Talk:Agent provocateur

I pretty much deleted Reddi's afternoon of work on this article. Sorry, but that's what good editors do. For the record, Reddi's changes were well intended and definately not vandalism, but they were misguided for several reasons. If I am going to change things, I should explain:

I am just trying to put in facts and not trying to vandalism anything...

they were misguided? hmmm .... =-\

Deleted: "Agent provocateur's main purpose is to engage in securing evidence against an individual or organization."

Why: Simply not true. An agent provocateur is not an informant. An agent provacateur is a person who provokes. If someone can present evidence of other popular uses of the term Agent Provocateur, I'll leave it, but I know of no occassions when "provocateur" is used to describe an informant. Some Cointelpro informants might have been "dual use" infiltrators, but provocation and gathering information are two distinct and different jobs assigned to infiltrators.

An agent provocateur are used as informants.

If one plans to succeed as an editor, one might consider first learning the basics of English. "Subject verb agreement" refers to the subject and verb having the same tense, number, etc. "An" (singular) does not match "are" (plural). Reddi's edits are laden with such juvenille errors of grammar and with similar errors of logic. In as much as the volume of edits grows, and the volume of obvious grammatical errors grows, my efforts to identify useful elements of the edits will naturally decrease, and my tendency to arbitrarily revert will increase.

"succeed as an editor"? I'm not in this to "succeed or fail" ... or gain "status" ... i'm here to just give info ...

"laden with such juvenille errors of grammar"? attacking my use of language is not a high point in discussions [usenet had a rule on that, it's basically a red herring / diversion] ... and the juvenille coment is a personal attack which does not help your points (mainly distracts from them)...

"similar errors of logic"? IYO ...

[snip "volume"]

arbitrarily revert will be meet in kind then, not that I would want that .. but arbitrarily reverting is not a good thing ...

An agent provacateur is a person who provokes, but they are used to inform legal authorities ...

present evidence of other popular uses? I'll get back to this ... [with a link, hopefully]

Informants have been "dual use" infiltrators ...

From what i can tell, the agent provocateur's provocations and gathering information are not as distinct and different as you imply ...

Right, and some mechanics are also fathers but an article about the mechanics's profession would not be an appropriate place to discuss parenting. I would encourage researching a topic and starting an orignial article that might have less chance of getting edited. Time spent arguing for idiosyncratic views of simple topics will probably be wasted time.

I did do a bit of research ... have you?

"idiosyncratic views"? IYO ...

Starting an orignial article? mabey that could be an option for some of the disagreements here ...

Deleted: Agent provocateurs are also secret agents that incites illegal acts. Agent provocateur are presumed worthy of credit through gaining the trust of the individual or organization, only later engaging in a criminal conspiracy and commit offences

Why: Subject/verb disagreement could be fixed with a simple copy edit, but the first rule of dealing with editors is not to leave loose ends for them to fix. If grammar needs fixing i.e. if it is not correct the first time, an editor might chose to let it stand, with corrections, if the concept is strong. But poor grammar coupled with weak concepts invites deletion - not just here but in most editorial processes. Also, there is not neccessarily a time element in a provacateur's work. A provacateur might not even be known to group members, but might appear during a demonstration and begin throwing stones from among a group of otherwise peaceful demonstrators.

If grammar needs fixing, correct it, an editor might chose to let it stand,

weak concepts? IYNSHO ...

There may not neccessarily be a time element in a provacateur's work, bbut to be effective take time ... while it may be true that some provacateur might not even be known to group members, the effective ones usually are ...

Oh, I see Reddi does not understand subject/verb agreement, but IS an authority on the usual traits of agents provacatuer. Choice of the descriptor "usually" is ample evidence that the concept is weak and not likely supported by fact or by research.

Nvr said I was an authority on agents provacatuer, but had some information about it (from a bit o' research and what I knew before)...

concept is weak? IYNSHO ... and it is supported by facts and research [look it up]

Reverted and replaced: Agents provocatuer are employed to disrupt or discredit a group, by performing acts for which the group will be falsely accused, by leading the group into activities that they would not otherwise pursue or by creating discord between group members.

