Talk:Team B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article exerpts on team b, not mentioned in the article yet:[edit]



By Sam Tanenhaus

Still, the debate persists, as much because of the panel's methods as its findings. While some Team B reports (for instance, Wolfowitz's on intermediate-range missiles) were closely reasoned, others drew on what Pipes himself calls "soft evidence" such as Soviet "theoretical writings that showed they didn't share the MAD doctrine." (That is, the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction," the premise that both sides would avoid a first nuclear strike for fear of unleashing armageddon. At times, Team B performed logical somersaults that eerily foreshadowed Bush administration statements on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Just because superweapons like a "non-acoustic anti-submarine system" couldn't be found, Pipes's report argued, that didn't mean the Soviets couldn't build one, even if they appeared to lack the technical know-how.

Books in Review;An Indispensable Historian The American Spectator February 2004

Pipes believed that the Sovietologists who dominated Soviet studies were no better than the British appeasers of the 1930s. This conviction lead to his growing political involvementofirst with Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a leading critic of the Nixon-Kissinger policy of dEtente; then with the conservative Stanford Research Institute; and then as the chairman of "Team B," a group of scholars created in 1976 at the behest of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Members of PFIAB had grown increasingly uneasy about the CIA's complacent evaluation of the Soviet Union's massive nuclear buildup of the 1970s, and Team B was tasked with developing an alternative analysis.

Pipes and his fellow team members concluded that the CIAothough highly well-informed about the quantity and quality of Soviet weapons--understood next to nothing of Soviet intentions. CIA analysts took it for granted that Soviet strategists, like their American counterparts, regarded nuclear weapons as defensive tools designed to deter a potential attack. But Pipes, with his knowledge of the Soviet mindset and the Leninist political tradition, demonstrated that Soviet strategists believed that a nuclear war could be fought and won, and were in the process of creating a nuclear force-structure with an offensive, war-winning capacity. U.S. complacency in the face of these offensive Soviet deployments, Pipes warned, risked "potentially catastrophic consequences."

Team B's conclusionsoconfirmed nine years later by Soviet authorities during the final, glasnost phase of Soviet historyowere widely ridiculed by the usual liberal critics, but they deeply influenced Ronald Reagan's critique of dEtente. And when Reagan was elected president in 1980, Pipes was asked to join the National Security Council as the head of its East European and Soviet desk.

Yes, He Has Lived National Review November 24, 2003, Monday Books, Arts & Manners; Volume LV, No. 22 By JAY NORDLINGER Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger, by Richard Pipes (Yale, 264 pp., $30)

For half a century, Richard Pipes has been one of the world's foremost scholars of Russia, and a man of political and policy influence as well: In the 1970s, he headed "Team B," the group directed to challenge the CIA's assumptions about the Soviet Union (which were wrong). And in the early 1980s, he served on the National Security Council staff of President Reagan. From the time of his birth in Cieszyn, Poland, to now, when he has assumed emeritus status at Harvard, Pipes has lived a rich, meaningful life. Fortunately, he has the ability to recount it, richly and meaningfully.

Robert Novak Slate Magazine October 2, 2003, Thursday Chris Suellentrop

The notion that the CIA perpetually understates the strength of America's enemies is a central neoconservative article of faith. (And it's a notion that's been disputed by Fareed Zakaria, among others. In the June 16 Newsweek,Zakaria wrote: For decades some conservatives, including many who now wield great influence, have had a tendency to vastly exaggerate the threat posed by tyrannical regimes.) It dates to at least the 1970s, when Richard Pipes led Team B, a group of outside experts thatconcluded that the CIA was understating the military might of the Soviet Union.

What Was Rumsfeld's Role?[edit]

In the article, "Rumsfeld" is mentioned once ("The CIA strongly disagreed with Team B's assessments, calling Rumsfeld's position a 'complete fiction' and [...]"), but there's nothing in the article which explains what role Rumsfeld had with Team B. What was his role? If he is to be mentioned, I think the text should clarify that. --Majic 12:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he had the same role as he did with the fictioanal WMDs, he helped create the team B, then hyped its fictional findings. For a definate answer, please read some of the articles provided, they will have the answer.Travb 16:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to "Rumsfeld" (presumably Donald Rumsfeld), as his role in Team B is never described in the article. If someone wishes to restore this information, please explain in the article what role he had before citing his "position". Otherwise, it's as meaningless as mentioning former governor Ronald Reagan's "position". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't delete information without reading what I asked you too. As it clearly says here ( :
Above reference does not exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"Rumsfeld began to make speeches alleging that the Soviets were ignoring Kissinger’s treaties and secretly building up their weapons, with the intention of attacking America."
"The CIA, and other agencies who watched the Soviet Union continuously for any sign of threat, said that this was a complete fiction. There was no truth to Rumsfeld’s allegations. But Rumsfeld used his position to persuade President Ford to set up an independent inquiry. He said it would prove that there was a hidden threat to America. And the inquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives, one of whom was Paul Wolfowitz. The aim was to change the way America saw the Soviet Union."
So he helped create team B, just as he created the bogus intellegent assessments for the WMD's. Add this into the article as you see fit. You obviously ignored my suggestion. Travb 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Typed in team b and rumsfeld in google[edit]

I typed in "team b" and rumfeld and here is what I found:

San Francisco Chronicle[edit]

In the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon's policy of detente was under attack by some former military officials and conservative policy intellectuals, Ford administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were among those challenging as too soft the CIA's estimate of Moscow's military power.

Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to create a "Team B," which would have access to the CIA's data on the Soviets and issue its own conclusions. Cheney, as White House chief of staff, and Rumsfeld, as secretary of Defense, championed Team B, whose members included the young defense strategist Paul Wolfowitz, who a quarter-century later would be one of the chief architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1][edit]

Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.

"The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they ’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing."

