Talk:Ethnic bioweapon

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Horrendous amount of Original Research

This article uses tons of uncited sources and seems to make false claims. I am removing the material which needs citations.

WP:RS

I fully agree with removing the speculative stuff, sourced only from newspapers. Among other things WP:RS states:

The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.

Pjacobi 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is from many reliable newspapers, as well as Jane's Foreign Report. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. Deuterium 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are reprints of the same 1998 gossip from The Sunday Times. Deuterium inserts it here strictly for encyclopedic reasons, no doubt. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is valid data that is perfectly relevent to this article, especially because there are no other examples of ethnic bioweapon development. Because the article is not about "experimental results" as Pjacobi says, there is no problem using the articles by these reliable sources. I edited the article's citations (many of them led nowhere) and removed some totally unsourced material. Fact tags were also added where appropriate. Also, the material about scientific opinion was not supported by the source ("Debunking..."). I changed it to be reflective of all experts within that source. Markovich292 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are "no other examples" because there are no examples at all? I've put this to article article RfC. --Pjacobi 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No other verifiable examples anyway. Thats not to say I personally think there are governments out there working with biological weapons of this sort, but if there were I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want it to be public knowledge. This is a rare instance where a reliable source actually printed an article stating that this was taking place rather than saying it could be done. Markovich292 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC feedback

Someone asked if Israel was developing ethnic bioweapons? As any anthropologist could tell you, the people of Israel are genetically almost identical to the surrounding people. It would be suicide. I'm guessing there are no reliable sources for this. Jefffire 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on genetics, but I would point out that the existance of the Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders, which lists Ashkenazi and Sephardic higher likelyhood disorders, suggests otherwise: "Although these diseases can affect Sephardi Jews and non-Jews, they afflict Ashkenazi Jews more often - as much as 20 to 100 times more frequently." [1] (See also Tay-Sachs disease.) I think the Sunday Times article claimed sources had told them certain traits of some Iraqi Arabs were being studied (at a time Iraq was perceived of as a biological weapon threat), not Israeli neighbours. A weapon that could target a significant portion, say 10%, of another population might be considered by some a threatening (and possibly usable in the extreme) weapon. Of course it is quite likely plausible disinformation was being fed to the Sunday Times reporters - biological weapon scares were a big thing in 1997/8. Rwendland 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the Israelis working on this weapon project were among those who were warned in advance not to go to the World Trade Center on 9/11. (For the humor-impaired: This is my way of opining that the story is rubbish.) We should certainly not state that this assertion is true, because it probably isn't. Nevertheless, the publication of the story in the Sunday Times is notable and can legitimately be reported in the article, with appropriate attribution. I can't verify the assertion that the New York Post referred to this story as a "blood libel", so I'm substituting a reference to a skeptical story in the Jerusalem Post. JamesMLane t c 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a conspiracy theory or hoax to me. A quick Google search finds that it's almost exclusively found on sites with an agenda of some kind, and very few verifiable leads as to the original report's accuracy. The lack of follow-up to an eight year old article also leads me to doubt its accuracy. I think the current approach of giving cited responses to the accusation is the best approach, though, rather than trying to remove it, since the original is cited already. Even if removed, I suspect it would regularly be reinserted by those who buy into this kind of stuff. Sxeptomaniac 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me this seems worthy of inclusion, mainly because of the small size of the [wikipedia] article. If this article had plenty of information, I don't think it would be as worthwhile to put this in. Right now though, it is the only example of how an "ethnic bioweapon" relates to society/world events and it shows the potential selectivity of this "technology" (even if casual readers don't think it is possible). Markovich292 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the criteria for inclusion based upon WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources all stories is reporting on one source which is the Sunday Times. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out per WP:RS. Lack of other information is not a basis for bending standard site policies and guidelines. Durova 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. WP:RS says nothing about "small size of the article". Why would a serious encyclopedia spread gossips or, worse, provocations for future conflicts? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at the article, and... seems to me there's only cited sources saying, "yes, this is possible", or "yes, this is probable." Don't see any cited sources on the "This is utter bollocks, why did you waste your time even asking about it?" end of things. I'm assuming there's citable sources for that, though, so perhaps some should be dug up? As for Israel... looks like Humus sapiens and Sxeptomaniac are examples of the sort of comments the RfC's generated, and those are good comments, so I'm not gonna leave one. The Literate Engineer 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term GENETIC BOMB was first seen as subtitle of novel "THE BLACK BUG - The genetic bomb has arrived" first pub in 1989 ISBN 0-921772-00-9. Republished 2006 ISBN 09739622 5 9 by John Ishmael.

TALKINGWHALES 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Been Ten Years -- Where's the Beef?

In ten years, there has been no confirmation, not one credible source. Uzi Mahnaimi never uses verifiable sources. He can't. They don't exist. It's a hoax.Scott Adler (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the diversity of the human genotype"

"The practicality of ethnic bioweapons is disputed, the biggest obstacles being the diversity of the human genotype..." I think this might be an error. Homo sapiens are extraordinarily homogeneous genetically, are they not?

I assume this refers implicitly to the lack of diversity. Ajkkjjk52 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Coast

Why is this in the See Also section? Reading through it, I see no reference to ethnic targeting in the research conducted. Anyone have any ideas why this program (of all the many NBC programs around the world) is listed? Ajkkjjk52 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarich and Miele

articles says "The authors believe that information from the Human Genome Project will be used in just such a manner." Race: The Reality of Human Difference says "which they view as technically feasible but not very likely to be used." "will be " vs "not very likely" contradiction. Has somebody read the book to clarify the point of what is actually said? GangofOne (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. GangofOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History wrongness

I removed: "Usage of natural disease as an ethnic bioweapon in conflicts has a long history. In Nepal, for example, rulers maintained a malaria-infected Terai forest as natural barrier against invaders from the Ganges Plains. Natives of Terai had natural resistance to malaria, while the invaders didn't.[1]" Reference does not support this. What is discribed is not a weapon but simply differential selective pressures (malarial susceptability) on different groups. In no sense is this malarial forest "maintained" as a weapon, it is simply a fact of nature. No other examples of "a long history" are suggested. here is the ref. for the record: http://www.forestsmonitor.org/fr/reports/549391/549398 2006 GangofOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

china

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/china-clamps-down-on-foreign-use-of-chinese-genetic-material-and-data-66016