Talk:Institute for Policy Studies

Claims of Soviet lobbying
Included both supporting and opposing views. The IPS is highly controversial and it would be improper to include only supporting material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.64.178 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert most of your edits, but this time I will explain myself.


 * You start by describing the institute as 'leftist' and 'anti-American'. To my ears, 'leftist' sound like a derogatory term. Why not 'left-wing'?  As an American institution, 'anti-American' would definitely be derogatory.  Furthermore, you don't explain anywhere why you regard the institute as anti-American.


 * The more important section is, 'Views of Opponents'. You've used this title, but nowhere are any opponents of the institute mentioned.  In fact, all the statements in this section are presented as fact, most controversially that the institute was founded as a lobbying agency for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  This is undoubtedly a controverisal statement, but you present no source at all.  Note, I don't say it's not true.  I say that without a source, there's no way for anybody else to tell if it's true.  As far as listing opponents, Brian Crozier might be a good place to start.


 * I don't personally see any point in the 'Views of supporters' section as, again, you don't specify who these supporters are.


 * With all of the above in mind, I'm going to remove 'Views of supporters', 'Views of Opponents' and the reference to anti-Americanism until sources are provided. Until the research is done though, the article appears to just personal point of view.  I'd appreciate comments from User:68.5.64.178 or anybody else on this subject.  - Crosbiesmith 12:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Senior Scholar Bill Fletcher
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has senior scholars, including Bill Fletcher. But the Bill Fletcher you've identified is a Republican former holder of public office, referenced in Wikipedia. I think that the Bill Fletcher who is with IPS used to be the director of TransAfrica, and a long time labor activist. I picked up this information from an NPR website which interviewed Bill Fletcher when he worked with the TransAfrica group a few years ago. I also have personally met this Bill Fletcher, and he would be a scholar with IPS, not the one you have connected in the IPS to the other Wikipedia link.

Please respond. thegeneralwelfare Thegeneralwelfare (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of information
To the user Anonymous, why are you blanking the contributions I have put on the site? Fellytone (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your biased edits because you basically copied all the sources from a self published blog called militant Islam monitor. Until you can provide a more reliable source for these claims, especially the claims about FBI reports saying that Richard Barnett was a communist, they are innapropriate for the article. They are also potentially libelous.


 * Also left wing is a prejorative term. Just because others define them that way doesn't make it so. I'm fine with calling them progressive, but left wing is a peacock term that bias's the article. annoynmous 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well they are left-wing and even "liberal" organisations like FAIR and CBC agree that they are left-wing too. I mean, could you imagine if FoxNews characterised the Heritage Foundation as "conservative" and then my saying that the Heritage Foundation is not conservative just because "others define them that way doesn't make it so." Also, what makes the term "progressive" any less of a peacock term than "left-wing"? Second, I couldn't give the rat's behind whether you think my edits are "biased" as they are no less biased than your adding of Naomi Klein's quotes on Milton Friedman's webpage, or the blanking of information from scholars like Bat Ye'Or on the Anti-semitism webpage. Third, I haven't "copied" any of the sources as the sources are from FBI memos, books and websites from established media networks like Washington post, FAIR. Unless you are telling me that these sources aren't reliable (like FBI memos, which, unlike Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine book, are not verifiable), they are absolutely appropriate for the article. And furthermore, if I did "copy" these sources, then why am I not sourcing the blog? Fourth, I don't know what peacock term means, but I have a hunch that you're implication that my adding of the FBI reports as "potentially libelous" as equally "peacocktic." And fifth, if you want to defend this article, then be my guest and create a new paragraph entitled Praise for Institute for Policy Studies instead of reverting to the Stalinist tactics of shutting down criticism of IPS. Fellytone (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no source given for these supposed FBI documents. The only place there mentioned are on the militant islam blog which is a self published blog and therefore not a reliable source. Your giving the false impression that you actually read the books and documents that are cited when it appears that all you did was copy all the sources mentioned in blog source.