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good. [2][edit]

Many of the very same people who deliberately created the misimpression about Iraq to goad the American people into supporting a war had already executed a run-through of the same strategy in the 1970s. Back then, establishment hardliners associated with the now defunct “Committee on the Present Danger” heaped scorn upon the professional intelligence services for their alleged underestimation of Soviet military capabilities. They succeeded in convincing then-CIA Director, George H.W. Bush, to appoint a now infamous "Team B" to go through the same material and come up with an answer that would justify a vast increase in U.S. defense spending. With the powerful political patronage of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, its members, including Paul Wolfowitz, came up with astronomical numbers for alleged Soviet military spending and capabilities. As Newsweek’s Farred Zakaria, a moderately conservative war supporter, has observed, “In retrospect, Team B’s conclusions were wildly off the mark.” It argued, for instance, that back in 1976, the Soviets enjoyed "a large and expanding Gross National Product." It credited them with double the number Backfire bombers the nation could actually produce. It turns out that even the CIA’s much pilloried estimates for Soviet military capabilities were far too generous. Sounding very much as if he were talking about Iraqi WMD capabilities 30 years later, Rumsfeld claimed, “No doubt exists about the capabilities of the Soviet armed forces.” Think Again: Team 'B' [3] Travb 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

POV check[edit]

This article is pretty well sourced, but completely one-sided. It seems to be a little sloppy in places in terms of quotes used, connections drawn etc. There are a couple instances of scare quotes and pejorative labels. heqs 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please continue to find sources that make it "less POV" (ie supportive of your view). I welcome this. Good job adding the quote. Please continue.Travb (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It just needs a little softening up. I mean this basically reads like a hit piece. heqs 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So do the pieces on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Charles Manson. Sure, any comparison is hyperbole, but the problem is that there aren't many defenders of Team B, because there's not much to defend about the project. This was an end-run around the intelligence agencies whose goal was to justify conclusions that had been made in advance. It's not that controversial a point. I'm all for showing all sides of the story, but sometimes there really isn't that much of an other side. That said, I don't think the article has to be an assassination piece; it should be descriptive, and the various views about Team B should be properly sourced. But we shouldn't try to create an illusion of balance at the expense of truth.--csloat 06:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't have to know anything about Team B to tell that the article was largely written in an ideological tone by person(s) ideologically opposed to the venture. That kinda sets of the alarm bells. Not much of an other side? Let's not pretend that this isn't yet another left-right, dove-hawk, tug-of-war with plenty of ranting and raving on both sides. (And yes, your comparisons are strange.) heqs 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's not a left-right tug of war with ranting and raving on both sides. If you don't know anything about Team B, you should read some of the sources listed here, or do your own research if you don't trust the sources cited here. You'll see that there really isn't much defense of Team B to include here. It was a politicized organization whose goal was to develop intelligence to support conclusions that had already been reached rather than the other way around. That's why people are so critical of it. If you find information that it had other goals, please by all means include that information here. But don't accuse people of ideological bias when you admit yourself that you don't know much about the topic.--csloat 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I just reread the article and I don't understand your objection at all. It seems extremely balanced to me. The first section is purely descriptive, and, while there is some criticism (not nearly as much as one can easily find by picking up a few books on the topic, or even through a google search as others note above), the article concludes with positive quotes about Team B. I see you've made a number of changes, so perhaps you've balanced it out yourself. If so, what is the current objection?--csloat 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I didn't know anything about it. I meant that one wouldn't have to, to detect the strong bias present. I've tried to balance it a smidge. Typically, criticism and after-analysis would get its own section, rather than mashing together Team B's findings with its critics. Given the way this particular issue unfolded over the years, the article may be appropriately styled. I'd like to leave the flag up for a few days to see what others think. Thanks, heqs 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me; sorry if I came off too aggressively.--csloat 09:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. I hope that my edits are seen to have improved the article. heqs 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism and after-analysis would get its own section[edit]

Typically, criticism and after-analysis would get its own section, rather than mashing together Team B's findings with its critics. Given the way this particular issue unfolded over the years, the article may be appropriately styled.

I will add a criticism section--good idea.

i really liked your changes. Good job. It is a more balanced article now. I added back three sentences, two of which explain who these people are. But all of the other changes I kept.

Signed:Travb (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back the one-liners about the members. IMO, on a list of names like that, either we give a convenient label (like "hawk") to everyone, or simply state their position at the time (not their future position), or leave it up for people to decide for themselves who they were. Preferably the latter. heqs 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
For instance, you mentioned that Paul Warnke was in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, yet next to Wolfowitz, rather than state he was also a member of ACDA you put a quote that casts him in a less than flattering light. heqs 11:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Team B counter(ed) a group of Team A CIA intelligence officials.[edit]

Team B was a competitive analysis exercise created by American conservatives in the 1970s to counter a group of CIA intelligence officials known as Team A.

I am not sure if Team A was made up of CIA intelligence officials. I don't have access to the book Killing Detente, which talks about this subject ad nauseam right now, and a cursory glance at some of the articles I posted don't come up with much with "team a" so I can't confirm it. Travb (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm reading this article by Richard Pipes and it makes quite clear that Team A was the CIA and Team B was the "outside experts". They met face to face before senate committees and such. It's quite an interesting read. I like how Pipes takes a rather dispassionate, clinical approach when discussing these things, even though he was directly involved. One of the things he touches on is that much of the media reaction at the time was unfounded, as the documents themselves were all classified. It was Pipes himself who pushed for declassification. (IMO, the only serious criticism of Team B started with Cahn's research and FOI requests) heqs 09:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thanks for clarifications.Travb (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Aren't there basically 3 subteams to team B?[edit]

  • The weapons and detection system predictions seem complete garbage.
  • accuracy (I'm unclear whether their predictions of accuracy was true or not)
  • intentions (Pipes claims that they were 100% correct)

Is there really no counterpoint to Pipes view on Soviet nuclear intentions? If there isn't then the article seems to be somewhat unbalanced to team B's detriment. If there is then perhaps we need to point this out more in the article.WolfKeeper 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The three subteams are indicated in the intro. That said, I agree, and the article is still quite a mess. I must question the reliability of some of TravB's heavily partisan sources. This article was written as a one-sided hit piece on Team B, and could still use an almost complete re-write with a more level headed approach to the whole thing. heqs 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought we had this discussion a while ago; repeating the canard that this was a "one-sided hit piece" is not helpful to anyone. It wasn't and it isn't. There were some balance issues that you helped sort out, but that claim is unfounded, and you removed the NPOV tag after your problems with the article were addressed. But your view of Team B seems to be idiosyncratic; the literature on the issue seems to lean much more in the direction of criticism than even this article does. In any case, I agree this article has problems, but a "one-sided hit piece" it is not. csloat 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's better now than before. It was quite clearly a one-sided article before. "One sided hit piece" is not a canard, I'm only suggesting that the article suffers from the fact that its premise was partisan and could still be improved greatly. heqs 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have complaints about a specific sentence or paragraph please let us know. As I said, your view appears to be idiosyncratic; complaining that a piece relatively fairly representing the consensus view is "one-sided" is a bit hysterical, and calling it a "hit piece" borders on mind-reading those involved in the editing process. Again, I don't think it's helpful at all -- if you have improvements to suggest, please do so. This article is not "one-sided" and it was never a "hit piece." csloat 17:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Report online?[edit]

The report is apparently declassified and presumably public domain, being funded by the government. I googled, but couldn't find it. Anyone know if it's online anywhere?WolfKeeper 20:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like these commies are good for something: Team B Report.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite[edit]

This is just ricoculous:

Team B came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed new weapons of mass destruction such as a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that did not depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable by contemporary Western technology.