Why: It is accurate copy that summarizes the several provacateur tactics described elsewhere in the article.

Deleted: Agent provocateurs implicates the individual or organiation as accomplice by accepting contraband, receiving contraband, obtaining contraband, soliciting contraband, agreeing to accept contraband, or attempting other offences.

Why: We are not writing a legal contract where every possible interpretation of "obtaining contraband" must be spelled out. The use of contraband by agents provacateur is not out of the question, but it is not a common or well understood tactic, and probably does not deserve mention unless the writer can suggest a real-world example. The "implicates as accomplice" angle probably leads to better examples. On a second reading, I wrote: "An agent provocateur might attempt to implicate as an accomplice an innocent target who the agent unwittingly involves in a crime or criminal conspiracy."

not writing a legal contract where every possible interpretation of "obtaining contraband" must be spelled out? but why not include them? it is possible (ala. not out of the question)

so only a common or well understood tactics should be included? why linit it?

does not deserve mention? real-world example? Agent provocateur as informants (but you set up this up to "discredit" it and is part of "implicates as accomplice")

reader service, That's why. THe page is here to serve readers, not to serve contributors. We could write infinite pages of irrelevant prose. Essentially, if it is not common or well understood, there is no basis to provide accurate and fair information here. Uncommon tactics might be relevant, but a listing of a half dozen slightly different versions of the same uncommon, unreported rare theoretical circumstance only makes readers eyes glaze over.

reader service? that a point to leave in the information ... the page is here to give readers INFORMATION (but mabey not ... see next line).

Essentially, if it is not common or well understood, there is no basis to provide accurate and fair information here? so you are advocating just vinalla info? oh my ... mabey SourceWatch isn't as useful as I thought it was ...

[snip uncommon]

readers eyes glaze over? YMMV on that ...

AND deleted: The long list of dead wikilinks.

Why: If even one in three of the links was active, it might indicate a work in progress. But there were no articles related to the links and dead links can make the site seem like a broken-down place for users unfamiliar with the process.

Isn't all of this a "work in progress"? It also invites other editors to creat the articles ....

Yes. That is why it is important not to leave tools laying around, metaphorically speaking. The work underway should represent a high standard that encourages others to endeavor toward the same high standard. That is why I am taking time from my day to delete the list of marginally relevant and mostly dead wiki links. If someone writes coherent articles that contribute to the understanding of agents provacatuer and they are listed as "see also" links, I will consider leaving them for more than 12 hours. And more or less, this part of the site is already off topic. The main focus is a database of PR firms, industry spokespeople, etc. Discussion of propaganda techniques and the weed-bed of other topics emerging apparently diverge from the site's main mission, but are generally accepted. For this reason, since many of my contributions are on the off-center part of the mission, I am attempting to adhere to some sort of standard. If I see non-sensical gibberish, I will delete as I see fit. I'm headed for the very poorly written "anger" article next... As I recall, the premise of that article is "Anger is a propaganda technique" Not very profound.

laying around? the "tools" are uneful when they are available ... when you need to have the "tool" it should be in hand's reach [not in the locked cabinet] ...

"High standard"s? Leaving info out is not a "high" standard ...

[snip coherent part]

"part of the site is already off topic.

The main focus is a database of PR firms, industry spokespeople, etc. ... and, as a related issue, the discussion of propaganda techniques (which they use) ... it is relevant ... you might not see that [but it is on the front page] ...

[snip "off-center" part]

"non-sensical gibberish"? IYNSHO ...

"delete as seen fit"? great ... appearantly you are a "Rampant Deletionist" ... wonderful, seen types like that before ...

"poorly written"? It doesn't bother me that you attack my writing skill, and they just distract from you arfuements (see above)...

"Anger is a propaganda technique" next? thanks for the heads up ... I'll make sure you didn't delete out relevant info ...

"Not very profound"? ok (another attempt @ a personaly attacl) ... but it was on the techniques page ... and needed to be filled in ... why not add to it? oh yea, almost forgot, deletionist ....

