Talk:Peoples' Global Action/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re: hallmarks

the text of PGA hallmarks is a direct citation. it is not appropriate to change their text because of NPOV concerns, because the hallmarks reflect a specific political perspective which in itself is *not* supposed to be NPOV. imagine someone changing the text of a citation from the US constitution to incorporate NPOV concerns - it clearly makes no sense. To avoid confusion, the text is now in quotation marks.

---

That was, in fact, the confusion. To me it looked like someone was inserting personal political beliefs into an article. It was not clear as a direct quotation. I'm still changing it, though.  ;-) --MTR (严加华) 23:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I think most of what appears in the criticism section needs to appear not here, but in the article on the [anti-glbalization] movement. PGA is not 'responsible' in any way for events in mobilisations - the groups who call them and participate in them are. In addition, there are some factual concerns:

• A frequent criticism of the euphemistically-termed "decentralised mobilisations" is that they are, in fact, simple riots.

Riots are doubtless an element of some mobilisations, but they are by no means the only extant feature. Saying that the website shows 'pictures' of peaceful protest is to imply that it is lying. Most of the 'rioting' is directed, moreover, not against property but against police repression of demonstrations.

Having been in two places where PGA-inspired riots occurred, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call "bullshit" here. Once a riot starts, the violence quickly becomes unfocused. Mob mentality and collective rage tends to spread and diffuse as individuals with grudges other than the main cause use the opportunity of (by them) presumed anonymity to lash out at extra things. That's why riots are considered counter-productive to the cause by people who support the central cause of any protest. --MTR (严加华) 17:25, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• The smashed windows, overturned cars and burned shops tend to belong to small business owners and private citizens, not to government officials and mulinational executives.

This is simply untrue. The overwhelming majority of property that is attacked belongs to multinational corporations such as banks, oil companies and chain stores.

Again I call "bullshit". In Seattle I saw independent (i.e. not Starbucks!) coffee shops that had their windows smashed and furniture trashed. I saw a klunky old station wagon that was practically obliterated. Which multinational corporation drove around a rusting station wagon from the '70s? Similar things can be trivially found left, right and centre whenever the PGA member organisations go to war. And, again, even those who support the anti-globalisation cause of the PGA member organisations find this counter-productive. --MTR (严加华) 17:25, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• The PGA claims to speak on behalf of "the People", but, it is argued, many groups with highly conflicting goals all claim to speak on behalf of "the People". Who is right?

This is again untrue. PGA does not claim to speak on behalf of anybody, and only movements that are invloved with it speak on behalf of themselves. Besides, this is a general criticism of every social movement!

When you have to resort to childish semantics, it means you're losing the argument. The PGA is identified pretty much strictly by its member groups. If its member groups claim to speak for "the People" then pretty much by definition so does the PGA. Further, what does the "P" in PGA stand for again? Oh....

As for "general criticism of every social movement" -- well, yeah. It is. Because most social movements do not in any way, shape nor form represent the people they claim to represent. It's just useful rhetoric to claim that you do. The Moral Majority also claims to speak for "the People". Do they? The People's Republic of China claims to do what it does for the sake of "the People". Does it? Personally I find the PGA's claim (or, if you want to be an anal retentive twit, "the PGA's member organisations' claim" that they speak for "the People" to be laughable and a good sign that they can be safely ignored. --MTR (严加华) 17:25, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I could just pitch into the debate here, but somehow I don't think it would help, and I don't think we would ever end up agreeing. The question we have to concern ourselves with is not 'who's right?' but 'how should we present our disagreements in the article?'. Let's get down to working on that. At the moment the article is far from 'NPOV'.

ChickenMerengo 20:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

link to executive intelligence review article

Perhaps it would be good to change the text of the link to the executive intelligence review article to identify its source and the connections to LaRouche that the organization has and then add a hyperlink next to it to the LaRouche entry in this encyclopedia?

PGA Riots?

PGA calls for actions and demonstrations, but doesn't stipulate what these actions consists of. It is a facilitative network, and constituent groups and individuals can do what they like on the group or in situ. The criticism of PGA for 'riots' is stupid and should be removed.