The, ahem, “RightWeb” sources need a serious re-evaluation based on the fact that we can now have access to the report. The report (p 35-37) actually argued that despite the NIE’s assessment that the Soviet Navy was not aggressively developing more accurate ASW detection tools and would not be able to deploy new more advanced ASW capabilities in the next 10 years, the evidence in the NIE suggested that they had significantly ramped up ASW R&D, including non acoustic methods (which according to these sources, they were developing non-acoustic detection methods [4], [5]). This section in the report had nothing to do with the development of submarines, just ASW technologies which naturally would include sub based, surface and airborne ASW equipment. Also, the deployment of new ASW equipment would not effect the detectability of Soviet submarines, as the above passage states, but it would effect the detectability of US subs.

In light of the accessibility of the full report, this article could use a lot more work. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Anyone argue that the Rightweb sources can stay? Considering how bad they look and how they completely distorted this material. I would like to remove them all, and replace them with some non-hysterical commentary. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather depends on the commentary. Where is this non-hysterical commentary? Who calls the Rightweb stuff hysterical? You're generally better off adding, taking away is nearly always partisan.WolfKeeper 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would consider expert opinion to be more reliable, which there is a good deal int his case, rather than talking heads who have an opinion on everything. Torturous Devastating Cudgel
No, that's not the way that the wikipedia works. The wikipedia includes all significant points of view. POV is not not NPOV.WolfKeeper 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Provided that they meet WP:V, which favors more academic sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another quick example of Rightweb's truthiness:

Its findings were leaked to the press in an unsuccessful attempt at an October surprise to derail Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential bid.

The leak of the report took place after Carter's election:

To avoid charges of partisanship, they delayed going public with the “Committee on the Present Danger” until just after Jimmy Carter’s November 1976 election to presidency.

  • Cold War Illusions: America, Europe, and Soviet Power, 1969-1989 By Dana H. Allin, pg 61

"The classified B Team report, submitted on December 2, contained the same controversial message. Within a few weeks the main conclusions of the report had been leaked to the press.

  • For the President's Eyes Only, Christopher Andrew, pg 424

Hoping to appeal to conservatives in both parties, the CPD waited until the week after the 1976 election of Carter to go public.

  • Bracing for Armageddon, Dee Garrison, pg 144

That’s why highly partisan sources, from sites like Rightweb, are generally discouraged. They usually abide by the "make it up, and hope no one notices" rule. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Right Web is a reliable resource[edit]

Why use RightWeb as a source? RightWeb is a better source of information than most websites, because it uses other sources to verify its information, and lists them at the bottom of each page. Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, fighting ad hominem fire with the same, TDC / Torturous Devastating Cudgel, who wrote all these sections bemoaning a perceived bias and attempted to rewrite the article accordingly, is a banned sockpuppet. Anarchangel (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OR and SYNT[edit]

As I dig a bit deeper into this material, I find that many of the conclusions of the report, like the NIE's lowballing Soviet spending[6] and Soviet thoughts on MAD/ intents[7] have, in hindsight, merit. Would it be a violation or WP:NOR or WP:SYNT to include this information in this article? The information would not be added to make the case one way or the other, but presented to the reader as a follow up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the report was largely based on plausible conjecture about What Might Happen In The Future based on the information they had at the time. OTOH the CIA based their recommendations on Russian capabilities much more than intentions, which is I think the standard approach. I mean, for example, I might say that I want to take over the world, but if I lack any ability to do that, then it's irrelevant, and there's more where the CIA were coming from I think. I certainly don't think that the CIAs reading of the Russians capabilities were far enough wrong for this to have been significant, indeed the Soviet Union did break up not that long afterwards.WolfKeeper 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So Richard Pipes contention that their reading the intentions more accurately is key is IMO really rather disingenous. He's very probably right, but it doesn't matter.WolfKeeper 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So I find that the article is if anything tending too much towards supporting Team B right now; I mean, they were wrong at the end of the day, on everything significant except intentions.WolfKeeper 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So I don't have a problem with you adding that in, but it would probably unbalance the article to a degree.WolfKeeper 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do think that intentions matter, as one of the narratives of the Cold War was that an end to Detente and a more aggressive stance towards the Soviets, spurred in part by people like Pipes and Scoop Jackson, was what brought the Soviets heads out of the clouds regarding their belief that they could fight a total war and win. The interesting thing about perspectives from people like Kuklinski, Mastny, and Mitrokhin is that the consensus view in Moscow was that they could win a war against the west, and were preparing to do so, from a buildup of defensive capabilities to an expansion of their strategic weapons programs. Example: you neighbor buys a gun and you are asked what his intentions are? Is he going to go target shooting, was his house broken into, or did he say he was going to shoot you after he found out you were plowing his wife? Maybe he only bought an airsoft, and is all talk, or maybe he spent 10 years in Attica for killing someone. The flaw with the thinking of the national security establishment is that they viewed their counterparts in the Soviet Union as their peers in that they believed in parity and MAD, when the majority of them did not. The CIA was also seen as weak in 76, because of the fallout of the Church committee, and as the Soviets were at their zenith in the mid to late 70’s, the NIE very much drove policy.
Yeah right. What if you yourself have got a big rack of guns already, bigger and better than the one your neighbour has?WolfKeeper 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was the essence of the dispute, isn’t it? Was the Soviet Union going for parity and had the MAD mindset, or were they going for supremacy with the winnable nuclear war mindset? The evidence would suggest the latter. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment indicates that you didn't not understand my point.WolfKeeper 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
In any case that was not the essence of the dispute. The essence of the dispute is whether the USSR was ultimately a credible threat or not. The CIA's position was that the USSR lacked the capability. The reports conclusion talked about intentions. History shows that the USSR lacked the capability and broke up within 10 years. The report was wrong. None of the risks that the report talked about were realised; and there were good reasons, known at the time, why the risks were very unlikely to be. I actually laughed out loud at some of ASW parts of the report when I read it.WolfKeeper 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The CIA's position was that the USSR lacked the capability and did not seek and was not building the capability, Team B did not disagree with the first part, but took exception to the second. Not that its a big point, but the breakup was 15 years after, not 10, and few predicted that (Including the CIA). Lauged at the ASW section, what part of the section? Why the risks were never relaized was due in part to the end of Detente. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The 1976 NIE stated that the Soviets would become less aggressive as they became more powerful, and there is a great deal of evidence that counter this assumption. Had the NIE stated that they although the Soviets would remain aggressive and become potentially more aggressive I don’t think this would be a big deal, because at least they had the intent right.
One of the things that first brought me to this page was because I though it was little more than an attack piece, and wanted to correct that. If you object to anything I add (or take away), just let me know. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. So you're highly partisan I expect. I don't care. The wiki rule is essentially, do not take away anything referenced. Even if it's wrong unless it's not backed up by the reference- or unless it's an extreme minority view. You can add stuff that says it's wrong though. Oh yeah, and don't try to balance every little paragraph- the article is the unit of balance.WolfKeeper 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Partisanship has nothing to do with this. I know that wiki is about verification not truth, but some of the sources currently used for criticism are so bad and so full of factual errors that their “fact checking” ability has to be taken into account. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't find that sufficient either, you cannot, as you have done here find one or two mistakes and use that to discredit an entire source; that is nearly always a tool of bias. If we apply that criteria, the entire report should be binned.WolfKeeper 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Its become more and more clear, that it is not one or two errors here and there, but that some of the critical sources used in the article are as error ridden as they claim the Team B report to be. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

