Talk:Front organization/Archives/2012/January

Scientology, citations needed

I wish to bring this up on the talk page for debate and not just blindly question the uncited statements in the article. Scientology is a risky topic on Wikipedia, I know. I notice the obviously negative bias in one (unregistered) user's comment in this talk page, and I have responded to the question from September about Documentary Haven, having checked out what was discussed.

The article states that the Church of Scientology "uses front groups either to promote their interests in politics or to make their group seem more legitimate". This is a strong accusation and not backed up by citations. The FBI raids in 1977 were on the Church of Scientology's Guardian's Office, which was since disbanded, so the "Secret PR Front Groups" referred to in the seized memo may or may not have been carried on after the disbanding of that Office. The point here is not whether it is true or not, but that there is no citation for the claim.

I've had a look at the sources for the sentence about Cult Awareness Network/CAN, which starts off with some weasel words ("...is considered by many"). The sentence claims that many people believe CAN is a front group of the Church of Scientology, however the sources don't say that, they merely document the involvement of individual Scientologists in its takeover and speculate on the nature of some lawsuits filed against CAN by Scientologists. I move that the sentence is actually irrelevant here, as there is nothing in the sources to suggest CAN is a front organisation. From ths perspective, the Scientology section starts to look a little coatrack-ish.

I'm aware this is quite in-depth, but I don't want to be dismissive or opinionated, so I'm focusing closely on the issue. "Scientology front groups" is a term I've read/heard quite a bit. Aside from the definition of front organisation given in the article, I had a look at a few prominent online dictionaries for the word "front" (a front organisation is just an organisation that is a front, as opposed to a person) and found the following:

• a person or organization serving as a cover for subversive or illegal activities (Oxford Dictionaries online)
• a person or thing that serves as a cover or disguise for some other activity, esp. one of a secret, disreputable, or illegal nature; a blind (Dictionary.com Unabridged)
• a business or other activity serving as a respectable cover for another, usually criminal, organization (World English Dictionary)
• something or someone (as a person or group) used to mask the identity or true character or activity of the actual person or organization in control (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law)

What most discussions regarding Scientology front groups are actually saying, is that these groups fail to acknowledge a link to Scientology. That doesn't necessarily mean they are controlled by the Church of Scientology, nor indeed that the activities of the Church of Scientology apparently being hidden are "subversive" or "disreputable". I note no allegation of illegality, I think that would be hard to prove.

In accordance with WP:NPOV it might be worth avoiding the coatrack issue by sourcing some data from both sides of the coin, i.e. what these groups say about their links to Scientology and what (Sbutler (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

Just realised the above last sentence wasn't finished. Should read "...and what other sources say of the same." Looking for some feedback on this from others who have worked on this article. (78.40.152.129 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Old, unsectioned comment

I find the article is a bit biased against communism. I don't think communism should be put in 'banned terrorist organizations', this is not neutral.

You are right. Care to edit accordingly? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, actually Communist organizations are banned in many countries.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PETA

Can we fairly say that PETA works as a front group for Anti-Vivisection terrorist groups like Earth First! ? Paul, in Saudi 13:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No. Although there is some cross-over membership, Earth Firsters, ELF, and ALFers generally tend to view PETA as ineffective and clownish and too compromising of ideologies. Jgw 03:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think not. Do you have evidence for that? As far as I can tell, PETA has its own leadership, and its "line" is in no way dictated by anyone else. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I would think that PETA has front groups of ITS OWN that are worth mentioning. (anon, 19 May 2005)
  • such as? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Why is this in Category:Lobbying groups? Yes, a front organization can lobby, but most front organizations aren't lobbying groups. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"I have here in my hand..."

Recently added to the article: "The Comintern set up no less than 82 front organizations in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s." I'm not saying it's not true, but this is the sort of thing that screams for a citation. Where does the number 82 come from? -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 04:30 (UTC)

The 82 number actually comes from a wiki article Communist front (not my work); recently I created the SISS article which the aforementined article refers too. Also, over the past few days I have began collecting many at List of Comintern affiliate organizations, and will soon delve into the SISS archives to research their list from 1952 against what I've put together so far.

