Jump to content

Talk:MKUltra

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Svyatoslav (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 25 July 2012 (Contradiction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleMKUltra is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
November 25, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 2, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Findnotice

When did MKUltra end

The second sentence of the introduction says that the project "began in the early 1950s [and] continued at least through the late 1960s". This may well be correct but I don't have time to wade through the 4 or 5 substantial sources given, and I have a reference from The Observer that the project continued "well into the 70s", so as per WP:BOLD I am going to change the aforementioned sentence. If I'm wrong then simply revert it.Farrtj (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casing of MkUltra

I have changed all the references (with the exception of the article title, although I've contacted an admin about changing it) to "MKULTRA" with "MKUltra" as is the preferred casing of The Guardian, The Times, The New York Times and The Independent. Farrtj (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Farrtj (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Project ARTICHOKE

Oppose: The MKUltra page is long enough and as large a topic as we want already. We don't want it to be made any larger. Farrtj (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Both are notable topics, and are covered in depth by enough sources, that they warrant their own articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been up since March, with no discussion I've gone ahead and removed the merge tag. If the person that added it cares enough, they can come here and post an explanation for why they think the articles need to be merged. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The heading reads: "1984 U.S. General Accounting Office Report".

The text reads "The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report on September 28, 1994, which stated that between 1940 and 1974, DOD and other national security agencies studied thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances."

Which is correct? 1984 or 1994? Svyatoslav (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]