 * Also I might add that calling another editor a fucking idiot doesn't particularly help your case. annoynmous 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not giving the false impression of anything. I'm telling you facts that you don't want to hear, namely that the Institute for Policy Studies is a "left-wing" (as admitted by other left-wing groups, think-tanks, websites, etc) organisation and that there are allegations (a point noted by an aformentioned editor on this talk page) it acted as a Soviet lobby group. I know that in Stalinist Russia or Kim Jong Il's North Korea, you can easily get away with silencing criticism by assassinating your opponents (or in this case, blanking sourced information). But this is the encyclopedia meaning that not everything you are going to read is going to be music to your ears. So deal with it.


 * And as for the FBI documents, I've got two points I'm going to make: first, given that you couldn't find the source of the FBI documents, does this mean that you found the source of all the other links? And second, if I made those FBI documents up, why are those documents so precisely detailed? In other words, if those documents were made up, why go through the trouble of putting down the title, date, ISBN number, chapter title of the investigation? Fellytone (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you made them up, I said you copied them from the militant Islam blog. A self published blog is not a reliable source and that's were all your sources come from. You gave the false impression that you actually read these sources when it appears all you did was copy them from something you read online that came from a highly dubious source.annoynmous 04:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't say it, but you certainly implied it when you said, "there are no sources for those supposed FBI documents." Anyhow, I didn't copy anything from no militant Islamic blog. These are sources from government institutions, books and established media networks. I notice you keep on claiming that these sources should not be regarded as illegitimate because they come from some "dubious source", but you keep sidestepping the question of whether these sources itself are legitimate or not. So are they or are they not?


 * And as I've said before, if you have a problem with my critisizing IPS, feel free to do the opposite and add praise for the IPS on this article. After-all, like I said, this is an encyclopedia. Fellytone (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I claimed that is because there are no sources for the FBI documents other than the Militant Islam blog. Just because you liked what Emerson Vermaat wrote doesn't mean you copy all his sources and try to pass it off as research. Claims such as these need to come from reliable sources and not from partisan self published sources which are not allowed under wikipedia guidelines unless no other source exists. annoynmous 05:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what blog you are talking about, but like I've said before, I've never visited this Militant Islamic blog before. ALso, I don't just like what Emerson Vermaat wrote in his article from Family Security Matters. I also like what the FBI wrote, FAIR wrote, the Dutch Intelligence wrote, Powell wrote, Murchavnik wrote. In essence, it isn't just Mr. Vermaat who is putting IPS under the microscope, a whole panoply of institutions are also doing the same as well. Fellytone (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly my point, your giving the false impression that you actually the read documents and books you cite when all you did is copy the sources that Vermaat listed in his article on the Militant Islam Monitor blog. In fact a case could be made that you committed palagarism sense basically all you did was reproduce vermaats article. Are you really going to continue to play dumb and say you didn't get all your sources from vermaat? annoynmous 05:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No I didn't commit plagarism and neither did I get "all my sources from vermaat" as the facts I've cited are from government memos, established media sources and books. Also, I'm a bit perplexed as to why you would find anybody's citing (particularly mine) of a blog (as you claim it to be) to be strange as a quick glance through your talk page shows you think when it comes to Juan Cole, "Wikipedia guidelines allow blogs if the person writing them is an expert in the particular field." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annoynmous#I_am_not_Juan_Cole) So, like I said before, your accusations of "plagarism" is nothing more than a smokescreen to remove any criticism of the sorry excuse of a think tank that is the Institute of Foreign Policy. Fellytone (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First off on Juan Cole, blogs are allowed if they are written by a known expert on the subject. Juan Cole is an expert in middle east studies and I added his opinion. I also identified it as "according to" Juan cole, I didn't just copy sources from his blog and try to pretend that I got the information independently.


 * When you copy all the sources from a blog and cite in the exact same way there cited in that blog and try to make it seem like you checked the sources independently, that is plagarism. If you actually read the FBI reports and books cited then that would be a different matter, but you didn't do that. You read a blog post you liked and decided to copy all sources in it. Vermaat is not a notable so therefore is opinions are not relevant. Outside of his post there is no evidence for these so called FBI reports and until a more reliable source can be found they are innapropriate for the article.annoynmous 05:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But who are you to say who is an expert or not? Who are you to judge his credibility? So now you are a professor on terrorism? Where are your credentials? IPS is not a notable think-tank either, so does that mean Wikipedia should delete this article because it's not relevant? Actually, a simple Google search on Emerson Vermaat's name reveals that this man has a law degree in counter-terrorism and his works and article have been cited on authoritative counter-Islamic extremist cites like Daniel Pipes and MilitantIslam.org.