not so ricoculous!![edit]

not using sonor would mean a submarine was.... pretty undetectable. should we now undo all of Torturous Devastating Cudgel's edits because of his biased error? Dedwolfen aug13 1:55pm

"Using active sonar is somewhat hazardous however, since it does not allow the sonar to identify the target, and any vessel around the emitting sonar will detect the emission. Having heard the signal, it is easy to identify the type of sonar (usually with its frequency) and its position (with the sound wave's energy). Moreover, active sonar, similar to radar, allows the user to detect objects at a certain range but also enables other platforms to detect the active sonar at a far greater range."

I am sure your vast knowledge of ASW far outstrips mine, but submarines are not the only platforms used for ASW. Also, the Soviet navy was developing and deploying non acoustic ASW platforms from the late 60’s on. The Ka-25 BSh, first deployed in 1967, carried the first Soviet MAD platform. 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Ka-25 uses sonobuoys and dipping sonar which are both acoustic means of detecting sonobuoys, as well as radar[8]WolfKeeper 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There's two sorts of sonar, active and passive. Active is detectable/detects at greater range. Passive has lower range, but does not reveal the listener to other sonar. Submarines take great pains to make their submarines very quiet to decrease the range that they are detectable at, but they AFAIK they still need to go into silent running mode for that to completely work.WolfKeeper 05:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

summaries of part II[edit]

whoever put those in why not use the summaries in the actual report? i am going to change those to the ones in the actual report. they more acurately reflect the silliness of the report. the summaries in the article seem a little "doctored". anyway the article ones are original research i think, a strategic improvement... that down plays some of the more ridiculous claims. Dedwolfen aug 13th 2:51pm

I prefer to use condensed summaries because they are more encyclopedic. "Doctored"? Do tell. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take care when deleting the summaries. I believe they add valuable context and links to relevant articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

the links to the 'relevant' articles were only to the report itself. the summaries in the report were about the same length as your summaries. you were making massive understatements about the material. the ASW section to you meant the report said the 'probability of advanced Soviet ASW research was greater than zero'? that to me seems fanciful. (i am also tickled to find that someone was douche enough to put it back). i will quote the report summary:

"given the extensive commitment of resources and the incomplete appreciation in the U.S. of the full implications of many of the technologies involved, the absence of a deployed system by this time is difficult to understand. The implication could be that the soviets have, in fact, deployed some operational non acoustic systems and will deploy more in the next few years."

the report discussed the probability of DEPLOYED SYSTEMS. it's just curious why you would opt to mischaracterize when there were summaries actually in the report. Dedwolfen NOV 1 4:51pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


This article is sliding into serious POV. Anything that seems to even vaguely disagree with the report is being removed, on what are (IMO) POV grounds; I'm particularly concerned with the summary, I keep returning here and finding that it doesn't reflect the article, and IMO the article doesn't reflect the body of comments that exist on this exercise.

To some extent it doesn't even matter if somebody (notable POV) makes an entirely wrong comment on the report somewhere (either pro or con), if it's notable it needs to go here.

NPOV is NOT the absence of POV it is the collection of (notable) POV.WolfKeeper 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not had as much time to edit this article as I like, but I do agree that it is becoming disjointed. But, as I have always asserted here, a lot of what passes for commentary on this is either ill-informed punditry (Thom Hartmann? come on) from individuals not know for their notability in intelligence studies or taken out of context by editors (one in particular).
For example the quote by George Bush Sr that he concluded that the approach set “in motion a process that lends itself to manipulation for purposes other than estimative accuracy” when cited in full reads: The recommendations that adversarial procedures similar to the Team B experiment be continued, perhaps every other year, is one I oppose. Its not that the experiment was a total failure, to the contrary, the B Team on low altitude air defense made a particular contribution. Rather, it is that, when one sets out to establish an adversarial B Team, one sets in motion a process that lends itself to manipulation for purposes other than estimative accuracy.
Some other concerns I have are that the other two assessments, the one on Soviet ballistic missile accuracy and Soviet air defense, and these are not adequately addressed in the article. There is some more material here that would provide some excellent sources for the article if they can be accessed [9]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're lamenting the fact that there isn't enough positive support for Team B, when none of their projections came true, when they cost America some ill-defined billions or trillions?
To take one example I know something about; the anti-submarine systems, I've actually worked at a company that made these systems, and while there isn't 0% chance that the report could even have been right, the number is very, very, very low. The bit in the report where they said that the fact that submarines were magnetically detected at a mile, when acoustic methods work at tens of miles; that means that the magnetic system was over a hundred times less capable, they can cover 1/100 of the area of ocean. And the likelyhood of a magnetic system approaching the acoustic one's range is extraordinarily poor- magnetism dies away with a fourth power on distance, whereas sound dies away with an inverse square law or in some special cases, an inverse law. Magnetism is essentially impossible to do better than that in the ocean environment because it produced by dipoles, and there's nothing really that can constrain it or channel it to further range. The thing is that the writers of the report knew that.WolfKeeper 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The team had access to a large amount of information, and much of it was obviously not what the report writers made it seem. The whole report is just a political hack job, they were looking for more money and political influence from it, and the truth needn't stand in the way. The report was a political weapon, and was not based on realities on the ground, and that's why none of the predictions came true, because the report wasn't trying to be true.WolfKeeper 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yikes! No reason to be so testy. There would appear to be a plethora of “positive” information about Team B’s assessment, what I was “lamenting” is that none of it is reflected in the article. I would also urge you to reread the portion on ASW. No where does it state that “they said that the fact that submarines were magnetically detected at a mile”; they note that technological improvements in MAD could make this a reality by 1987. This coupled with research in other areas of ASW, could reduce the margin of superiority that the US subforce had.