"broken-down place"? IYO ... I see it as an invitation to edit ... also, users unfamiliar with the process should get aquainted with the process ...

Overall, Reddi's contributions are well intended, useful and usually well thought out. Unfortunately, this one didn't hit the same high standard.

Thanks ... I am trying to be constructive and not destructive ... sorry you didn't think this was useful ...

For guidance on when to edit, one might ask: "Do I have any new information to add to this article?" "Is my understanding of the subject reliable enough to improve what is already there?" "Do I intend to take the time and effort to make sure my contribution is corrected, spell-checked, read and re-read?"

"new information to add?" yes there is ...

"understanding reliable to improve?" generally yes (it is a common subject) ...

"take time and effort, contribution corrected"? yes i did research it ...

"take time and effort, contribution spell-checked"? I'm not an english major nor a dictionary ... (ala. "I only speak two languages, English and Bad English.")

That would be "poor English" It appears to me you speak only one language.

It's called americanish ... get over it ... Reddi

" contribution read and re-read?" that is what peer review is all about [from my experience in other wikis) ...

And one final note, I think the plural of agent provacateur is agents provacateur. The plural possessive, as best I can figure is "agents provacateur's". Anybody have any wisdom on this?

any wisdom on this? nope sorry ... could look it up though ...

---

Well, a few minutes later, I figured out the best plural possessive approach is to drop the "agents" and simply refer to provacateurs' when speaking in plural possessive.

And another note - "secret agent" is a cool term, and it might fit well for some provacateurs, but many are more like political operatives. And the goal of this site is not really to explain spy-craft, such as defining distinctions between agents, officers and operatives (hint:it depends on the agency), so I don't think references to secret agents or intelligence operatives particularly inform an understanding of intentional provocation in the propaganda arena.

"secret agent" does fit some provacateurs (and not others) ...

"secret agent" as political operatives? I suppose some are ... and political operatives do influence public opinion

"goal of this site not spy-craft ... nope ... but this site is a directory of organizations (and individuals) that work to influence public opinion of which "secret agent" are implemented to do exactly that ...

"you don't think references to secret agents or intelligence operatives particularly inform an understanding of intentional provocation in the propaganda arena? YMMV on that ....

Sincerely, Reddi 10:07 5 Nov 2003 (EST)

Let me be more specific. An intelligence agent or a secret agent is usually the employee of a government. Not all "assets" are "agents." In my studies of domestic political movements (in the US), provacatuers introduced by the government are seldom "agents" ... they are more often "assets" directed by an agent. But more often, provocation occurs in the vast world of political and social activism. The employers of provacatuers would seldom, in that arena, be government employees, but rather, they are supporters of opposing political or social organizations. The concept of "Secret Agent" introduced as a concept where it only has marginal relevance unbalances the description of agent provacatuer vis a vis what most likley happens in the real world. It makes the article read more like an adolescent spy novel than an accurate description of propagnada techniques.

Intelligence agents (i.e., secret agent) are 'usually employees of a government ... but corporations have them too [it's part of what's called corporate espionage]

Provacatuers are seldom "agents"? Seldom ... more like infrequently (sometimes they are and othertimes they are not)... that could be pointed that out in the article (or in a new article) ...

and yes, some "assets" are "agents" ... some are not ...

In my research of historical movements, provocation occurs in the corporate-political arena (and the socio-political theater) .... provacatuers are government employees [sometimes] or are alluded to as government employees ... now I don't discount that they can be independent supporters of opposing political or social organizations too, but being inclusiin (not exclusive) here should be the goal ...

The concept of "Secret Agent" has "marginal relevance"? IYO ... at times it is highly relevant ... YMMV ...

"unbalances the description'"? Then qualify it ... don't just remove the info ...

[LOL@adolescent spy novel; methinks that was an attempted swip, mabey, mabey not]

Just try to give the robust version and help the accurate description of this propagnada technique. Improving is much better than removing ...

Sincerely, Reddi