 * You keep accusing me of "copying" from his blog. Again, I've told you a million times before, I haven't copied sources from anybody's blog. So yes, I did get the information independently. You also imply that because the sources appeared on somebody's blog that I: a) did not read the FBI reports and books and b) they therefore don't exist outside of the blog ("so called FBI reports). Well there's two problems with that. First, you make the assumption that I haven't read those reports because they've been cited in a blog. Actually, yes I did read those reports and the books and they do in fact point to IPS as a communist-front organisation during the Cold War. Second, just because a source appears on a blog you don't like doesn't mean they don't exist outside of the blog. First off, how do you even know this? Have you read the memorandums? I have. Have you? And, on a more fundamental level, you imply that the memorandums don't even exist because they're cited just on one blog. But, as aformentioned, "if those FBI documents up, why are those documents so precisely detailed? In other words, if those documents were made up, why go through the trouble of putting down the title, date, ISBN number, chapter title of the investigation?"


 * On a final note, I see that in your above comment you say "if you actually read the FBI reports and books cited" which means that apparently you don't have any objections with the websites I've cited. And how could you when those websites are from established media news networks like the Washington Post, FAIR, FrontPageMagazine? If you look closely, there's only a few sentences under the sub-section "Allegations of IPS as a communist-front" in which I rely on the reports and books, which means that even if I accepted your suggestion that I haven't read the reports and books cited, your reverts would only warrant deletion of those particular sentences in which I've made references to the reports and books rather than entire blanking of other changes I have made, such as my intial citation of IPS as a left-wing think-tank, the "Criticisms for IPS studies" section and other sentences in the "Allegations of IPS" sub-section in which I don't rely on the books and reports. But no apparently you think not. Strange. Fellytone (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my! The the ISBN number that is exactly the same as the one posted in on vermaats blog! Your evidence that you didn't just copy all the sources from his blog overwhelms me! Can you tell I'm being sarcastic.


 * You can't link to any of these sources, the only place you can find any reference for these sources is at vermaats blog. I'm sorry If I don't ake your wrod for it that you have viewed these sources independently. Wikipedia is based on what can be verified, not what someone says they verified.


 * Just because Daniel pipes endorses somebody doesn't make him credible. Pipes has also endorsed Robert Spencer who is no doctorate and is not considered an expert on Islam by people who study it. Even if I accepted that he was an expert on terrorism, that is irrelvant to an article about a political think tank.annoynmous 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What say you about the memorandums? The websites? What about them? Something? Anything? Yes the ISBN is the same, that's because there isn't too many versions of the book because, quite frankly, Institute for Policy Studies isn't that notable in the States. Now, again, what proof do you have that I haven't read the books? Do you have any evidence that I haven't? Or better yet, do you have any evidence that the books and memorandums don't even exist? No? No. Of course you don't.


 * Of course you can link to the sourced, unless the links are dead links (you haven't put the tag to the links) they can be linked. Moreover, the fact that you link onto Vermaat's blog and Wikipedia but can't log onto the other links is strange indeed.


 * Yes you are right, Wikipedia is indeed "based on what can be verified." But, like I said asked you before, who are you to judge who is verifiable or not? Who are you to judge who is an expert on Islam or not? Do you have a PhD in Islamic studies? Where are your credentials? In fact, if you flip the coin, I can just as well say Juan Cole isn't a verifiable source just because you (or somebody else) says he is. Fellytone (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well when you can't link to anything except vermaat's blog than it's safe to say that the information is questionable. Further he is a highly partisan source righting on a blog and that isn't allowed unless the person has some expertise that adds to the article. What expertise does Emerson Vermaat have in regards to the ISP. The only expertise he has is claiming to have read certain sources that put the ISP in a bad light.