Communist front attributes this clearly to a list prepared in 1955 by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. We should say the same here. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 04:42 (UTC)

I agree, but being that soon I hope to source and corroborate that finding personally, perhaps if we wait a brief amount of time, so as not to compound any errors, might be advisable. Thank you. Nobs01 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

questionable sentence?

"People who visited the website and signed up for the campaign didn't realise that these were not genuinely independent patient groups." While this is probably true, it begs several questions that can't be answered: which people? How many people? What percentage of people? Shouldn't we change this to something more verifiable, such as "the sites did not disclose their corporate affiliations"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free, though it doesn't seem to me like much of a stretch to say what this currently says. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • The problem is that I don't know that the sites did not disclose their corporate affiliations. The text that is there now invites me to infer that they must not have disclosed their affiliations, but it only says "people ... didn't realise", which isn't really answering that question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Correction?

This edit removes the naming of two specific organizations and is summarized as "correction". I have no idea whether it is, indeed, a correction or is simply an effort to obscure a front relationship. No citation was provided on either side. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncited text

There is an argument for removing the following text to the talk page, since it is uncited. However, editors have instead been removing it entirely, with unpleasant (and un-Wikipedian) edit summaries like "the fuck is this racist crap doing here." and "not "nonsense", fuck you you racist." Since I can't determine immediately whether the citation is to a reliable source, I'm not restoring it directly, but I am posting it here to the talk page, as those who removed it should have done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been accused of using front organizations as a means of circumventing limits on campaign spending [1]. These front organizations have deceptive names. Delaware Valley Good Government Association (Philadelphia), San Franciscans for Good Government (California), Beaver PAC (Wisconsin), Cactus PAC (Arizona), and Icepac (New York) are examples of former AIPAC front groups.

It looks like the part about "San Franciscans for Good Government" being a pro-Israel PAC is true: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/toppacs1992.html That doesn't mean it's a front, of course, but it's more evidence that this should not have been dismissed as "nonsense". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About 30 seconds reading the source's main page is enough to convince me it's a kook site. Blainetologist 15:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem at all believing that you spent 30 seconds examining the evidence before dismissing it as "a kook site". Perhaps even less. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you even READ your sources Feldspar? You couldn't come off as less of a racist posting that sort of nonsense if you were actually wearing a Nazi uniform while posting.

Well, thank you for your opinion, anonymous person who chooses to ignore Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV. For your information, "Israel" is not a race, so frankly it's the people who scream "He dared to actually allow someone to suggest that just possibly the government of the state of Israel might be in some way, shape or form criticizable! Obviously he is a racist!" who come off as the paranoid kooks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for spouting your ignorant mouth off, moron who can't read policies. You're obviously a foolish anti-semite, since you didn't bother taking any time to read that ridiculous "marwenmedia" site that was linked up as "proof." Go find something useful to do now, please, and stop trying to insert your racism into an encyclopedia.

In case you haven't done your research, which you haven't, that essay is located on a number of different sites, not all of which are as easily dismissed as you would like to assume. If the same text is printed by both the New York Times and the National Enquirer, does that mean it's automatically junk because it appeared in the Enquirer? Please stop violating WP:CIVIL, by the way; making hasty and irresponsible accusations of racism and anti-Semitism is only going to wind up getting you blocked for disruptive editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just as a hint? Vandalizing my user page really, really, really, REALLY is not going to give ANYONE the impression that you're the responsible, mature person who is representing the LOGICAL side of the argument. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to support Feldspar on this particular issue. Neither Jewish Virtual Library nor Open Secrets are kook sites. The latter is non-partisan and objectively passes on factual material. If you think that citing factual material from these sources that could be used by people with an anti-Israel agenda is in itself racism, then you are wrong. And making hasty personal attacks on this basis is very poor Wikipedia practice. Let's either debate this issue sensibly or not at all. BobFromBrockley 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, I think you're not bothering to read the very sites you're claiming are not "kook" sites. The marwenmedia site is blatantly partisan and openly racist in its views, and not suitable at all for use as a reference. Blainetologist 16:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Marwen Media is clearly not citable, but we make extensive use of the Jewish Virtual Library.

