Talk:Opposition research/Archive 1

Headings
IF SOMEONE WILL TELL ME WHAT THE DEAL IS ABOUT THE HEADINGS, (caps or not? include words "opposition research" or not?) I will HAPPILY fix them, tho I seem to be have a conversation with myself only on this page.....Phoebe13 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lacking information on Democrats
The content seems lacking in info on Democrats, or is it just the others who get the media coverage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.128.86 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Desperately Seeking Demo Oppo info
In time, we need to add info from LBJ's campaigns, Carter, Clinton, etc, (plus restore the Watergate info w/ citations.)  Anyone?Phoebe13 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
This paragraph:

The most sophisticated opposition research does not just release any negative information it can find, it tries to build a complete picture of the opponent in the voter's mind. A noted example of this was George W. Bush's campaign against Al Gore in 2000. The election cycle began with voters viewing Gore as a competent, if drab leader.[citation needed] The Bush team rebuilt that image convincing even many Democrats that Gore was an extremely ambitious and was willing to bend the truth or outright lie to achieve his goal of the presidency.[citation needed] By November most Americans were questioning Gore's honesty.[citation needed] The Gore campaign to portray Bush as inexperienced and unintelligent largely backfired when it lowered expectations to such a degree that if Bush properly remembered his own name during the debates he would be seen to have been doing well...

makes this article one of the most blatently biased articles at Wikipedia. --Jayzel 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs to be more objective. "Oppo" is an equal opportunity affliction, not limited to Republicans, tho they are more ruthless with it recently. This page has great potential, if the level of objectivity and documentation can be raised. Possibly we need to get beyond the idea that "true" oppo is only the good kind, and add information about the history of oppo and how far back it goes. Also: what about oppo as military terms, and as industrial espionage terms. This definition needs to be split into three sections: military opposition research, political opposition research, and industrial or commercial oppostion research. Each of those three should be split into "legal" ops and "black" ops. It simply is not helpful only to talk about what "true" oppo is, and to take an elitist stance that denies the ugly side the terrible legitimacy that it has acquired. Arguably, "oppo" is now one of the primary tools of certain parties, as the politically motivated imprisonment of Alabama's Governor Siegelman shows: Bush's "oppo dude" Karl Rove solicitied info that would be personally damaging to him. Phoebe13 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph with too many wiki flaws:Political infighting and Opposition Research
I'm going to delete the paragraph as it stands in this article. First problem is the text does not rightly belong in an article on Opposition research. By all means, the authors can find an appropriate article such as Eliot Spitzer, Bernard Spitzer, or a new article on the controversy. However, "Opposition research" such stay within the subject matter. Next, there are numerous facts asserted without references. Also, it appears the paragraph has a bias as all the journalistic errors are in the same direction. I'm posting here first on the talk page because I think some of the information is relevent somewhere within Wiki's article space, as long as it gets cleaned up to conform with wiki policy. --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

COINTELPRO?
Shouldn't COINTELPRO activities against the CPUSA be included? LamontCranston (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Parking for Questionable Content
This section needs review and vetting of sources for libel liability issues. This would need verification from other more mainstream sources before being offered as authoritative fact here, I'm guessing. If there is no corroborating source offered, this could be construed as defamation or whatever of these companies. Phoebe13 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

== Corporate/industrial opposition research == In the U.S., many private "security" firms also provide "black ops" services to clientele who may be interested in the affairs of activists to seek to hold the corporations accountable for their environmental practices or lawbreaking. For example, from the late 1990s until 2000, a group of former Secret Service agents and policemen ran Beckett Brown International, later named S21, which provided "intelligence collection" for corporate entities such as Allied Waste, The Carlyle Group, the National Rifle Association, the Gallo Wine Company, Louis Dreyfus, Wal-mart, Halliburton, and Monsanto. They also worked for public relations firms engaged in assisting businesses combat negative public images, such as Dow Chemical and Kraft Foods. One of their clients, Condea Vista, a chemical company, had leaked millions of pounds of ethylene dichloride, a suspected carcinogen, into a river in Louisiana. They targeted such activist groups as Greenpeace, and listed as possible targets the National Environmental Trust, the Center for Food Safety, Environmental Media Services, the Environmental Working Group, and others.

Temporary Parking for Unsourced Material
These have gone unsourced for too long. Phoebe13 (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The most common, populist understanding of "opposition research" is information gathered about the opposition candidate or group that is then used to create attack ads and other forms of negative campaigning or dirty tricks. And this is indeed one common use of opposition research. Much of the "opposition research" that's used for negative ads isn't legitimate research at all, but merely rumor and unverified allegations, "whisper" campaigns often used "virally" via the internet.

Opposition research earned a bad reputation in political and popular circles in recent times, and much of this reputation is deserved. Like anything, opposition research can be – and often is – misused. But in the majority of cases (the infamous "Swift Boat" incident from the 2004 campaign being one of the most famous) what's termed "opposition research" appears to be undergoing a change in connotation, from positive to negative.

Willie Horton reference inconsistencies, "killing rampage"?
Wikipedia contains inconsistencies in describing the crime(s) committed by Willie Horton while on furlough. The following three articles need to be edited with the actual crime(s) committed. If no one was in fact killed, the reference to a “killing rampage” should be removed from this page.

Article on Lee Atwater: “…the case of Willie Horton, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison who committed a rape while participating in a weekend furlough…”

Article on Willie Horton: “On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted, but was later captured by police after a chase.”

Article on Opposition Research: “Willie Horton was an African-American convicted felon released on a weekend furlough during Governor Dukakis’s tenure, and went on a killing rampage.” GreyD21 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I will check the Atwater bio soon and try to track down that "rampage meme."  Phoebe13 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No lede
It seems to me that this article has no lede. WP:LEAD It immediately plunges into a long list of items, without really defining Opposition research at all. I am going to add the Wikify template.wp:MOS --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherwebdev (talk • contribs) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)