 * As for the issue of plagarism, well your right I don't have any special superpowers to physically see you right now as to whether the documents are in your hands and this moment. I do however have the power of deduction and common sense, and that power tells me you basically copied all the sources from vermaats blog. The fact that the section on soviet connections is structured just like vermaats article and that the sources are listed in just the same way I think would be obvious to anyone who compares your edits to his blog post.annoynmous 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you're first sentence. What do you mean "you can't link to anything except vermaat's blog" I'm not even talking about vermaat's blog I'm talking about information from other online websites that aren't even on vermaat's blog, like FAIR's description of IPS as a left-wing think-tank.


 * So Vermaat's blog is "partisan." Right. And I'm sure Juan Cole's blog isn't either. And of course, he's no expert beecause you clearly have a law degree in counter-terrorism, have your works and articles cited in other leading and websites and, on top of that, a recognised and authoritative figure in...what?


 * As for the issue of plagarism, thank you I am right because you can't corroborate any of your claims other than your gut feeling and pure intuition. The facts are the book exists, the memorandums exists, the websites exists, I've read them and you haven't. I also find it interesting how you complain about my supposed "plagarism in the soviet connections sub-section" but make no objections to the criticisms section in which i cite scholars in Henry Klehr and Joshua Murchavik. I'm surprised you haven't accused me of plagarising their work either. Fellytone (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well as you might have noticed Klehr and Murchaviks criticisms are still in the article. So I don't know why your accusing me of trying to remove something from the article when I haven't removed it.


 * Once again in regards to Juan Cole you will notice that I always state it as his opinion, not fact. As I've said before blogs are allowed when the person is an expert on the subject. Juan Cole is an expert on middle east history and politics and that's where I added his commentary. Vermaat' supposed expertise is in terrorism, how is that relevant to commentary on a political think tank. Plus, other than an interview he did with Christiane amanpour in her series on terrorism, I have found no evidence that he is considered a reliable commentator on terrorism.


 * When I said you can't link to anything except vermaats blog I meant that in all the sources listed in the soviet connection section, that you specifically created for this article, there is not one linkable source in the entire section except vermaats blog and that is simply the truth.


 * Here are sources cited in vermaats blog:

Emerson Vermaat, MA (law), is an investigative reporter specialized in terrorism, crime and the former East German and Soviet intelligence services.

He frequently visited the Middle East and North Africa, usually for Dutch television. He made a TV news report in 1996 on "The Making of a Suicide Bomber," aired in over 40 countries (World Television News, WTN). In a 1997 Dutch study on Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism he described the central role of Osama bin Laden in international terrorism, being the first European journalist to do so. In 1987 he published a lengthy article on "The East German Secret Service: Structure and Operational Focus" (Conflict Quaterly, University of New Brunswick, Canada). He also interviewed a number of former KGB and CIA officers.

Website: www.emersonvermaat.com

1. United States Government, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Memorandum to Director, FBI, Bufile 105-185148, from Sac. WFO (100-45302) (P), May 4, 1970, p. 1 ("communist"), p. 2 (Confidential). Author's file on IPS/TNI.

2. Ibid., p. 2, 3.

3. Ibid. p. 3.

4. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, WFO 100-45302, Title Richard Jackson Barnet, May 13, 1971, p. 1 ("Character: Security Matter – Communist"), p. 3, 4 (Daily World). Author's file on IPS/TNI.

5. Ibid., p. 4.

6. S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre. Inside the Institute for Policy Studies (Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publishers, Inc., 1987), p. 329.

7. Ibid., p. 333.

8. Ibid., p. 332.

9. Ibid.. p. 333, 334.

10. Arcady N. Shevchenko, Breaking with Moscow (London: Jonathan Cape, 1985), p. 240.

11. Ibid., p. 243.

12. S. Steven Powell, op. cit., p. 329, 331.

13. 1936 General Election New York City. For the Confidential Use of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Official Report. The names and addresses of the voters for the Communist Party Ticket (author's file on IPS).

14. Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (BVD), Institute of Policy Studies (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 2. Author's file on IPS/TNI.

15. Institute of Policy Studies, Funding sources, p. 2 (author's file on IPS/TNI; this is not an official IPS document but the information is reliable). In 1976 the Rubin Foundation donated $ 475,000 to IPS and $ 400,000 to TNI, with an additional $ 75,000 for "General Support."

