Wikipedia:Featured article review/Project MKULTRA/archive1
Another graduate of the class of '03. While I don't actually dispute any of the statements in the article, or the factual existence of the project, the idea that the CIA tested drugs on unwilling Americans in efforts to research mind control during the Cold War is a little hard for almost anyone to believe. Because of the extraordinary claims, the article demands an exceptionally high level and quality of referencing. Ideally, everything in the sections "Origins" and "The experiments" should be directly cited to the declassified documents and Congressional testimony. In fact, almost none of it is. Other sections are just as bad.
Select statements that badly need to be inline-cited to firsthand documents:
- "Gottlieb was known to torture victims by locking them in sensory deprivation chambers while under the psychedelic influence of LSD, or to make recordings of psychiatric patients' therapy sessions, and then play a tape loop of the patient's most self-degrading statement over and over through headphones after the patient had been restrained in a straitjacket and dosed with LSD. Gottlieb himself took LSD frequently, locking himself in his office and taking copious notes."
- "Fugitive Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger is reputed to have been a voluntary participant in MKULTRA while in prison."
- "Some subjects' participation was consensual, and in these cases, the subjects appeared to be singled out for even more horrific experiments."
- The entire "Canadian experiments" and "Conspiracy theories" sections.
- "Olson's son disputes this version of events, and maintains that his father was murdered due to his knowledge of the sometimes-lethal interrogation techniques employed by the CIA in Europe, used on Cold War prisoners. Frank Olson's body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries suggested Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window."
Also, the "In popular culture" section is a mess.Andrew Levine 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Flew under the radar with ten inline citations: it's too bad a month has to pass before this poorly-sourced theory can be defeatured. Extensive cleanup is also needed. Sandy (Talk) 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Even the modest 10 cites need a vast cleanup, as they're hard to follow. Has weasly statements, and needs a ton of inline cite work (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like this long quote in the lead. Ans the "Popular Culture" shouldn't be listy.--Yannismarou 12:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This article is pretty extensive, but needs more citations. This whole thing can be cited, but someone has to buckle down and actually do so. No discussion of this is present on the talk page for the article, which seems odd to me - it should probably have a section on adding citations. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy and sourcing (1c), prose (1a), and section structure (2). Marskell 07:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. "Pop culture references" is listy, "Budget" is stubby and the whole article is not adequately cited. And, of course, this long quote in the lead I mentioned.--Yannismarou 18:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Remove. The article is in very bad shape: many uncited or poorly cited allegations, the lead is awful, the pop culture section hasn't been reworked, prose is still an issue, and none of these items have been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)