Leonid Savin / Леонид Савин

What is the source for this bit about Leonid Savin? I am unable to find any information on this subject [1] except on Wikipedia mirrors and there is no citation. - N1h1l 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

not much on-line but have a look at: Начальник Сумской Сетевой Ставки ЕСМ Леонид Савин

Try this also.Harrypotter

Thanks for the link. Definitely seems like important information, but the sources are fairly low-grade (no published articles, critique, or academic writing). Kind of suprising that this hasn't made it beyond deep web. - N1h1l 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it is odd rather than suprising!Harrypotter 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I consider teh work of Moderntimes, vandalism, as the only edits they have made are on this page. their attempt to remove the sorry story of Savin's entréeism into the PGA I find somewhat sad.Harrypotter 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Monderntimes is engaging in questionable behavior by removing content without discussion. That being said, the sources available for this information on Savin are woefully inadequate and unscholarly. - N1h1l 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... people from antisystemic.org cited above once supported donating funds to Leonid Savin for Ukraine indymedia.

More Vandalism

84.165.194.29 could well be Monderntimes repeating the vandalism.Harrypotter 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Harry, please stop reverting this page. The Hallmarks are a citation. (La vie en rose)

Also Lavieenrose could be the same person. Just because the Hallmarks are a citation does not man that the other material shoudl be removed, for which the vandal offers no reason. Note again that the the PGA page and this page are the only ones touched!Harrypotter 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Harry Potter, as Lavieenrose wrote before, the Hallmarks are a citation. Please stop the vandalism.

Another revertion by 84.188.254.141 with no other pages edited than the PGA and the talk page, plus the rather lame remark about citation, as if the refrences to th Jajinci interpretation isn't just as much a citation. Clearly those responsible are not clear about what is vandalism.Harrypotter 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The citation of this have now been included. It seems that some people would rather cover up these events than learn from experience . . quite sad really?Harrypotter 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your own reference, dear Harry Potter, proves that your insertion is incorrect: "We are facing the long-term reality of the rise of racism and fascism in the world. This is a reality that needs to be confronted and challenged by the PGA network and the groups that are active within it." So there certainly is no reason to link your paragraph to the hallmarks and the insertion violates NPOV standards.

On the contrary, you quote from the rider which was subsequently added, which is why it apperas after the word agreed. This rider was added in November 2004, following a meeting in London. See added link. Harrypotter 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was subsequently added, it proves that your changes are incorrect and do not comply with NPOV standards.

I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying here. Are you denying that the piece "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem." was never included in the minutes. Clear evidence of this has been given. Futher evidence has been given that the minutes were altered sometime later, so I do not understand the problem there. And finally evidence of Savin's removal as a PGA info point has also been provided, although his sordid involvement with the Duginists is something you need to go to the Leonid Savin. I am not sure why you are suggesting that this material is NPOV? Perhaps this something you should consider before troubling anyone with a call for page protection. Clearly if someone were to denounce the PGA for this sequence of events, then that would be POV, however I am sure even you will agree that the entry simply lets the cold facts speak for themselves. I feel that if you were to engage with some other wikipedia pages, even try some controversial topics like Black people for example, you could then see how people try and resolve their differences rather than simply engaging in a tedious edit-skirmish.Harrypotter 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The minutes were corrected (I guess there was a language problem) so there is no evidence you can refer to and your addition does certainly not comply with NPOV. It is time to end this tedious edit-skirmish and maintain NPOV on this article. The evidence is the following: "We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings." Your addition gives no proof of controversy on the hallmarks. Lavieenrose

No, the minutes had a rider added as referred to in the piece. You may guess it was a language problem, but then as with many guesses you have to face the prospect of guessing wrong. There clearly was a controversy and the matter went beyond language, as is evinced with the subsequent exposure and removal of Savin.Harrypotter 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The information provided is based on verified facts from reliable sources. Your incorrect paragraph does not fulfill these Wikipedia principles and does not comply with NPOV standards. Your allegation is based on minutes that have been corrected and links to non-public mailing list archives - certainly not a reliable source. Lavieenrose 10 August 2006.

I have restored the releavnt piece. Please could you explain what you imagine my allegation to be! It is simply a matter of fact. No crime has been suggested? What I am saying is precisely that the position as regards the acceptability of fascists was published and then subsequently corrected. Perhaps that in itself would not be notable were it not for the fact that a member of a fascist organisation was running the Ukraine info point. As the mailing list was open for public inspection for two years, it is unclear about what you mean about "non-public mailing list archives" or why this should be considered other than a reliable source. I do not understand why you introduce such extraneous arguments.Harrypotter 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your allegation is that there is a controversy but you provide no proof. The references you mention are minutes that have been corrected - there is no reliable source and no verified information. There are plenty of e-mails that prove that y<our allegation is wrong, so links to non-public mailing-list archives are also not a reliable source. Your repeated changes do not comply with Wikipedia principles. Lavieenrose 10 August 2006.