16. Institute for Policy Studies, Tax Schedule V, 52-0788947, June 30, 1979, p. 2; flyer Institute for Policy Studies 1982-1983. Auhor's file on IPS/TNI.

17. Author's source, New York (1986).

18. Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 7, 8.

19. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, op. cit., p. 269, 300-301.

20. Ibid., p. 301.

21. Ibid., p. 304.

22. Ibid. p. 303.

23. Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (BVD), Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 2; Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Transnational Instituut (TNI) (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 1.

24. Emerson Vermaat, More troubling than inflation? Wall Street Journal Europe October 17, 2002, p. A 10; Emerson Vermaat, Gretta Duisenberg – gefährlicher als die Inflation? Der Tagespiegel (Germany), October 21, 2002.

25. W. Thomas Smith Jr., Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency (New York: Checkmark Books/Facts On File, 2003), p. 229.

Here are the sources you cited :

^ United States Government, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Memorandum to Director, FBI, Bufile 105-185148, from Sac. WFO (100-45302) (P), May 4, 1970, p. 1 ("communist"), p. 2 (Confidential). Author's file on IPS/TNI.

^ United States Government, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Memorandum to Director, FBI, Bufile 105-185148, from Sac. WFO (100-45302) (P), May 4, 1970, p. 1 ("communist"), p. 2 (Confidential). Author's file on IPS/TNI.

^ United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, WFO 100-45302, Title Richard Jackson Barnet, May 13, 1971, p. 1 ("Character: Security Matter – Communist"), p. 3, 4 (Daily World). Author's file on IPS/TNI.

^ Powell, S. (1987). Covert Cadre. Inside the Institute for Policy Studies. Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publishers, Inc.. p. 329.

^ Powell, S. (1987). Covert Cadre. Inside the Institute for Policy Studies. Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publishers, Inc.. p. 329-334.

^ Powell, S. (1987). Covert Cadre. Inside the Institute for Policy Studies. Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publishers, Inc.. p. 333. ^ Academic biography at the University of Colorado at Boulder

^ [Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (BVD), Institute of Policy Studies (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 2.]

^ Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) (confidential Dutch intelligence report, 1982), p. 7, 8. ^ Andrew p. 230, referencing Kalugin, Oleg (1995). Spymaster: The Highest-ranking KGB Officer Ever to Break His Silence. Blake Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-85685-101-X. p. 191-192 Andrew states: "The KGB files noted by Mitrokhin describe Agee as an agent of the Cuban DGI and give details of his collaboration with the KGB, but do not formally list him as a KGB or DGI agent. vol. 6, ch. 14, parts 1,2,3; vol. 6, app. 1, part 22."

^ Andrew, p. 231


 * Are you really going to continue to claim you didn't just copy the sources from his blog. annoynmous 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on above disagreement
A peacock term is one that tends to aggrandise its subject. As such it is the opposite of pejorative. "Left wing" is perfectly fine, provided that it can be sourced, which should not be hard if it is generally accepted. "Extreme left wing" would require more justification, and "Fascist" more still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

In the question of WP:RS the CBC page that says " So the fact that the Institute for Policy Studies, with which Sam Pizzigati is associated, might reasonably be said to be on the “left wing” in U.S. terms ..." would seem a reasonably reliable supporting quote for the "left wing" claim, but the FrontPage statement about "the ultra-leftist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)" needs a little care handling it, especially if it was standing alone - the unusual nature if the URL is a red flag for a start.

I would suggest going through the references individually, rather than blanket reverting, and challenging only those that have problems with verifiability or reliability. Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

Protection
I don't know what's going on here, but edit summaries like this aren't acceptable, guys. I've protected for a week. If you need it unlocked sooner, please ask me or on RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was complaint that this was really a 3RR violation, and I can see now that it was. I've therefore reverted to the version before the violation occurred, and I'll leave a warning for the editor. I'm reluctant to block him so long after the fact, especially as his account seems fairly new. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article again. Please discuss your points of view on this talk page and look for consensus. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion on sources
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

