Talk:Congress for Cultural Freedom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sacking of Gough Whitlam[edit]

The following section has no reference or citation. Doesn't sound historical. Sounds conspiratorial. Given the previous attempts of roping the British Monarchy (see below) and its representative, the Governor-General, into this page without proof, I suggest removing this paragraph.

"Theories about the Australian arm of the IACF have abounded since 1975, when then Australian Governor-General John Kerr, an IACF member and, according to William Blum, as cited by John Pilger, a member of the executive board of the Australian branch, dismissed the government of then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyishere (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--I am not able to locate any information to support this bizarre claim. If no objection, I will take it out. Cmacauley (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche[edit]

I've reverted to an earlier version of this article, as the anon IP address 198.81.26.77 is an AOL proxy address sometimes used by User:Herschelkrustofsky, a LaRouche activist on Wikipedia. The arbcom has ruled that this user may not insert LaRouche material into articles not closely related to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 00:29, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

That said, LaRouche and his organisation have written some interesting things concerning the CCF. Regardless of that user's affiliations, the only other detailed account I found so far, besides F.S. Saunders work was that of the LaRouche movement, through whom I became aware of the whole CCF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemesis1981 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV[edit]

There's a definite slant from the "LaRouchian" perspective. I have no views on LaRouche or his movement either way (though the "hating Newton" thing is somewhat puzzling), but I certainly take exception when certain views are presented as facts, as they clearly are in this article. I don't feel I have any credentials, or the history, to develop this article toward an NPOV standpoint, but I think it's important for someone to look into it.

-- Yossarian 03:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This page still is highly slanted towards a LaRouchite/conspiracist POV. There is plenty of material from reputable sources, and the CIA connection is well-covered in many of these sources. The link to bilderberg.org is especially toubling since it has been criticized for promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories, as has the LaRouchite network.--Cberlet 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- I removed the LaRouche reference. It stuck out like a sore thumb - and really - should we even be citing some conspiracy pamphlet with such an inflammatory title as "Children of Satan III - the Sexual Congress of God Knows What."? It sounds like a bad sequel to an even worse rip-off of the Exorcist movie series. I actually made it over to this page after reading the (sadly all too brief) article on Richard Wright.----- ---- Wellesradio

CEC reference?[edit]

I suggest removing the CEC Web page from "External Links". Its focus is on other matters, and doesn't belong there. Agree? --Cultural Freedom talk 11:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I'll remove it. --Cultural Freedom talk 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: CIA front organizations[edit]

I've removed this. The Congress was CIA-funded, that's different from being a "front organization". A CIA front organization is an organization that is part of the CIA, but pretends not to be. The Congress was not part of the CIA (though it hid its funding source; but that's a different matter). --Cultural Freedom talk 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says established and funded, which would make it a CIA proprietary in the same sense as RFE/RL (identified as a CIA proprietary in the Church report). For part of its existence, anyway. Gazpacho 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the intro a bit to reflect historical reality better (though it's still too strong). Now the removal the "front" category should make more sense. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 17:22 (UTC)

Frankfurt School[edit]

Before I add the stuff in, am still researching this all, I thought I would throw open the discussion concerning the Frankfurt School and the CCF. Such names as Adorno, Horkheimer and Arendt come up. Is it then to be stated of at least Hannah Arendt's relationship to the Nazi Martin Heidegger? To what extent can we determine the interconnection of the FS and the CCF? Is it fair to say that Adorno was the father of modern music? Or, what is the extent that one might say the CCF intentionally pushed the works of the 'artists' it supported? Just some thoughts from me. --Nemesis1981 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to find the reliable sources first. Adorno does not seem to be widely regarded as the "father of modern music", and it's not clear how that would be relevant to this article. In fact, none of the names you mention are currently in the article. Let's not try to draw original conclusions, but simply summarize what others have already written. Discussions of individuals would be best included in their bios. -Will Beback · † · 05:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not draw original conclusions, should the evidence point to it? Of course, the original conclusions would be drawn first on the talk pages, but only once discussed with thinking people, who would pose questions, which would then have to satisfactorily be answered, would I then place the article/changes on the page. Would you not agree? You see, the names I mentioned come up in such sources as Saunders (see main page). Will, do you have the book? If not, I recommend getting it, very detailed book, from what I have read so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemesis1981 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).--Nemesis1981 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do it that way because we decided not to do it that way when Wikipedia was founded. See "No original research", one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Our job is simply to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If Saunders mentions the above names in a significant way in regard to this subject then we can summarize what he says. But we can't make it up ("conclude") it on our own. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of the Australian Monarchy in Whitlam's Dismissal[edit]

