Talk:Stargate Project

CIA docs

The CIA docs were released through FOIA, and each document is labelled with the CREST ID number (CIA-RDP...) that uniquely identifies the document and allows for easy verification at the CIA's CREST database or through FOIA requests sent to CIA. This is more than sufficient provenance and verifiability. TheMikeBest (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600360002-3.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700330002-7.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R000800120005-6.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-00999A000400050012-3.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010092-4.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300420006-3.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000500420001-2.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001000130001-7.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100050001-5.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100050001-5.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001900810001-2.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160012-1.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R003300210002-1.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R003300210002-1.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R000700690003-7.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001400080001-9.pdf
• https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001400090001-8.pdf

--172.94.112.132 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why "Stargate" instead of "Star Gate"?

The article is titled "Stargate Project". But the only sourced statement for the project's final name (in the 1990s section) says:

Its security was altered from Special Access Program (SAP) to Limited Dissemination (LIMDIS), and it was given its final name, STAR GATE.

If the reliable source for the project's name says it's called "STAR GATE", why is the article called "Stargate"?

I suspect there may actually be a good reason to name the article "Stargate" rather than "Star Gate". I'd assume "Stargate" has become a commonly-used name in the crackpot community (who probably got all their information from a combination of Ed Dames' appearances on Art Bell—which, being a radio show, didn't provide the spelling—plus their own imaginations and copying off each other), and that crackpot beliefs about "Stargate" are more notable than the actual series of DoD and CIA projects that includes "Star Gate". But, even if my guess is right, someone would have to find a reliable source saying that—or at least a reliable source referring to "Stargate" instead of "Star Gate". Failing that, the article should be renamed and rewritten to match what its sources say.

I won't change it, in hopes that someone who believes "Stargate" is the best name can find such a source.

But meanwhile, the first sentence refers to it as "StarGate", with a capital "G" but no space, a spelling never used again in the article. It seems a lot less likely that anyone can justify that, so I'll change that now. --50.0.128.21 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to have been no response or action. I think it is time to change the tilte as the above user suggested. Kdammers (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Defamatory content

WP:LIBEL asserts: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". It seems to me that the statement her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation is, in view of its implication that Utts is not an impartial investigator, clearly defamatory in nature, and the text needs to be removed. The fact that it is a verbatim quote makes no difference as far as the law is concerned, and the fact that WP is a very public space rather than a book makes matters worse. In this context, it needs to be borne in mind that Utts was the 111th president of the American Statistical Association, a clear indication of her perceived merit. Bring on the scissors! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I cannot see anything wrong with that quote that wikipedians need to worry about. Lets see if others comment. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, let's see what comes up. I might though add that from a professional perspective I don't find it puzzling that Utts was chosen. After all, one does want to appoint experts, and you would want to have someone expert in the subject, remote viewing, as well as in her professional specialisation that of statistics. I wonder if Marks was really puzzled or was he mainly interested in making a derogatory comment? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
In fact, it is an illogical comment, because Hyman is equally biased in his beliefs but in the opposite direction. The people concerned simply chose people with opposite views to try to get a more complete picture. So there's an even stronger reason for removing the comment on partiality altogether as being completely illogical: we can just leave on one side the question of whether it is defamatory or not. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

So, the sentence in question uses a quote from a book by David Marks where Marks is critiquing the selection of a panel member who, in his view, was not sufficiently impartial and objective: ..."the psychologist David Marks noted that as Utts had published papers with Edwin May "she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation." Wikipedia allows for properly attributed quotes from critics, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, there's something wrong with that quote; it should surely be …"evaluation is likely to be less than impartial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation." When I checked the original in Google books, I saw that the error is in the original (unless Google books somehow added it).[1] I was tempted to change it in Wikipedia's text, with a note, but I don't have time to fiddle with it right now, still less to get into an argument about it. Anybody? Bishonen | talk 16:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