Just a small remark that Harrypotter's insitence on the "Savin" story has made me to tag NPOV to the Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland‎. I'm not enough expert of Wikipedia to know what to do about malevolent users -- Eiland (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources/References

The sources/references used come from non-reliable sources (save one which appears to be non verifiable). In my opinion they should be not included. --Jon Cates 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jon, are you indicating they are primary sources, which cannot be used because they are not part of a unified Peoples' Global Action organization? Addhoc 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

I have taken up the Mediation Cabal case regarding the prolific edit war here. Please discuss your differences at the case page so that this...eh...problem can be resolved peacefully. Cheers, physicq210 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that the paragraph not be added or deleted (whatever the case is now) until this case is over. I don't want an edit war going on right behind the negotiating table. --physicq210 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the paragraph should not be added as long as there is a mediation case going on. It is as if somebody kept adding a paragraph to the page Earth saying "the Earth is flat" and adding a link to "pigs can fly". Lavieenrose, 12 August 2006.

Hi, I'm new to this article, from what I can gather the references HarryPotter is attempting to use are little more than emails, which don't appear to substantiate a controversy. Am I missing something? Addhoc 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The references are only emails. More importantly, its a question of terminology.

The quote that is being repeatedly inserted states that there is controversy in the PGA. The inference being that the global movoment is in a state of discourse about a certain arguement. This is simply untrue (as the lack of references prove). At the PGA conference in Europe approximately 500 people attended with a variety of political beliefs and a great deal of debate was had. For instance a particularly contentious issue was the view of Palestine, which has plagued the German political scene for some time. However the people in those debates have not insisted that WikiPedia put forward that the PGA is now contentious because people differ on their views on Palestine. It is the very nature of PGA that these differences are debated.

So Harry Potter may believe that certain issues are contentious, but to elevate an internal debate to the status of organisational dissarray is untrue. The arguement is analogous to the idea that everytime a parliamentarian is forced to resign, his party is under threat. This is not the case, ministers resigning is simply the normal workings of a political party.

Interestingly for an outsider, no comment has been added to this debate from south america, Asia or elsewhere, by those who originally endorsed the hallmarks. It is simply a debate by a very small number of individuals, and again this is not reflective of a global movement.

I would be quite happy for the moderator to leave the page as is, i.e. have the hallmarks and state that people have added (removed) contentious statements. Else the debate will continue forever. Bozavine 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

References for the disputed paragraph

I would consider the following reference is a reliable source:

• Jajinci Minutes which does include "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem".

However, this does not support the use of "controversy" in the following text:

"The interpretation of these hallmarks however has been the subject of controversy, especially in Europe, since the 2004 European PGA conference in Jajinci, Belgrade where it was suggested that "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem.".

While the following is not reliable sources as defined by WP:RS:

• London Rising Tide - this appears to be an essentially administrative email, seeking to include the following clarifying text "PGA Hallmarks clearly reject all forms of discrimination, including fascism and racism".

If this was acceptable, then it would support the following text:

""Although a rider was subsequently added..."

Again the following is not reliable sources as defined by WP:RS:

• On New Right infiltration in PGA - this appears to be an email seeking clarification about exclusion of 'new right' groups, which briefly mentions "Leonid's group".

Even if this references was considered reliable it does not by any stretch of the imagination fully support:

"this controversy has been further fuelled by the sympathies held by Leonid Savin (the co-ordinator of the Ukraine PGA info-point) with politics of Alexander Dugin. After Savin was shown to be an activist associated with the Eurasia Party, the PGA Ukraine info-point was removed from the PGA website.. See also National anarchism."

Consequently, I would suggest the disputed paragraph should not be reintroduced until appropriate sources are found. Addhoc 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Addhoc, You quote the Jajinci minutes as a reliable source. I fyour read on you will notice the following adendum to that quotation, which is in fact at the heart of this controversy and is featured in that source:

'The PGA Hallmarks clearly reject all forms of discrimination, including fascism and racism. However, the comment from one of the spokes of the meeting that '"In answer to the question about not being able to exclude members of fascist organisations, a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem" reads badly, and does not reflect the sentiment of the spokescouncil meeting. It could be interpreted wrongly, as it does not reflect the context in which it was made, which was to question the possibility that such 'openness' could be perceived to include fascists.