Magnetic detection[edit]

"Technical break-throughs such as the doubling of the detection ranges achievable by using airbourne magnetic anomaly detection to up to a mile or more,... tend to make the sweeping optimism of NIE 11-3/8-75 very difficult to justify." pg 33

Gee. A whole mile? How is this supposed to locate submarines in an entire ocean with many *millions* of square miles? How is this technology ever going to reach tens or hundreds of miles? How could you even begin to deploy sensors every mile or so? And IRC these sensors are miles of wire being dragged behind an aircraft, I don't think you can even drop them in the ocean because they require forward motion to detect the magnetic field. And don't forget, submarines are capable of countermeasures to it, just like they are capable of countermeasures to sonic detection, I bet the detection range goes way down with suitable countermeasures. And as I say, magnetism is an inverse fourth power on distance, so if you double the sensitivity of the detector, range only goes up by just 20%. With sonar, in some cases doubling the sensitivity simply doubles the range. This bit of the report is just garbage, and that's just a bit I happen to know at all well.WolfKeeper 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the whole report being a “hack job”, that’s your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but if you would like to make that the dominant POV in the article, I would suggest you present sources better informed and credentialed than Thom Hartmann to make that. Some sources certainly do support your POV that the authors were just looking form more money and political influence, others would suggest that in the overall picture, Team B was a valuable exercise, although not without its flaws, and was accurate on many technical issues and most importantly, getting Soviet strategic ambitions right, which was the aim of the panel.

Or to quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a hack, to be sure)
Knowledge is power; and the ability to define what others will take to be knowledge is the greatest power. It is not to be wondered then, that the National Intelligence Estimates--the sources of "official truth"--escape irrelevance only at the price of controversy. Any attempt to improve the estimates will be denounced as an attempt to manipulate them by those who disagree with the new directions they take. The objective standard will be to look at how well one institutional arrangement, or one line of argument, has predicted and explained recent events. In the current case, it would appear that the National Intelligence Estimates of the past dozen years have, by and large, failed this test. The B-Team Report, the heart of which did not find its way into the press, was in my view a creditable attempt to place recent developments in a context which makes them more understandable, and which offers the possibility of greater predictive success. No one should have expected that the intelligence community would accept the entire B Team position; but it should not miss the opportunity, provided by a powerful critique of some of its past failures, to sharpen its own thinking.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article currently uncritically lays out the report, contains a couple of grudging criticisms at the end followed by an uncritical (and to be honest extremely dubious) claim by the group's author that only one point in the entire report mattered at all. As in really? What's the rest of the report there for then? Why did they waste our and their time with writing it then if it was all irrelevant?WolfKeeper 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the report is a factual matter, criticism of these estimates can come later in another body of the report. Or as you said previously:
"don't try to balance every little paragraph- the article is the unit of balance".
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep removing ALL mention of criticism from the summary, and you claim that all critics except a very few are non notable, and that one or two minor errors completely invalidate all points made by any other critics, whereas none of the egregious errors, gross exaggerations and outright falsehoods in the report are worth worrying about.WolfKeeper 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is incredibly one-sided.Perspicacite 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the summary is the worst bit of the article, although the article as a whole needs more positive criticism on the report. Every time you edit it, the summary ends up with a single slant to it, with no other POVs at all.WolfKeeper 05:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone will probably have to go through and review all the content. I'm not sure how you came to all of the above conclusions but you sure arent assuming good faith. Perspicacite 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I initially assumed good faith, but the guidelines do not require me to continue to assume good faith when repeated proof of lack of good faith occurs. For example somebody who multiple times removes a single referenced sentence which is the only even faintly negative criticism in the summary, when there are multiple criticisms described within the article and when the lead is supposed to reflect the article, not the report.WolfKeeper 05:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wolfenkeeper, I think the biggest objection to the sentence removed, is that it states two opinions "Team B seems to have wildly overestimated the capabilities and resources of the Soviet Union, but may have shed light on its intentions and strategies" as fact. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's written from a neutral point of view, it's verifiable, it is not original research, and it cites sources. When you remove it, the lead is no longer written from a neutral point of view. But I'm not opposed to edits that improve the article in any way, provided they adhere to the core values of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


The lead has to be a summary of the article. The article contains summary of the criticism; the lead must contain criticisms also.WolfKeeper 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't follow basic rules of the wikipedia, then your edits cannot stand. NPOV is not a debatable point here.WolfKeeper 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are ridiculous. You cannot present a fringe opinion as though it were fact. You can attribute an opinion to an author, analyst, etc. but you cannot state it as an indisputable certainty. Perspicacite 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a fringe view; it is a factual statement that is well borne out by the evidence. It is also well balanced -- it summarizes the arguments cutting both ways in terms of POV. csloat 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious. Why not try editing productively? Perspicacite 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? csloat 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to explain the copyvios and/or the non-existent references? Perspicacite

The 'non-existent references' are probably due to the mass deletion of references that have occurred. But you must explain what you consider to be a copyvio. I am unable to find one.WolfKeeper 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? This page is on my watchlist so anyone who re-adds that paragraph on Wohlstetter will promptly be referred to WP:AN. Perspicacite 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please no threats. Your tone is concering. I restored all of the mass deletions. I hope that we can find this new edit, with (almost) everyone's edits restored, acceptable.
Wolfkeeper, regarding your two sentence blurb. I see no point in getting in an edit war over this. Readers can simply scroll down to the criticism section. Travb (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the way leads work in the wiki; they are supposed to summarise the entire article. And I'm not hung up on those particular two sentences, but the criticism for and against must be summarised, and that was perhaps my inadequate attempt to do that. But what really bugs me is that whereas the historical position is completely the opposite in that there was no missile gap (well, there was, but the other way around), there was no window of vulnerability, and Russia broke up pretty soon after; and so the report itself and the lead is exactly opposite to the facts. The current lead de facto completely agrees with Team B, but the article body doesn't. How come?WolfKeeper 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to this article User:Perspicacite. I see you have added some sources. Travb (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Which version correct?[edit]

Its findings were leaked to the press shortly after Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential election win in an attempt to appeal to conservatives in both parties and not appear partisan.[1][2]


Its findings were leaked to the press in an unsuccessful attempt at an October surprise to derail Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential bid.[3]