It's weird. That is what the original says, and I'm sure Google didn't change it. Probably a typo that escaped proofreading. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Truly weird. The fact that nobody — from book editor, to author, to WP editors — has caught this typo suggests that most people see the word "impartial" when reading it because the surrounding context is so clearly indicative of that conclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not the point at this stage in the discussion. The point now is that Hyman's writings demonstrate that he is not impartial, so if lack of impartiality is cause for not appointing someone he should not have been appointed either. It is a pretty poor reason for not appointing a person to evaluate a project that at some time in the past that person did joint work with someone on the project and it reflects badly on Marks that he should have written what he did. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me make the following point. Suppose I ask my colleagues if they think it 'puzzling' that a person is appointed to evaluate a project, who is expert in the subject matter of the project, and happens to have collaborated with one of the people involved with the project in the past. If the general view is that this is not particularly puzzling, then we are entitled to conclude that this is just a personal opinion of David Marks, for whatever reason, and as such really is not important enough to be included (by itself, at least) in the article.--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I think there is the question of trust. If you know someone well you may be in a position to be able to presume that they will give an honest opinion regardless of their personal views. I do find it odd that Marks, by his comment, seems unable to appreciate this.--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Good. And you can bring it up when you discuss it with David Marks, because your argument is with him, not Wikipedia. Leave Wikipedia out of your personal disputes, please. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That was just a casual comment, and I don't think discussing this with him is likely to be a productive enterprise. My main point is I think relevant to the article though, and I'll elaborate on it separately. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Misconceived comment that should be removed from the article

I refer to the assertion quoted in the article (where, in the light of an observation by another editor, I've changed 'partial' to 'impartial' since this seems to have been an error in the original): the psychologist David Marks noted that as Utts had published papers with Edwin May she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than impartial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation. I submit that that is a dubious comment if one tries to follow it up in detail. A search for joint papers came up with the following: 'Advances in Remote Viewing Analysis', which is nothing to do with Stargate as such but just deals with the general issue of data analysis.
Unless there is something more to the situation than this, not disclosed by Marks, I do not see that this kind of joint work would bother the committee looking for expert evaluation in the slightest. It is true that Utts has a particular point of view, but the committee dealt with this issue by appointing also Hyman, who holds the opposite point of view. The cited comment, unless it can be more convincingly backed up, is misleading, and misleading quotes should not feature in wikipedia articles. Comments?--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not removing material because you personally disagree with a source. This is like arguing for removal of quotes from movie reviewers, e.g. "how dare Siskel & Ebert call Ishtar a failure and impugn the performance of two great stars, when they are poor performers and failures themselves". Please review MOS:QUOTEPOV, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my line of reasoning at all, only asserting a PoV, viz. that Marks's statement is OK. Reasoning takes priority over asserting a PoV, in WP just as it does elsewhere. Please address my reasoning, if you wish to dispute what I have to say. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We're concerned only with policy-based reasons here. I've already explained to you why a quote from a critic that is attributed and cited to a WP:RS is not libel. If you have other policy based objections, state them. Otherwise, please stop trolling. It could be viewed as WP:DISRUPTIVE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will explain further to link it to policy, since it appears that I have not made the point clearly enough. First of all, let me emphasise that I am now putting aside the potential libel aspect, since there are less problematic reasons for rejecting the Marks quote. I have made the point above (on the basis of the reference my search turned up at least) that it is unlikely that a committee would find the fact that Utts and May had collaborated in this way problematic in choosing Utts to be one of the assessors (given the fact that Hyman would also be there to supply the opposite side of any arguments, as he did). Her expertise in statistics (see her NISS bio), and presumed integrity, would have been the dominant facts in choosing her. This contradicts the quoted comment by Marks that it is 'puzzling' that she was chosen (I suspect he made this statement for rhetorical reasons, rather than actually being puzzled).
To continue: it is my presumption, even if it is not explicitly stated anywhere, that the primary purpose of WP is to inform people of the facts. If the quote by Marks stands as it is, people will get the incorrect impression, refuted above, that Utts should not have been selected as assessor. If we don't want people to get this incorrect impression, then the quote should be removed (alternatively, material could be inserted to counter that incorrect impression, but it is not clear that doing so would be either practical or desirable). All that the quote actually tells us is that Marks has stated that the selection is puzzling. If there were grounds for accepting this as fact that could well be reason to include the quote, but in the absence of such grounds the fact that he has stated it is not as such noteworthy enough to justify its inclusion (if somebody says something that is correct that fact can be noteworthy, but this is not the case if there are grounds for not taking it seriously). I do not see this as trolling; it is all directed at producing the article that is of most value to readers, and avoiding giving faulty impressions. From my perspective, it is the people who raise objections to my edits that are trolling (though I don't expect them to agree with this). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)