As such the other sources which include emails etc simply serve to give a background picture to the contoversy - as I have already noted, most of the material is not on-line and so we depend on the relatively scant material that is on-line to provide a fuller picture of the situation. All these comparisons being made with political parties are not suitable since the pga is not a political party, even though there are those that would like to transform it into one. Paki.tv 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, according to WP:V all material, without exception, has to be supported by reliable sources. You have not provided reliable sources that support the use of "controversy". Also the latter sentences are only partially supported by non-reliable sources. In this context, the paragraph should be removed. Addhoc 10:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Ok comrade, we have already debated the removal of the word 'controversy'. Take the word out if you want but the paragraph should stay. Also, the latter part of the paragraph gives a wider picture and is sourced by the links to Duginism and National Anarchism as regards the wider debate. Paki.tv 11:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, so I'll reword without using "controversy". However, according to WP:V you cannot source from another Wikipedia article. Are there references in these article that you could use to support the latter sentences? Addhoc 11:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some online sources that aren't emails:

http://uo.dczn.net/index.php/Savin_Statement http://www.antisystemic.org/pga/1index.htm http://ourmayday.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Peoples_Global_Action http://makebordershistory.org/workspace/Talk:Noborders_UK_communication_channels 81.86.26.78 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on New Sources

http://uo.dczn.net/index.php/Savin_Statement This is a wiki that by definition isn't a reliable source.

http://www.antisystemic.org/pga/1index.htm This is an extract from a wiki, again non-reliable.

http://ourmayday.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Peoples_Global_Action Another wiki...

http://makebordershistory.org/workspace/Talk:Noborders_UK_communication_channels This is a talk page, which again is non-reliable.

Addhoc 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Addhoc, it is necessary to find reliable sources. And there is not much difference between the word "debate" and "controversy", is there? And what sense does National Anarchism make on this page? None! Shalomsalaam 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shalomsalaam, if we are going to have a link to National anarchism, then it probably should be at the end of the article in the "see also" section. Obviously, any useful references from other articles should be copied directly into this article. Personally, I think "debate" is slightly more encyclopedic than "controversy". At the moment, I think the following text would be ok as some form of compromise:

The interpretation of these hallmarks however has been the subject of debate, especially in Europe, since the 2004 European PGA conference in Jajinci, Belgrade where it was suggested that "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem." [2]

Addhoc 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Invisible Dictatorship

Why has that link been removed? What is meant by 'no visible leadership'? Paki.tv 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The link removed was for invisible dictatorship, and no credible reference was provided to link the concept to PGA. The entire edit appeared to be an attempt to insert unsourced criticism. - N1h1l