Travb (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the "leak" did not appear until December of 76, I would say the prior. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
But December is the new October! csloat 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Cha-ha. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Travb (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the latter is correct as to the chronology, actually, but as it was unsuccessful, the former is almost close enough. Read what Cahn wrote about it: "Each B team met in September and October and exchanged drafts with their CIA counterparts during October. The first press leak occurred two days after the first meeting of the CIA and Team B members who were examining Soviet strategic policy and objectives." -- Team B: The trillion-dollar experiment, linked from the Team B page, I believe. -- (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


TravB, you need to stop posting another author's work as though it were wiki-original (copyvio). Whoever else added the fake references, as in the pon-ref which never linked to anything, needs to stop. No one should be attributing content to "Right-web" or other obviously unreliable sources. Perspicacite 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What precisely is supposed to be copyvio? Quote it here, along with the link to the web page.WolfKeeper 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking another author's work and pretending it was written by Wikipedians = posting a copyvio. Travb posted[10] content taken directly from Michael Flynn's article on Right Web.[11] He posted it word-for-word. Notice how the paragraph on Wohlstetter is the exact same thing on both versions. Oh, and if there's any question, the Right Web article was published in 2004. Travb posted back in 2005. Not that this matters since Right Web isnt a reliable source in the first place. Perspicacite 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Which bit, precisely? You do know that fair use covers 1-3 sentences, particularly if you're quoting and referencing them???WolfKeeper 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
He isnt quoting the content. He, and you, both posted the paragraph as though it were original content. Fair use has nothing to do with taking another author's work and presenting it as your own and referencing is totally irrelevant. Perspicacite 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
By referencing you are saying that the basic work is somebody elses. Copyright only covers the exact representation, not the ideas behind the representation. The wikipedia contains almost nothing but paraphrasing of other's work. That's what an encyclopedia is. Paraphrasing and referencing many sources and assembling them into an article is called research, and is not immoral or illegal.WolfKeeper 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion.[edit]

I've had CSBot look at both the previous and current revisions and it found no copyright violations (ferreting those out is CSBot's primary function). It is not infallible, since it can only compare (obviously) to online sources, but unless one is provided, there is no indication that any copyright violation is taking place. (Paraphrasing contents from another source may or may not be plagiarism, but it certainly is not copyright violation which requires that prose be copied substantially).

Further reversions using copyright violation as a reason should provide the source of the material copied mostly verbatim, or might be reasonably viewed as disruptive.

In addition, the edit dispute also seem to shift points of view rather strongly, regardless of the invoked reason for the edit. Everyone here should take a moment to assess whether they are striving to remain neutral.

Regardless of allegations of copyright violation, appears to be a reliable source per the guidelines (it is edited, published in print and has notable contributors). Reliable source, however, does not mean neutral, and it's important that no undue weight be given to any one source— especially when its neutrality is disputed.

It's not about the neutrality of the source, it's about the neutrality of the article though, it's perfectly proper to include non neutral sources. NPOV is not the absence of POV it is when all POVs are given appropriate weight in the article.WolfKeeper 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. — Coren (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wohlstetter paragraph is taken verbatim from IRC. I would consider this to be a substantial impropriety regardless of classification as plagiarism vs copyvio. Perspicacite 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Which bit, precisely? Claiming copyvio when there is none is very serious; and you broke 3RR.WolfKeeper 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, 3RR doesnt apply to reverting copyvios. Especially not when the user is warned. Perspicacite 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no copyvio, you have been unable to produce it, when asked multiple times, the bot cannot find it, and neither has anyone else that has looked.WolfKeeper 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Copyvio I think several uninvolved editors summed it up. I notice this editor uses copyvio to push his version of pages often. Travb (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Connally[edit]

Can anyone source John Connally's participation in Team B? Perspicacite 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, taking a closer look I find that most of the grammar is messed up too. I'm done trying to improve this article. Go ahead and revert to the barely intelligible version that attributes its content to far-Left and nonexistent websites. Or, better yet, just post their content and pretend its yours! I imagine it cuts down on the work-load. Perspicacite 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion, I revised the membership section. As per page 6 of the Team B report. Travb (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment section[edit]

Please refrain from deleting large sections of referenced material which does not match your own POV. Sigh, unfortunatetly, this is not the first time I have witnessed this.

I would appreciate this same courteousy with my own referenced edits. If you disagree with the policy assesments of these experts, the easy option is to remove these assessments you simply dont like, the harder route is to actually find contrary sources which contradict these assesments. I welcome the later, and look forward to your addition excellent sources, such as the team b document.

Please explain where in wikipolicy that policy experts cannot be quoted in articles.

I appreciate your additions to the article, quotes from the actual team b document, which I have not removed, and which I would defend if someone attempted to delete, as I did with your referenced additions to Phillip Agees before. Travb (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


  • "there is too much wrong with the factual and POV nature of what you are trying to add"
  • "we should not mix commentary with the factual knows of the report, what the report said is not open to interpretation"
  • "let the repor spell out the contents of the report, leave the commentary to the side"

You mean what you are trying to delete, this material was added long before you began to borderline vandalize this page TDC.

This is factual assessments of how wrong the report was by experts. Since when does wikipedia refuse to allow experts to review the reports and how factually legitimate the reports are?

By "the side", you mean deleted from the article, by your edits, the offical Team B report should be quoted, but the factual accuracy of the report should not be questioned -- sounds rather Orwellian to me. Travb (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Trav, I think that having an assessment is good, but it shouldn't be a editorial or evaluation by WP staff. Perhaps it would be better to use direct quotes from the sources. There seems to be a fine-line between the assessment and criticism sections. Should these be combined? --Kevin Murray 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure combine away :) Travb (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Text of power of nightmares and Rumsfeld[edit]

As per TDC:

  • rumsfeld had no involvement in Team B, therefore the material is inapropriate for the article.
  • Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Team B, and the source cited does not say so

From transcipt

VO: But a world without fear was not what the neoconservatives needed to pursue their project. They now set out to destroy Henry Kissinger’s vision. What gave them their opportunity was the growing collapse of American political power, both abroad and at home. The defeat in Vietnam, and the resignation of President Nixon over Watergate, led to a crisis of confidence in America’s political class. And the neoconservatives seized their moment. They allied themselves with two right-wingers in the new administration of Gerald Ford. One was Donald Rumsfeld, the new Secretary of Defense. The other was Dick Cheney, the President’s Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld began to make speeches alleging that the Soviets were ignoring Kissinger’s treaties and secretly building up their weapons, with the intention of attacking America.

DONALD RUMSFELD, US Secretary of Defense, Speaking in 1976: The Soviet Union has been busy. They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing. Now, your question is, what ought one to be doing about that?