For whatever it is worth, there is nothing "racist" (or anti-Semitic) about saying that AIPAC uses front groups, although if one is going to say that they use them "as a means of circumventing limits on campaign spending," which is a violation of the law, the citation should be rock solid. AIPAC is quite controversial even within the Jewish community (I say this as a Jew who is no fan of theirs). By the way, despite its acronym, AIPAC is not a "PAC" in the usual sense: it is primarily a lobbying group, not a campaign fundraising group. - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JMabel, my problem with it is that they do not provide any documentation for their claims that the various groups mentioned are front groups, much less the claim that it is for the purposes of violating the law. I've spent quite a bit of time making sure that other items I on this page have proper cited backup. Blainetologist 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling us that you consider WorldNetDaily and Discover the Networks "proper cited backup"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DiscoverTheNetworks has been rejected by several editors as being a qualified WP:RS in questions on both the WP:RS talk page and its own; I'm removing material sourced from there. Also, Blainetologist seems to have been indef-blocked. - Valarauka(T/C) 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just tried to clean up the article and keep what good edits were made this weekend. I respect that some of the editors/admins involved had good motivations, but I feel they exerted profound lack of judgement after reading the various edits.

Please, people, show some respect. It doesn't help us to have anyone behaving this way, least of all supposedly "respected" administrators. Blainetologist 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Front organizations are designed to hide their ties to the parent, shouldn't we include a mention that verifying their status can be difficult? Xvidme 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Serious balance problem

I think that it is a serious problem that all reference to fronts for the Israeli right in U.S. politics were removed, and their place taken by Islamic fronts. The addition of the latter may be fine, but combined with the removal of the former, it strains credulity to imagine that this was done in good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Then if you want to add them in, you should provide sources! I don't see what's so hard about that simple concept. The items as noted in edit summary were removed for being unsourced. Uzumaki 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, given what replaced them, it strains credulity to believe that is why they were removed. Much uncited material was left in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has now restored a paragraph on AIPAC, with quite solid citations. Conversely, the material on Islamic groups is cited to (in order):

1. Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, Middle East Quarterly, a reasonable citation
2. David Frum, National Post (Canada), a reasonable citation
3. Nothing at all.
4. Steven Emerson, Counterterrorism Blog, a more-or-less reasonable citation, since it is a multi-person blog that seems to have a number of semi-name bloggers
5. Debbie Schlussel, personal blog
6. An unsigned item from KXMA, a radio station in North Dakota.
7. Riehl World View, a personal blog
8. Nothing at all.

As I guessed, not exactly something that shows great concern for sourcing on the part of the person who wrote it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Scieno Fronts

I see we don't have any mention of the cult of scientology's groups like the "Clearwater Business Association" that loves to go around handing copies of $cieno literature to politicians while giving them their bribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.238.19 (talk • contribs)

If you claim to "see" such a thing then I can only assume that you didn't even bother to look at the article before making that claim. Perhaps you should go look again before making any more claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Double fronts

"Unite Against Fascism, the Anti-Nazi League, the Stop the War Coalition and RESPECT are all criticised as being fronts for the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (UK). (The latter two are also accused [citation needed] of being fronts for the Muslim Association of Britain, which has been accused of being a front for or connected to the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood." Since a front as defined in this article is "any entity set up by and controlled by another organization" how could Respect and StWC both be fronts for SWP and MAB. Its one or the other surely?--JK the unwise 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been a bit unhappy with this phrasing for a while. I'm going to edit now. BobFromBrockley 13:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious, but hard to cite for

Someone has requested citation for "Other CIA-funded front groups have been used to spread American propaganda and influence during the Cold War, particularly in the Third World." I would have thought that this was obvious, but it is difficult to cite for, in that mainstream sources don't usually say this so bluntly, and that non-mainstream sources that do say this bluntly could be considered partisan.

I'm going to sketch out how we might cite for this; I'd appreciate some discussion before we try to carry it into the article.

• Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-50, a publicly released excerpt from a larger classified draft study of CIA involvement with anti-Communist groups in the Cold Warm, written by the CIA's own staff.
• James Petras, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited in Monthly Review, a leftist take on the Congress for Cultural Freedom, arguing that "It is impossible to believe [Sidney Hook et. al.'s] claims of ignorance of CIA ties." Petras has written extensively on this topic, there is probably quite a bit that could be found citable from his work.
• Robert Dreyfuss, Cold War, Holy Warrior, Mother Jones, January/February 2006, mainly on U.S. relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Eisenhower era. On page 3:

  There's another intriguing question that emerges from this period in Ramadan's life: Had he been recruited by the CIA during his 1953 visit to the United States? Ramadan's family denies that he was, but declassified documents in the Swiss National Archives, uncovered by Sylvain Besson of Geneva's Le Temps newspaper, reveal that in the 1960s the Swiss authorities considered him to be, "among other things, an intelligence agent of the British and the Americans." In July 2005, the Wall Street Journal, after extensive archival research in Switzerland and Germany, reported: "Historical evidence suggests Mr. Ramadan worked with the CIA." Documents from West German intelligence archives, uncovered by the Journal, reveal that Ramadan traveled on an official Jordanian diplomatic passport secured for him by the CIA, that "his expenditures are financed by the American side," and that Ramadan worked closely with the CIA's American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, Amcomlib, which ran Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (both CIA front groups) in the 1950s and 1960s. According to the Journal, in May 1961, a CIA officer with Amcomlib met with Ramadan to plan a "joint propaganda effort against the Soviet Union."

• From Spartacus Schoolnet's article on Thomas Braden (caution: I gather that a recent ArbCom decision characterized at least some uses of Spartacus Schoolnet as inappropriately "partisan" or "extremist"; the characterization seems very odd to me, and I don't know whether it applied to the whole site or to some particular article):

  "The IOD [CIA International Organizations Division] helped established anti-Communist front groups in Western Europe. The IOD was dedicated to infiltrating academic, trade and political associations. The objective was to control potential radicals and to steer them to the right. Braden later claimed that such measures were necessary in the early 1950s because the Soviet Union operated 'immensely powerful' front groups in Europe."

This is the result of about 20 minutes of Googling. I supect that if we really need a citation for this, it might be better for someone to put in some time in a library: I'm sure there are good books on the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected/"merged" article into this one

There was an orphan article entitled "Front Group (Arab-Israeli Wars)" that I just redirected to this article. It wasn't polished and most of the information is covered in this article. For those that want to see the last version prior to my redirect (so check over if any of the information is useful or worthy of inclusion in this article), you can find it here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_Group_%28Arab-Israeli_Wars%29&oldid=134349693

--Abnn 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

When intelligence organizations use legitimate organizations as fronts, it can cause problems and lead to increased risk for the workers from the legitimate organization. For example, the Peace Corps and CIA both maintain that there has never been any relationship between the two groups.

It seems there is a great deal of innuendo in this statement, but no clarificatin of allegations or known facts.

Human Rights Front Groups

Without directly accusing specific human rights organizations, to the informed observer there seems to be a growing trend, particularly in the U.S., where non-profit human rights groups have been established virtually overnight, on an à la mode basis, with a very narrow political focus and with apparently no other objectives than generating agiprop for targeting of specific countries which inevitably are a political rival or competitor to the U.S. In some cases a number of these agiprop groups are located in Washington, DC and appear to share the same mail drops/business addresses and/or the same persons as directors or staff members. When you review the propaganda materials of these groups, they are filled with particularly venomous rants against a specific country, contain little documentation or references to independent or objective information sources, and espouse unilateral actions to be taken against a specific country while ignoring the most objectionable activities and human rights violations of certain western countries, namely the U.S. and some of its allies. For those of us who have been exposed to discredited U.S. government agiprop and front groups throughout our lives, it appears that these organizations do not pass the basic sniff test and should be thoroughly researched and outed if there is a reason to suspect a mainly political agenda. For all of the above reasons, I think this entry needs to include a specific section on human rights front groups which documents the origin, agenda, funding and political activities of such groups with credible cited references.Pangxiong (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangxiong (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology movies

http://documentaryheaven.com looks to be another front: pretends to be an idependent site about documentaries, however is full of Scientology movies and adverts for them & their other fronts such as Citizens Commission on Human Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.57.163 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello unregistered user. I had a look at the site in question and find hundreds of documentaries from all different genres and sources, not just Scientology-related, etc. (Sbutler (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