I have put in the citation required about (some participants) which is unsourced. I do not understand what the problem with the link to invisible dictatorship is. It is simply a matter of providing a useful link to a new page.Harrypotter 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no source linking PGA to the concept of invisible dictatorship. It is dishonest to pretend that the term is synonymous with 'no visible leadership'. Find a critique of PGA that says it is an invisible dictatorship, and then include that in a criticism section. - N1h1l 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I find your suggestion of "dishonesty" inappropriate. I have developed the invisible dictatorship page, to include the alternative phrase invisible network, one which George Woodcock preferred, and I am putting a suitable reference on the article page. Please note that the call for citation as regards the previous remark about people not regarding the PGA as an organisation, was a polite aide memoire about how you can suggest people find the citations to back their edits, which I find often preferable to suggestions of dishonesty.Harrypotter 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The source that you have included is highly questionable as there is no indication that the article is using the term "invisible network" as a reference to Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship." In fact, it doesn't even mention PGA's lack of visible leadership. - N1h1l 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of the term anarchist in the subject categories at the bottom of the page indicates that the term is being used in the way developed by George Woodcock and the Bakunin, one of the fathers of anarchism!Harrypotter 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, it seems like the phrase "invisible dictatorship/network" would appear in the actual text of the article (which it does not) or that the article would relate to a "concept of clandestine revolutionary leadership" (which it does not). As such, it seems unlikely to be in reference to invisible dictatorship. - N1h1l 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dishonesty happening here. Harrypotter is being very open in his attempts to discredit the PGA with POV, dodgy sources, and the creation of pages like Invisible dictatorship. NickW 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my opinion for what it worth is there could be a meaningful difference between the concept of "no visible leadership" and "invisible dictatorship". The rationale behind "no visible leadership" could be to promote egalitarianism within an organisation, in the context of openness and transparency. This could be very different to the approach of "invisible dictatorship" whereby a closed cell organization is very secretive and structured to prevent infiltration by the authorities. Addhoc 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's clearly a significant difference between the two terms, and crucially, one does not suggest the other. The lack of conventional organisational structure and leadership are concepts that many people have difficulty accepting without genuine experience. In the instance of the PGA the worst criticism on this issue that can be fairly levelled is that of the 'tyranny of the most committed' i.e. the people who do the work make the decisions. However, a problem with applying any of these concepts to the PGA is that they can equally be applied to any similar organisation or 'disorganisation'. The question that must be asked here is 'why the PGA'? The answer is POV arising from personal obsessions (aka 'an axe to grind'). None of which makes for good article content on Wikipedia IMO. NickW 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that NickW emerges at this point, someone who has already been identified as a director of the london Action Resource Centre, a PGA "infopoint", talking about grinding a personal axe. The issue is that the referenced source used the explicit term "Invisible Network" applied to the PGA in the context of an article tagged as "anarchist". As they openly declare, the term could be as much applied to the PGA as any other invisible network, (i.e. any similar organisation). The question Why the PGA can be answered because this is a wikipedia page about the PGA. Personally I was happy to leave the matter simply as a wikipedia link, but it seems that people are arguing for a more explicit reference to Bakuninism in the body of the text. Perhaps that might be a way forward. Also in answer to Addhoc point, I think the decision to remove process discussion list, which was previously available - and referenced to in this article - from open access is indicative a move away from openness and transparency. The fact is that this has taken place in relationship to infiltration by the New Right. I am not quite sure whether they are included in the expression "the authorities", but I am sure that if people look at the discussion of the concept of invisible dictatorship they will understand its relevance here, even if this understanding makes them want to remove any reference from the PGA wikipedi page. I suppose that is the nature of an invisible dictatrship/network: it wishes to avoid accountability.Harrypotter 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Harrypotter, I am not saying that Global Action is egalitarian, nor am I suggesting they are open and transparent in their proceedings. I'm not even suggesting they were or are trying to be. In my view this discussion is merely about whether the concept of "no visible leadership" equates to "invisible dictatorship". I consider the concepts to be slightly different and consequently the wiki link is probably not appropriate. Addhoc 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not a question of equating the concepts but associating the ideas - the link provides extra information that is relavent to the concept so it should stay. Paki.tv 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that to be credible. The ideas of socialism and communism are associated, but you wouldn't link one to the other. Addhoc 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an extract from the socialism on wikipedia:

The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. People chose to use one or the other on the basis of perceived attitude to religion. In Europe communism was considered to be the more atheistic of the two; whereas in England that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones, hence atheists prefered to call themselves socialists.Harrypotter 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but [[communism|socialism]] or [[socialism|communism]] wouldn't be appropriate. Addhoc 22:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

None of these arguments are convincing in the least and are simply excuses designed to derail proper debate. The relationship between Socialism and Communism , as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the related debates will be very aware, is very different to that between 'no visible leadership' and 'invisible dictatorship'. The history, context, origin and usage of these concepts are what is crucial. In fact, the former dialectic is between specific mass movements and the latter between quite generalised concepts and ideas of leadership structure and the associated debates within very specific revolutionary and counter-revolutionary groups, that are intimately related. Paki.tv 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a straw poll? The edit war is really going anywhere... Addhoc 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Poll: A careful reading of this source, supplied by User:Harrypotter, supports a clear link between PGA and Mikhail Bakunin's invisible dictatorship. Agree or disagree?

Please answer below and sign your vote.