VO: The CIA, and other agencies who watched the Soviet Union continuously for any sign of threat, said that this was a complete fiction. There was no truth to Rumsfeld’s allegations. But Rumsfeld used his position to persuade President Ford to set up an independent inquiry. He said it would prove that there was a hidden threat to America. And the inquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives, one of whom was Paul Wolfowitz. The aim was to change the way America saw the Soviet Union.

MELVIN GOODMAN, Head of Office of Soviet Affairs CIA, 1976-87: And Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war.

VO: The neoconservatives chose, as the inquiry chairman, a well-known critic and historian of the Soviet Union called Richard Pipes. Pipes was convinced that whatever the Soviets said publicly, secretly they still intended to attack and conquer America. This was their hidden mindset. The inquiry was called Team B, and the other leading member was Paul Wolfowitz.

You know TDC, for 2 years I have seen you continuously delete well referenced material over and over and over again. Well referenced material whose only error is this material does not meet your own POV. There are two editors, POV warriors, just like yourself, Rjensen and Ultramarine, who do the same thing, but at least those two add a lot of solid research to wikipedia.

I am going to go to the village pump and see if there is any policy about this behavior. I see it as destructive immature vandalism, like a group of kids slashing tires or breaking car windows, because it simply makes everyone worse off.

You know little, if anything about Team B, TDC, and yet you delete well referenced material, again and again, like a common vandal.

I knew it was complete bullshit when you said Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Team B, and looking at the reference, which it appears you never did, a two minute process, I remembered the was the architect behind Team B. You should not be deleting large portions of the article if you do not know fundamental aspects of Team B.

I personally think you should not be editing this, or any other article on wikipedia if you continue to delete large portions of referenced text. Travb (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the best you can do is a controversial documentary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talkcontribs)
Power of Nightmares meets the definition of reliable source; it was funded and shown by the British Broadcasting Company, which has editorial standards entirely adequate for this source reaching WP:RS.WolfKeeper 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well this would be true and relevant if the above text actually made some substantive statement that Rumsfeld was part of Team B or had any involvement in Team B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talkcontribs)
He set up Team B, for the purposes of this article, that is involvement in Team B, and that is what the text says.WolfKeeper 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ford "set up" an independent inquiry, and as far as I can tell that independent inquiry's name is not given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talkcontribs) 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ford set it up because Rumsfeld successfully lobbied for it. And I must confess I find your English comprehension skills strangely lacking on any point you disagree with, for, if you read the quoted text above, the phrase: "The inquiry was called Team B" appears. You may find that part helpful to your understanding.WolfKeeper 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh sure the crockumentary calls Rumsfeld one of those dastardly neoconservatives, —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talkcontribs)
No, it didn't say that; and neither did the text you deleted.WolfKeeper 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
and then goes to say that those same shekel grubbing neocons created Team B, but this seems a poor connection. If this is such a widely known fact, then perhaps there is another citation from a less dubious source that you could provide. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You can call it dubious if you wish, but I disagree and it clearly meets the definition of RS, having been published by the BBC. Given that, you would have to find a source of equal or higher quality that refutes it. Go right ahead. In the meantime, the text stays in.WolfKeeper 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Got any other sources, because I think this one violates WP:BLP.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? Which part of WP:BLP?WolfKeeper 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." and WP:COATRACK. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Power of Nightmares is about both the kind of fear mongering that the Team B report was about, as well as the Team B report and team in particular. It's not guilt by assocation when the wiki text says that he called for its creation, and the source says the same thing.WolfKeeper 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please by all means, show me in the above text where it claims Rumsfeld was in volved with Team B. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"VO: The CIA, and other agencies who watched the Soviet Union continuously for any sign of threat, said that this was a complete fiction. There was no truth to Rumsfeld’s allegations. But Rumsfeld used his position to persuade President Ford to set up an independent inquiry. He said it would prove that there was a hidden threat to America. And the inquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives, one of whom was Paul Wolfowitz. The aim was to change the way America saw the Soviet Union." WolfKeeper 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You have done a good job trying to turn this article into your own little Idaho, but thats going to end here. I have done a decent job justify the removal of some of the more egregious examples of bad sourcing that dont conform to objective reality (remember, December is the new October and the ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talkcontribs)
This is the wikipedia. Reliable Sources are the only objective reality here. Get a clue on this or get out ---->. If there's a RS that says December is the new October, then it is.WolfKeeper 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That’s the interesting thing, there were dozens sources that relayed the information that the report was released in December, with two sources specifically that the release was timed for December so that it wouldn’t seem partisan and one piece of garbage from "I have an opinion on everything and no one realizes that I am a know nothing asshole", that claimed releasing something in December was the new October. Its up to the editors to see if material meets the standards for inclusion into the article. Perhaps you should refresh yourself with the discussion above before chining in again, it would certainly make you look more credible on this topic. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats the interesting thing, there were many sources and one pice of garbage from "I have an opinipon on everything and no one realizes that I am a know nothign asshole" that perhaps you should take some of your own advice and not make this so personal.
You should really read WP:OWN, and take it to heart, after all, the first thing you did after yuor long haioatus was to come back to these articles and revert months of edits and works by other people. I'll give you credit in that you did not stoop to sockpuupetry (again) but that still does not excuse you ownership of this and other articles.
So, lets go over this again, rightweb, Thom Hartman and your live journal account are not RS’s.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

TDC, your the only one here who removed large portions of referenced text which doesn't meet your own POV--that is the substantial "reversion" I made.

I have kept all of your exellent additions intact, I would ask the same respect.

Your "bias source" argument is typical and predictable. I await your mea culpa.

In the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon's policy of detente was under attack by some former military officials and conservative policy intellectuals, Ford administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were among those challenging as too soft the CIA's estimate of Moscow's military power.

Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to create a "Team B," which would have access to the CIA's data on the Soviets and issue its own conclusions. Cheney, as White House chief of staff, and Rumsfeld, as secretary of Defense, championed Team B, whose members included the young defense strategist Paul Wolfowitz, who a quarter-century later would be one of the chief architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[4]

The new CIA director [Bush] was prompted to authorize an alternative unit outside the CIA to challenge the agency's intelligence on Soviet intentions. Bush was more compliant in the political winds than his predecessor. Consisting of a host of conservatives, the unit was called Team B. A young aide from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Paul Wolfowitz, was selected to represent Rumsfeld's interest and served as coauthor of Team B's report. The report was single-minded in its conclusion about the Soviet buildup and cleansed of contrary intelligence. It was fundamentally a political tool in the struggle for control of the Republican Party, intended to destroy détente and aimed particularly at Kissinger. Both Ford and Kissinger took pains to dismiss Team B and its effort. (Later, Team B's report was revealed to be wildly off the mark about the scope and capability of the Soviet military.)[5]