I agree entirely with Rich Farmbrough's observation. If agreement cannot be reached here, I recommend that the question be taken to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and presented there clearly and noncombatively. Please note that simply waiting until page protection expires to resume edit warring is not acceptable and may result in userblocks for disruption. – Athaenara ✉  01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If both parties are willing to abide by the third opinion, I'll unprotect the article (the option of pursuing other means of dispute resolution of course remains open). --RegentsPark (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue Rich Farmbrough brought up deals mainly with whether or not to call the the IPS left wing. While I disagree with using that term, that actually isn't my main objection to fellytones edits. My main objection deals with the criticism section fellytone added dealing with whether or not the IPS had ties to the Soviet Union. I have serious objections to almost everything in this section and cannot imagine at this point consensting it's inclusion in the article.


 * For know I would rather the article stay protected because there is so much bad blood betweem me and fellytone that I frankly don't trust him to honor any agreement not to revert the article if the protection template was removed. annoynmous 01:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Utterly pathetic article
In current American political discourse, "left" is pretty much a smear word - the discussion uses the term 'peacock' - no matter how it's used in the article. To someone looking at American politics from the outside, left would imply serious, across-the-board socialism or communism; i.e. the dismantling of private property, and extra-legal means of enforcement such as prison camps and secret police.

Likewise the term "right". If someone is suggesting a coherent set of laws, enforced equally on all Americans, including the wealthy, they are probably conservative and not right-wing. The reason right-wing is used to describe much American politics is there are a significant number of people in American politics advocating for abandoning the rule of law and the Constitution for extra-legal measures, such as 'terrorism' being defined as including peaceful protest, or the murder of government officials whom one disagrees with.

If the progressives in American politics, say the liberal side of the Democratic party, were advocating for the murder of conservative judges, legislators, etc. and these murders, or attempts, were actually happening, that would be a reasonable situation in which to invoke 'left-wing'. A reasonable example would be the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weather Underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.178.36 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

False Claims: Letelier
As the facts are in question, I am deleting from the 1970s section:

"In the subsequent murder investigation documents found in his briefcase and apartment provided an inside look how the Soviet KGB and Cuban Intelligence Directorate used the IPS.[10] Letelier himself had received a lump sum and regular payments of $1000 a month from Cuba through a Cuban intelligence agent.[11]"

Countering this assertion, John Dinges & Saul Landau, in Assassination on Embassy Row (Pantheon Books: NY, 1980) note that: "Judge Parker ruled that the defense could not question Mrs. Letelier about the briefcase papers or place them in evidence." No public record asserting that Letelier received payments exists. Dinges and Landau go on to footnote:

"In a December 12, 1978 pretrial hearing, Propper [Eugene Propper, the lead plantiff for the case] said the FBI had "gone over [the briefcase papers] carefully and found no evidence Letelier was working for any government, either Cuba, Chilean, or other"

Eleaver (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over the lead for this page
User Sbabones and I are currently engaged in a dispute regarding the neutrality of the lead; the disagreement begins when user Sbabones reverts the article so as to include multiple transgressions of Wikipedian guidelines for it's Manual of Style; in particular, Sbabones engages in editorializing (e.g. when the user writes that IPS is "reviled" by conservative critics) and uses weasel words (e.g. when the user writes with no citations that IPS takes a "strong stands on issues such as peace, human rights, drug policy, and social inequality.") I subsequently reverted the article  on the grounds that the edits constituted vandalism, only to have it reverted again  by user Sbabones on the grounds that my claim of vandalism was "politicized labelling." I have since reverted the article to the original form prior to Sbabones edits but have also started a section on the talk page for IPS and a request for comment as per Sbabones edit comment to "invite active editors to step in here."Festermunk (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there Festermunk, I'm here after seeing your request for a third opinion. I see that you have not discussed this issue outside of edit summaries, which should be the first step in dispute resolution - a third opinion should only be requested once talk page discussion has failed. I encourage you to start a discussion with on this page as a first step. I shall watch this page to guide the discussion, but hopefully it can be resolved between the two of you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's a political agenda behind attempts to put the bit about being described as left-wing in the lead, yeah?