Disagree, the article does not use the phrase invisible dictatorship or Bakunin and makes no mention of a "concept of clandestine revolutionary leadership". - N1h1l 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree reference does not even use the word "dictatorship". Addhoc 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the wording, which I think is clearer. I shall add more to the page on invisible distatorship dealing with George Woddcock's use of the term, and Sam Dolgoff's piece soon but I am going out to dinner now.Harrypotter 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Igree title 'invisible network' combined with criticism of eurocentricity within the article clearly links Bakuninist organisational modes with PGA organising/anti-organising. 62.25.106.209 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The whole article is increasingly full of POV, opinions added from non-reliable sources (wiki pages), and no facts from reliable sources provided. It is time to return back to an encyclopedia page based on facts. Shalomsalaam 22:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the exclusion of this as the invisible dictatorship page has been significantly developed.Harrypotter 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Shalomsalaam

Please stop removing text without checking sources and facts. You will see that new source has been added and that the other source is not a wiki or a mailing list. 195.92.40.49 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You have linked to a Wikipedia page that you have created yourself and edited nearly all by yourself. There is no obvious link between PGA and your page on Bakunin. You have provided no reliable sources for POV. Shalomsalaam 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong comrade, you are confusing me with someone else. Please put forth your suspicions and then we can deal with them. Otherwise you are just pushing your own paranoid POV with vandalism. Bakuninist tradition of invisible dictatorship is very well documented, just check the wikipage! Also, please note that the reference for Right wing infiltration into PGA also includes the issue of right wing infiltration of Indymedia and includes an analysis of Euarasianism, Leonid Savin as well as the position of the West Essex Zapatista on this matter. 62.25.106.209 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Would really be nice if we could have some quality and reliable content on this page instead of POV. Shalomsalaam 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

We should end the year and start 2007 with a more accurate entry without POV from non-reliable sources. Shalomsalaam 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the additions are useful, clearly the attempt to remove the other more critical material is not acceptable. I have tidied the material up and updated one of the refrences as the PGA webmaster has been removing critical references from the PGA website. (It is perhaps ironic that the PGA responds to criticism by rescinding its former openness, suppressing its internal dissent. Of course what they do with their own page is their own concern, but their desire to make this page simply an advert for their organisation is a serious misjudgement. I have also given the original url (Color Lines), rather than the PGA page, as this better reflects the real world.Harrypotter 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the so-called critical material does not follow the facts. A sentence like "the PGA admitted that...", for example, is simply not correct: who is "the PGA" in the case of an intercontinental network when you are citing from one person's e-mail? Shalomsalaam 13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am sure you will agree that the line has now been improved. It is interesting how there seems to be an attempt to continually remove references to people complaining about their experience of racism by such people as Maria Theresa Santana, when it is very clear this have happened. Likewise the concerns raised at the Panama session. Why are these sources regarded as unreliable?Harrypotter 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is always valid, my dear friend, and unfortunately there are many experiences of racism, also within the movement. I agree, you have improved the wording. However, a person's e-mail is not a reliable source and you also provide no reliable source for your basic assumption of an alleged controversy on the interpretation of the hallmarks, so you are disguising POV as "critical material". Shalomsalaam 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you have such a jaundiced view of e-mails posted by avstivists involved with the PGA, but I suppose this is not suprising. Neverthless there is no reason to think that they are unreliable. One of teh strengths of the PGA was that it used to publish its organsing e-mails, but I suppose it is an expression of its political weakness that it has been removing these from its website. Thankfully some of them have been preserved. Anyway I have added the material from Restructuring and Resistance. You remark " fighting racist structures is not easy" and this certainly true while organisations like the PGA continue to cover up their own problems. This is a process which has excelerated amongst their ranks during the last few years.Harrypotter 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Harry Potter, this is not a question of covering up problems but a question of accuracy. You keep getting your facts wrong, for instance: PGA is NOT an organisation as you write above. An encyclopaedia page is meant to contain facts from reliable sources. Mailing-lists that have been copied and moved to another server two years later are certainly NOT a reliable source. Shalomsalaam 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "PGA is NOT an organisation" this goes against PGA published documentatation PGA Organisatiobnal principles. When the PGA states as part 1 of its organisationa; [principles: The PGA is an instrument for co-ordination, not an organisation. this is an aporia. This is typical of thge rhetocrical forms used by [[politics|politicians] since the [[slavery|slave-owning] democracies of ancient Greece. I have reverted he text on account of this. Clearly an entity which has as its first organisatuional principal thatb it is *NOT* an organisation needs to be seen in theese terms rather tahn excepting the views of someone who only come onto wiki[edia to edit the {PGA page. Nevertheless, the factv thatv you have made some political progress has been noted, and certainly bodes well for your future development.Harrypotter 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)