Talk:Edgewood Arsenal experiments

Untitled

This article needs a complete rewrite: the current text is unsourced, apparently highly POV, and appears to be written by someone whose first language is not English. The topic seem to be real [1] [2], but beware, it appears to be of great interest to conspiracy theorists. -- Karada 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a substantial amount to this article in the way of documentation. While I am not a user, I have written under the name Valtin at Daily Kos and can be found at http://valtin.dailykos.com. This addition does not constitute a complete rewrite, but I feel is substantial enough to remove the warnings on the page.

I went back and worked on it some more, and consider it now worthy of rewrite status, with plenty of documentation. Quotes are from U.S. government sources only and are not subject to copyright restrictions. 68.126.150.26 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Valtin, sfpsych@gmail.com, www.valtin.dailykos.com

Disputation of Neutrality: The langauge of this article is strongly biased in favor of an unsubstantiated and critical view of the experiments conducted at Edgewood Arsenal. Key facts that require much stronger substantiation in this article are:
1) That there is any relationship of any kind between the experiments conducted at Edgewood and the Nazis and/or Operation PAPERCLIP,
2) That there is any relationship of any kind between the CIA Operation MKULTRA and the experiments conducted at Edgewood Arsenal (note: this is explicitly contradicted by John Marks in his groundbreaking book on MKULTRA, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate"),
3) That subject participation in the Edgewood Arsenal experiments did not involve a reasonable degree of informed consent as operationally appropriate to the experiments being conducted.

In the absence of such documentation, it is highly inappropriate to use language such as "victims of the experiments", and to suggest, as the authors have throughout the article, that the experiments involved deception, coersion, and malfeasance.

note from disputer Having re-examined some of the infromation on this matter i withdraw objection (2), having found evidence that the CIA ORD co-ran project OFTEN with the army at Edgewood arsenal to investigate the effects of drugs and toxins on animals and humans. I note that MKULTRA was discontinued was disbanded in 1963, prior to project OFTEN.

Article is biased and manipulativeI am new to Wikipedia, and didn't want to offend by editing directly but this article is biased and manipulative. It seems the only definitive usage was CS and CN gas which is tear gas. Alleging use of mustard and other gases and claiming that it is "said to be related to or part of CIA mind control programs" and then only backing up CS usage is very misleading. I am a former Army soldier myself and *every* soldier is exposed to CS gas as part of basic training. At moderate levels it is only a mild irritant. Experimenting the effects of these is hardly the conspiracy the article alleges. Alxross (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased article

I completely agree with the above writer, this article's second half is completely biased and non-neutral, as Wikipedia should be. This entire article should be re-written. I'm going to recommend to Wikipedia it be removed until the article can be rewritten in a non-biased way, with verifiable and supportive information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.40.129 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is a bald-faced propaganda treatise and should be deleted.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

first-person, NPOV, unreferenced... and many other problems

whilst i strongly feel that this article should exist, the current state of it is terrible. it reads like an essay, it's unreferenced, large portions of it are written in the first person, and the general tone is very unencyclopaedic. a complete rewrite with references is needed, but it has the potential to be a very interesting article if this happens. --Kaini (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- current article is total garbage. I'm planning on working on this and a lot of other articles related to human experimentation in the United States soon. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)