And the lead section is supposed to summarize what the subject of the article is about, that's why the summary of their activities should stay in the lead, I don't understand why you keep removing it? — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. And there's no political agenda behind attempts to remove the description of IPS as left-wing in the lead. Of course. And pardon the language, but the whole lead thing you are talking about is shit you're making up on the spot. If you read the "introductory text" section of the "element of the lead" section of Wikipedia manual of style guidelines, it says that the introductory text should establish significance (which the activities you keep citing of IPS's "anti-war" activities doesn't do;nowhere in the citation of their "anti-war" activities does it correlate much less establish those activities with the significance of IPS) and include mention of notable criticism or controversies (the left-wing part, which is the part you're trying to get rid of.) More specifically, you'd have to establish why IPS is noteworthy, which is pretty simple: it's noteworthy because of it's role as a think tank in Washington, not because of some role (how significant were they? And according to whom were they significant?) it might or might not have played in certain social/political movements. You can go further and write why the think-tank was established, but that is different than cherry-picking an activity they might or might not have participated in and putting it in a place in the article where it doesn't even belong.
 * Also a final food for thought here, let's say you are right and that the activity you mention that IPS has done is so significant to the constitution of IPS that it does get mentioned in the lead. What's stopping a person from then mentioning other significant, but less flattering activities? Like, say, their opposition to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo?Festermunk (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated for the input. That said, there are two comments I'd like to make on the comments you made. 1) Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but nowhere in WP:MOS does it say that the overview of an article (regardless of whether it is an organization, biography of a living person, biography of a dead person) should be an overview of the article's activities. (And for that matter, it does not say that consequent material means an "organization activities.") All it says (admittedly quite nebulously) is that the lead section should establish context/significance, include any controversies and summarize the most important points. 2) Agreed with the danger of using politically charged and fungible words like "progressive"/"conservative." That said, that doesn't mean that an organization like IPS cannot have a political stance, nor does it mean that it's political positions cannot be constant. (And when one looks at the continuity of the controversial activities of the history of IPS, it's hard to see how anybody can disprove how it's political views will not change.) Also, the paragraph you cite about weasel words does not preclude the usage of weasel words provided that they do not do the two things that weasel words do: i) pad out sentences without adding any useful information; and ii) deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint (i.e. does not clearly attribute claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved.) My edits of including the term "left-wing" does neither of the two things weasel words do also: i) it provides useful information by including a summary of the article's controversies and ii) the claim is (extensively) attributed to other sources.Festermunk (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I change it back? — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No you don't have consensus for that.Festermunk (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As if there was any consensus to keep your version. I'm not the first editor to try to balance your POV-pushing. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not my version of the article to put the phrase left-wing in the lead; if you go back and look at the history of Institute for Policy Studies most (if not nearly all) of the edits leave the phrase in there. Hell, not even the user with whom I was debating earlier (Sbabones) took out the phrase "left-wing."Festermunk (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Both the lead and the criticism section give an array of refs for the statement that they've been called "left-wing", what exactly is up with that? It hardly even means anything, but I'm getting the impression that it's a very crucial fact about the organization, more important than what they actually do. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this in case you missed it the first time. Calling it left-wing is criticism and criticism can be included (especially if there is a phrase that can pithily summarize it) in the lead section, so I wouldn't advise you to delete it.Festermunk (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so they aren't an Extreme Left-wing Soviet Lobby
Can anyone find an instance where the IPS actually disagreed with the Soviets, and said so? Prague in 1968? Afghanistan? Ethiopia? Angola? East Germany? Berlin? Sometimes, silence is golden. 68.5.46.193 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Institute for Policy Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927015059/http://www.ips-dc.org/globaleconomy/executive_compensation to http://www.ips-dc.org/globaleconomy/executive_compensation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Institute for Policy Studies. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721064918/http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/213/ to http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/213/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015436/http://www.transafricaforum.org/files/FSAM%20Chronology.pdf to http://www.transafricaforum.org/files/FSAM%20Chronology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Branch off topics on Robb Burlage and Health/PAC to other articles
The 1960s history of the IPC is closely related to another succeeding organization Health/PAC which was the offshoot of an IPS Fellow's publication, the "Burlage Report" which had a significant historical impact.

They should be flagged as excessive detail for IPS's 1960s history itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvind Rao (talk • contribs) 06:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)