Corporate front organizations

Shot info shall NOT edit in this question then he is obviously biased! Since it easy to controll the facts, That The lobby oganization ACSH See sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ACSH , [[ACSH scientific adivisors |http://www.acsh.org/about/pageid.89/default.asp]] A few exampel only . See for ex. Stephen Barrett struggle against Ilena Rosentahl http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm Wikipedia is not a front group for ACSH even if some editors try to make it happen.--Klackjesper (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm an editor of Wikipedia with knowledge of the policies that this place runs on, I'm perfectly entitled to make whatever edits I so choose (in compliance with the policies of course). Can I encourage you to assume good faith with your fellow editors. If you wish to make a proposed change to the article, propose it here so that the many and varied editors that inhabit Wikipedia can help you out to ensure it meets with Wikipedia's policies. If you wish to make the claim that the ACSH is a front organisation, you need to supply a reliable source that states this. Otherwise you looking at multiple but separate sources and synthesising an outcome is called original research which is forbidden here in Wikipedia. Also Sourcewatch is forbidden as a source (read here WP:RS) as it is another wiki, which is generally viewed as an unreliable source of information. However you could always go here to get a determination of the validity/usability of sources. Welcome to Wikipedia! Shot info (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Shot info i hope these links satisfy you.:http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/Integrity_in_Science_organization_list.pdf and http://www.cspinet.org/new/200312031.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klackjesper (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposed edit by Klackjesper is:

- Chemical an pharmaceptical companies can trough ACSH use the "sceptical"movement as a front organisation, then many of their "scietific advisors" are members there.

For starters, I cannot even read this sentence. Second, the references doesn't support the statement namely that "Chemical an pharmaceptical companies can trough ACSH use the "sceptical"movement as a front organisation". The first reference is a list of advisors. The second is a publically available list of donors. The third is a criticism by CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson to the then FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan in 2003 about a perceived conflict of possible interest where he (in attempting to lobby McClellan) accuses the ACSH of being "a deceptively packaged front group". Does this actually mean the ACSH is actually a front group, or is it because the then executive director (and now Secretary) is merely attempting to influence a policy maker? Shot info (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The second is a list with non-profit organizations with ties to industries. Why do you not describe the sources correctly Shot info? You are obviously biased so you should not edit this article.--Klackjesper (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Klackjesper, you are obviously a new editor and I'm trying to help you here. I've removed your information from the article, because it's obviously not english and I have really no idea actually what you are trying to say (other than "Organisation XYZ is a front organisation" - something that your references don't substanciate). There are various editing policies that we have here in Wikipedia, all of which are located on your homepage. But here's a start WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. You need to read them prior to editing just so you don't find random editors (like me) altering your edits. Now the purpose of this "talk page" is for you to discuss your proposed edits, something I've noticed you have been reluctant to do. I have assumed that there is nothing nefarious in your behavour, but rather you are a new editors and I'm trying to help you out. By the way, you need to assume good faith and stop calling other editors "biased". If you continue to act in this fashion, either myself or other editors may report you to WP:ANI. This may result in having your editing privlages removed. Shot info (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Shot info I am new on wikpedia, and need help expressing the facts about how ACSH "scientific advisors" use the skeptical movement as a front organization. For example, if you look at "The skeptical Toolbox" http://skepticstoolbox.org/about , and check http://skepticstoolbox.org/faculty . You will find that at least 3 out of 5 in the faculty have close ties to ACSH. That is not mentioned in the presentation of the faculty, and I wonder WHY? I think it would be good for the young students to know about this, and there is a lot moore to know about this connection.Well known skeptics like Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, Stephen Barrett, Manfred Kroger and many other people from ACSH are members in the skeptical movement, and have leading positions, and they never tell the skeptical movement how they work inside the skeptical movement to get the skeptical movement members to share the views of the companies that give money to ACSH, and how they cooperate inside the skeptical movement, and you can see how the "faculty" present themselves.They forget to mention their links to ACSH, and they shall teach the student "critical thinking"? I wish that anyone who that had written about "Frontorganisations" before had helped me. But no one did, so maybe it is to early to write about this very interesting subject. The"ACSH - skeptical movement" connection, and Shot info is talking about:"having your editing privlages removed.", so I have decided not to write anything more here.So this was the end(I will study the wikpedia regulations.).--Klackjesper (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and perhaps that will help you Klackjester. These are fairly important policies.