  1. ^ Christopher Andrew. For the President's Eyes Only. Page 424.
  2. ^ Dana H. Allin. Cold War Illusions: America, Europe, and Soviet Power, 1969-1989. Page 61.
  3. ^ Barry, Tom (February 12, 2004). "Remembering Team B". International Relations Center.
  4. ^ Stein, Jeff (2005). "Bush team sought to snuff CIA doubts Differences over Iraq WMD latest attempt to override agency". San Francisco Chronicle. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Blumenthal, Sidney (2205). "The Long March of Dick Cheney". Salon. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)

Travb (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some additional info that might be helpful here; Rumsfeld is identified as a "major player in the original 1976 Team B exercise" by Gordon R. Mitchell, "Team B Intelligence Coups," Quarterly Journal of Speech 92:2 (May 2006) p. 151. Also, the following from Jason Vest, "Darth Rumsfeld," The American Prospect 12:4 (Feb 26, 2001) p. 20 is quite useful:

totally disputed tag[edit]

The Sept 15th {{totally disputed}} tag[12] I will keep the tag up for another three days or so. I can move the tag down to the criticism section, if everyone agrees.

No one has argued the factual accuracy of anything in this article. I think we can add a neutrality tag. Travb (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of factual issues with the article, and I can find on in the first sections:
Anne Cahn of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, then-CIA director George H. W. Bush, and other critics on both ends of the political spectrum later concluded the Team B project's findings were wrong.[5][6]
From what I cited above, Bush had mixed thoughts about the report, and even thought that the first two sections added welcome additions to the 1976 NIE. And who were the critics on "both ends of the political spectrum" Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice picture, I like pictures too. Travb (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
IRC (and I may not) the graph is possibly rather deceptive- there's several different classes of weapons something like long/intermediate/tactical, and I think America had far more long range weapons, and that was the main problem area. For the purposes of this article, you're mainly interested in what Russia could do to America, and if they have few long range weapons, then in what sense is there a missile gap?WolfKeeper 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Good points, why not add another graph. :) I like pictures. Travb (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the 9/15/2007 "totally disputed" tag has served it's purpose, apparently there are no more factual disputes, removing tag. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricoculous summaries[edit]

i recommend axing the summaries as a) they are longer than the actual report b) they are wildly innacurate misrepresentation of the sources. c) the 'context' that is offered is unsourced fabrication. i put up the SHORTER summaries that were in the actual report but those were removed for some curious reason... Dedwolfen

  • A) Ther report is 50 pages, so little merrit here
  • B) Please give an example
  • C) Please give an example

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

are you talking about the 2 sections? Team_B#Detailed_Sections Didnt you add this section? Travb (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am worried about the summaries as well. They seem to have been written with a view to deflecting criticism rather than to actually summarize what the report said. I don't know for sure of course because they are not properly cited -- the citation just says "Team B Report" and a page number, but where is the actual report? It is apparently declassified but I don't see a link to it here nor do I find it easily on google -- does anyone here have a link to it? I think we'd be better off excising the summaries under section two of the report and simply having the paragraph above them. csloat (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neoconservative category is ridiculous[edit]

No sourcing for such a claim has been made, and as per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, such a categorization should rest on self-identification. In fact, Team B was formed when the movement commonly mislabelled neoconservative was still in its embryonic stage. RayAYang (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Team B was an epic moment in the short history of the movement, that's why it was labeled that way I'm sure. I'll leave the category out until sourcing is established but the point is pretty obvious, and I'm fairly certain a source was given for this quite some time ago. I also believe the other comments you removed (about critics on the right and Mr. Bush) were sourced in a discussion here about a year or two ago but I won't re-add them unless I find the sources. csloat (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Epic moment? It doesn't show up in the article on Neoconservatism at all. If it's relevant, it's perhaps relevant in the same way that the Chinese Revolution of 1912 was an epic moment in the evolution of Maoism. Maoism could not have happened without the Chinese Revolution, which was a precursor. But a neutral observer of history would not say that the Chinese Revolution was a Maoist event, although many of the people who would later make contributions to Maoism got their start in the Chinese Revolution. Just as the Chinese Revolution predated Maoism, Team B predated the evolution of the modern neoconservative foreign policy establishment, which coalesced during the Reagan Administration. RayAYang (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it's not just that it predated it; it's that we saw the same group of people engaged in the same method to pursue the same ends - it just hadn't had a name yet, apparently. It's not just a "precursor"; it's the exact same thing. But again I'm fine leaving this as is until sourcing is established, and it's not important enough to me to look up at the moment. csloat (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You can try, but frankly I'm skeptical as to your success. Paul Nitze is old super-establishment, nobody's idea of a neocon. The others on Team B include US Army officers and the like, to say nothing of Richard Pipes, a Cold Warrior of long standing. Wolfowitz is about the only unambiguous neocon on that list. Interestingly, Irving Kristol, Podheretz, and the like, were creating the neocon movement at about the same time. But this list screams establishemnt and Cold Warrior to me more than neocon. RayAYang (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see those two categories as mutually exclusive, but it's neither here nor there.csloat (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm. How about this reference linking this to neoconservatives: [13]. This is a BBC documentary. The BBC are generally considered to be a reliable source.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious POV issues in the article[edit]

I have noticed that a user named Commodore Sloat is constantly editing the articles, related to the supposed "neocons". I did a cursory check of Commodore Sloat's edits, and it appears the vast majority of them serve to promote his personal viewpoint on the matter, rather then providing facts and other valuable information. Given the persistence of Commodore Sloat's editing, the articles tend to get contaminated with a very distinctive viewpoint. This goes against the fundamental principle of Wikipedia - Neutrality...not to mention that Wikipedia is being [mis]used to promolgate certain political views.Keverich1 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You've probably misunderstood the concept of NPOV. He's allowed to say almost anything provided it's referenced to reliable sources. Only to the extent that he can't back it up with reliable sources, or to the extent that there is consensus that he has gone beyond due weight is he not allowed to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kev is there a specific edit you have a problem with? My edits do not reflect my personal views on anything; they reflect only what can be found in reliable sources on the issues. If you can point to a particular error I've made I'll gladly address the issue and correct it if necessary. csloat (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Team B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

they were correct, not in crystal balling exact numbers but the sentiment[edit]

I've added the largely under reported story of biopreparat and the intended desire to overtake Washington in nuclear superiority.

I'd like better refs for the biopreparat paragraph, than the BBC/who are by no means neutral or scholars but for right now, they'll suffice.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No part of the Team B report discussed Biological weapons, and I don't remember bomb yields being a major issue. Team B was still wrong in every respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Team B. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)