articles not closely related to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 00:29, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- That said, LaRouche and his organisation have written some interesting things concerning the CCF. Regardless of that user's affiliations, the only other detailed account I found so far, besides F.S. Saunders work was that of the LaRouche movement, through whom I became aware of the whole CCF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemesis1981 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
POV
There's a definite slant from the "LaRouchian" perspective. I have no views on LaRouche or his movement either way (though the "hating Newton" thing is somewhat puzzling), but I certainly take exception when certain views are presented as facts, as they clearly are in this article. I don't feel I have any credentials, or the history, to develop this article toward an NPOV standpoint, but I think it's important for someone to look into it.
-- Yossarian 03:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page still is highly slanted towards a LaRouchite/conspiracist POV. There is plenty of material from reputable sources, and the CIA connection is well-covered in many of these sources. The link to bilderberg.org is especially toubling since it has been criticized for promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories, as has the LaRouchite network.--Cberlet 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
--- I removed the LaRouche reference. It stuck out like a sore thumb - and really - should we even be citing some conspiracy pamphlet with such an inflammatory title as "Children of Satan III - the Sexual Congress of God Knows What."? It sounds like a bad sequel to an even worse rip-off of the Exorcist movie series. I actually made it over to this page after reading the (sadly all too brief) article on Richard Wright.----- ---- Wellesradio
CEC reference?
I suggest removing the CEC Web page from "External Links". Its focus is on other matters, and doesn't belong there. Agree? --Cultural Freedom talk 11:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No objections, so I'll remove it. --Cultural Freedom talk 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Category: CIA front organizations
I've removed this. The Congress was CIA-funded, that's different from being a "front organization". A CIA front organization is an organization that is part of the CIA, but pretends not to be. The Congress was not part of the CIA (though it hid its funding source; but that's a different matter). --Cultural Freedom talk 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article says established and funded, which would make it a CIA proprietary in the same sense as RFE/RL (identified as a CIA proprietary in the Church report). For part of its existence, anyway. Gazpacho 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the intro a bit to reflect historical reality better (though it's still too strong). Now the removal the "front" category should make more sense. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 17:22 (UTC)