Who wrote this?:

"Although the ultimate decision would have been made by Queen Elizabeth II, the British-based Royal Family is, unsurprisingly, traditionally on the Right. Thus, little or no resistance would have been offered when John Kerr presented his proposal to the Australian Monarch."

I'm deleting this because anybody with the vaguest familiarity with Australia's constitution would know that the Queen of Australia does not have the power to make the "ultimate decision" on Australian matters. All Royal powers and prerogatives are vested in the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Even on the occasions where the Queen is present in Australia, she must obtain the permission of the Governor-General to exercise any of her abilities. Kerr advised the Queen of his decision to sack Whitlam after the event. Anyway, it has often been said that the Queen is centre-left of politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.10.212 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if something is said often then it is fact? David Icke has said the Queen is a space alien shape shifting reptile and he claims to have proof. He said it often, so maybe we should include that here too? This is yet more evidence that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, rather a chalk board in a public lavatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article[edit]

I am perplexed as to why the article was created under this name. I thought perhaps it had been created as Congress for Cultural Freedom and subsequently moved, but "Congress for Cultural Freedom" has always been a redirect page. Ditto for "International Association for Cultural Freedom" -- which, at least, was actually its name during its latter phase. I really don't see any rationale whatsoever for "Association for Cultural Freedom". Considering that the vast majority of people know of it as the "Congress for Cultural Freedom", and also given that "Congress for Cultural Freedom" is used in the lead sentence, it seems to me that the name of the article should be changed to reflect those facts. Any objections? Cgingold 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

  • Activities - almost none, a war against Pablo Neruda.
  • CIA - main part of the article.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted paragraphs[edit]

[1]:

In December, 2005, the Washington Times published a commentary by Paul Greenberg[2], in which Greenberg praised the activity of the CCF and equates it with the recent activities of the Bush administration, where government money was used to purchase the services of Iraqi and American journalists and editors, in order to publish stories favorable to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Headtransplant (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congress for Cultural Freedom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy unclear[edit]

Maybe it's hard to source the kind of assessment I would like to see, but I don't get a clear picture of the effectiveness of this organization though the material presently contained in this article.

This is the kind of thing I would expect to see quite a bit of, given the apparent scope of activity:

In the early 1960s, the CCF mounted a campaign against the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, an ardent communist. The campaign intensified when it appeared that Neruda was a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964 but he was also published in Mundo Nuevo, a CCF-sponsored periodical.

However, it appears Neruda actually did win this prize. So what did this effort to oppose even accomplish? — MaxEnt 19:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Science Review[edit]

search "Social Science Review" "Congress for Cultural Freedom"|"International Association for Cultural Freedom" -Wiki -Wikipedia -Revolvy -Alchetron -omicsgroup -howlingpixel

there are many similar journals, also, try to find journals that endured later, thanks.
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

Hello all I have removed the references to the CCF being a propaganda organization as this is pejorative term which is not consistent with a NPOV and is not supported by the cited source. Only one source, Laetitia Zecchini (2020), is cited to support the propaganda statement. However, this source does not state that the CCF produced propaganda it is talking only about India and states that several Indian cultural figures were concerned about Communist propaganda and the potential for literature to be reduced to propaganda.

Just to be clear, if someone can come up with a reliable source that states that the CCF was a propaganda organization (there are bound to be some) then that can be included but the view should be attributed to that source and not presented in the wikipedia voice. There are plenty of opposing views, such as those of Coleman, which the article mentions.

The term propaganda implies deliberate lies and distortions for political purposes. The CCF produced many sophisticated essays by some of the world's most respected intellectuals. No everyone who promotes Marxism is a propagandist, and not everyone who criticises Marxism in the name of social democracy or democratic liberalism is engaged in propaganda.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom&oldid=1206771984"