Calling ACSH a front organization based on those sources is not justified by the sources presented. With a clear, direct, reliable source describing the organization as such we might be able to include a directly attributed statement at the ACSH article, but this article should not be used as a coatrack to make the accusation. Please see the edit warring policy and wait for consensus to develop here before adding the disputed material. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess Washington Post is a reliable source.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605160_pf.html--Klackjesper (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And this source is also a reliable source http://multinationalmonitor.org/links/scat.php?scat_id=12--Klackjesper (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The WaPo link does not work for me, and I have never heard of the second publication, so I cannot comment on its RSness, though by the looks of the title I think it may not be an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That second link, now that I have looked at it, is (I am pretty sure) not an RS. If their publication criterion is 'suggest a link' then no. Find a real RS, or drop this. (Again, if the WaPo one works for others, that is another matter). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope this link work better.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605160_pf.html--Klackjesper (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On this page can you find the link above, and from that page one can get to Washington PostFile:Http://www.politicslaforums.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/34717/http://www.politicslaforums.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/34717/#326162I hope some more experienced editor can see what is wrong.Sorry for the problem! --Klackjesper (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Clicky for WaPo. The parser for this site interprets everything from "http://" until the next space as being the desired link (or presumably other illegal character); apparently this step occurs after it has substituted in the text for your signature (look at the page source - the href= parameter includes the "--"). Just leave a space between the link and your signature or whatever other text you do not want it to include in the link generated. You can also put an external link between square brackets, as I did at the start of this comment.

The source itself is very light on ACSH material. I feel bad to be in effect defending them since they, in my opinion, err rather too often in siding with companies who frankly could use a little more close scrutiny from consumer protection advocacy groups, but it still needs to be sourced. A better approach would be to find several reliable sources that discuss criticism of ACSH in depth, and use those to edit that article. This article, however, should have only a few impeccably sourced and archetypal examples of front organizations, not a laundry list of organizations that someone has accused of acting as such. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, sourcewatch is a wiki like us; I use them occasionally in the research phase of article writing, but they are not themselves reliable for anything. As for Rosenthal, well, the less said the better. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice 2/0! I intend to follow them.--Klackjesper (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LDPR

LDPR is not communist front organization. Communist Party of the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not right now, but it was created as a communist front organization, according to the source. Biophys (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was planned, but it did not function as a communist front. As far as I can see, there are no sources calling LDPR "front organization". Yakovlev's story is intresting, but it's inclusion to this article is not justified. --DonaldDuck (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization, and it was definitely created as such, according to the source. It was initially controlled by the CPSU and by the KGB according to the source. The source does not tell if it is still controlled by Russian state security, presidential administration or whatever. So, we do not tell anything about this. Biophys (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't know by what organization LDPR is controlled, but still insist that LDPR is front organization. Front for what? --DonaldDuck (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the sources it was created as s front organization of KGB and CPSU. But why should we repeat this over again? Please keep in mind that following my edits is not a good idea. But that's your choice. Biophys (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have one editor who is supported by sources, and one who is not supported by sources. I say the content stays, as it has sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dbrodbeck Shot info (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion

There is a merger discussion at Talk:Communist_party#Merger_proposal which proposes merger of Communist front into either this article or Communist party. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)