Jump to content

Talk:MKUltra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Cathy O'Brien

I've just removed the section on Cathy O'Brien. Her claims are both more unsupported than the other similar entries, and more lunatic fringe, even within the conspiracy culture. She has apparently made assertions of the alien-lizard-overlord types, linked it to the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, and no evidence has been found (apart from her testimonies) of her purported "project Monarch" program (a title, given its overtones of both transformation and rulership, I find rather pretentious and indicative). O'Brien isn't a notable victim, she's notable for being a victim, and it's a bit of an odd argument to make but including her here seems to be undue weight on an extremity of a fringe theory on a page that's already very fringe-y. I don't think it's comparable to have information on actual victims for known projects, and then throw in one self-published claim on a project that doesn't appear to exist, claiming things which are beyond what most people recognize as possible within basic physics and biology, with no real proof, many criticisms, and a variety of BLP concerns - her claims are of abuse by significant public figures and with sources that would never pass muster in their actual pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with your decision to remove the section on Cathy O'Brien, I object to your characterization of this page as "fringey." While the information might SEEM fringey to the uninformed reader, the page is extensively sourced, and much of that sourcing is in the form of government reports and congressional testimony--about as impeccable as it gets.
Project MKULTRA was as real as it gets, and every few years we get refreshers in the form of new "revelations" that U.S. government agencies remain perfectly willing to engage in similar abuses of power. Apostle12 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. The fringy parts are the tinfoil-hat wearing crowd claims about the program. MKULTRA is well known, a serious page and was a serious abuse of power in its time, but the historicity of the topic is not helped by people like O'Brien making claims about it that have no basis in reality. I would suggest applying WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to claims made about being a subject of MKULTRA - good sources and reasonable realism. Claiming MKULTRA can turn you into a sex slave/assassin with multiple, code word-triggered personalities in order to bring about the New World Order of Satanic rule by alien-lizard hybrids is not a good claim in my mind. That was what I was trying to get at WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We're in agreement then...thanks so much for clarifiying!Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ja, my apologies for being so flippant the first time! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a minor section on these claims, but not as under the heading of one person's name. There is an archive of a site that has claims of the formula for creating a slave (it's interesting, but I don't buy into it for one minute). raganbaby_6 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raganbaby 6 (talk • contribs)

Note that the documentation released by the CIA indicates that some 44 univerisities, 15 research companies, 12 hospitals and 3 prisons. The number of unsuspecting victims experimented on numbers in the thousands. The emphasis in the literature is on LSD (typical CIA cover, bought hook line and sinker by most authors), but the truly effective "truth serum" drugs are probably hypnotic type drugs that also give the victim amnesia. See wikipedia flunitrazepan. It would not be suprising if more than just the two victims indicated in the article were killed, and surely, many victims have long lasting mental problems due to these experiments. The development of the perfect spy, a Manchurian Candidate, development of truth serums, amnesia producing debriefing drugs and techniques, clandestine communication systems have all been successfully developed by these sort of experiments. Sadly, what came out about MKULTRA is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the country is ready for another dose of documentation, then again, perhaps not. After some time, amnesia wears off you see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.3.228 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Project Bluebird

I've redirected Project Bluebird here - the page was stubby and apparently nothing more than a precursor to MK-ULTRA anyway. I'm contemplating something similar for various other projects with similar single-section, low-reference formats. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA

Australia has been doing this to it's people since the late 1970's.

Australia, for those who think "BLACK AND WHITE LODGE", need look no further than Australia.

202.124.89.92 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html

I guess this has to do with Project MKULTRA too? --90.230.133.224 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Bread/LSD angle is sketchy at best. The symptoms of those who ate the 'cursed bread' included gangrene, sickness that occurred more than a week after the poisoning, deaths from physical symptoms, and hallucinations that started 4-6 hours after ingestion. (LSD generally takes effect 1-2 hours after.) All of these oddities point very clearly to Ergot poisoning, and simply aren't consistent with LSD (although for what it's worth, LSD is chemically very similar to Ergot, and the first LSD was derived from the Ergot fungus.) Accusing the CIA of poisoning dozens of citizens in an allied country is a the kind of claim you need to back up with some solid evidence, and a book quote from an attention-hungry, sensationalist author in a second-rate British Tabloid doesn't cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.147.231 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had read a news article stating it was caused by ergot as well - we really need the book on this, as well as book reviews. Right now, I'd give it a short mention as a speculation rather than blaming it on the CIA (they'd probably target someone other than a NATO ally anyway...) As far as I know LSD isn't lethal either. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this merits further investigation. There is evidence that LSD can be toxic in massive doses, which might occur in an uncontrolled situation--the usual dose of 100-1000 micrograms might become much, much higher (in the milligrams) if it had been applied by operatives unaware of the miniscule amount required.
I'm not convinced the CIA would have been shy about dosing citizens of an allied country. After all, they weren't shy at all about dosing American citizens, often on a random basis. And the evidence is overwhelming that U.S. military personnel were dosed without any concern for their future welfare. Apostle12 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How 'bout we start with the book as our reference rather than the news article? Check it for credibility and content, then decide? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll try to get a copy. I agree that we shouldn't rely on the article, since it is rather thin and lacks sourcing. Apostle12 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, I trust your judgement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I received my copy of A TERRIBLE MISTAKE by H.P. Albarelli, Jr. and I have read most of it. I find the evidence presented therein compelling, and I note that the reviews have been excellent. Based on Albarelli's extensive research, I have added the following to the "Deaths" section of the MKULTRA article:

In his 2009 book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, H. P. Albarelli Jr. concurs with the Olson family and concludes that Frank Olson was murdered because he threatened to divulge state secrets concerning several CIA programs, chief among them Project ARTICHOKE and another code-named Project SPAN. Considerable evidence suggests that Project SPAN involved the contamination of food supplies and the aerosolized spraying of a potent LSD mixture in the village of Pont-St.-Esprit, France in August, 1951, which resulted in mass psychosis, 32 commitments to mental institutions, and four deaths. In his work as Acting Chief of the Special Operations Division at Detrick, Maryland (later Fort Detrick), Olson was involved in the development of aerosolized delivery systems, he was present at Pont-St.-Esprit in August, 1951, and several months before he resigned his position he had witnessed a terminal interrogation conducted in Germany under Project ARTICHOKE. [1]

Albarelli quotes several prominent researchers who eventually concluded that the Pont-St.-Esprit poisonings were deliberately caused. These included John Grant Fuller, the author of THE DAY OF ST. ANTHONY'S FIRE, which originally discussed the Pont-St.-Esprit case as an extreme example of accidental ergot poisoning. Decades later, after the details of Frank Olson's death became public, Fuller concluded that LSD was likely involved. Disparities between the known effects of LSD ingestion at normal dosages (100 to 1,000 micrograms) and the symptoms presented by the Pont-St.-Esprit victims were viewed as the likely result of massive dosages due to multiple delivery systems and complete lack of dosage control.

Albarelli unearthed one particularly fascinating detail: Frank Olson's "suicide" is taught by the Israeli Mossad as an example of "the perfect murder."

BTW, if anyone can clean up the formatting of my reference, that would be appreciated. Apostle12 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If he thinks having a clandestine agency's government agent admittedly being in the room with the person when he kills himself by "falling" out the window none the less is considered "the perfect murder" then well...that brings the rest of this book's statements into questions... If it was the "perfect murder" people would not still be talking about it like 40 years later. thats just an asanine statement.. The perfect murder would be him dieing in his bed of "natural causes" not something that is going to draw as much attention as possible. You are adding information alleging an international incident with 1 source that is by someone selling a book to make some cash 40 years later. I would think a little bit more of a source is in order. There a million books with conspiracy theories. Do you have a secondary reliable reference? like the associated press.. or are they all in on it too? at the very most this belongs under conspiracy theories as cited.. which is where Ive moved it too-Tracer9999 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the above statement. It is not Albarelli who thinks Olson's murder "perfect;" it was the Israeli Mossad that taught it as an example of a perfect murder. Your subsequent statements verge on moronic. Apostle12 (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


I posted the following at Talk:Pont-Saint-Esprit but I guess it's relevant here.

Enough with the Albarelli crap. This guy has zero credibility. Voltaire Network is the exact opposite of a reliable source. TrineDay is the exact opposite of a serious publisher of investigative work. Albarelli's work has been ridiculed by experts although, yes, he managed to run a pretty slick promotion campaign for his book. No serious researcher agrees with Albarelli and in fact Kaplan had a hard time discussing these theories without giggling. Albarelli claims that "according to US media" Mangoux created a fuss over this. Oh yeah? What US media was that? He claims that John G. Fuller reached similar conclusions. Oh yeah? No he did not. This is typical conspiracy bullcrap and has no place here. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Your link attempting to discredit the claim that John G. Fuller reached similar conclusions does not contain any relevant information. Apostle12 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. So where can we find Fuller's conclusions? (Albarelli's imagination is not an acceptable answer) Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Extra note: if Wikipedia decides to trust Albarelli's absurd theories over the work of respected historians like Steven Kaplan, then I guess it means that the CIA is injecting LSD through the website. Pichpich (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Extra extra note. This is a nice summary of credible people destroying Albarelli. Pichpich (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided of "credible people destroying Albarelli" hardly mentions him and is certainly NOT compelling. Apostle12 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The leading historian on the case dismisses Albarelli as a conspiracy theorist. The mayor of the town says Albarelli has read too much Dan Brown. The British Medical Journal published at the time a report inconsistent with his theories. Yet our article currently claims that Albarelli "presents considerable evidence in support of his theory" and goes on to point out the SPAN = bridge = pont connection which, as I said earlier, is so ridiculous it makes my head spin. I'm not even certain I get the translation part of the argument. True, "pont" translates to "bridge". But the word "span" is not used as a synonym for "bridge". But perhaps the sentence should be understood as "pont" alternatively translates as "span of a bridge". But that's not the case either. The article is giving undue weight to a crackpot theory put forth by a journalist of little credibility and published by an editor with sub-zero credibility. Pichpich (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you've made your opinion known. Repeated hyperbole doesn't strengthen it. I checked my thesaurus, and "span" is a noted synonym for "bridge."Apostle12 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. But the fundamental issue remains: why should we consider Albarelli's book a reliable source? The TrineDay lineup is full of conspiracy theory books. What makes Albarelli's book so credible that it deserves a prominent place in the article? Pichpich (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you read A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, Pichpich? The sourcing is actually quite good, and it doesn't come across as "conspiracy theory" at all. I was skeptical as well, and I agree with you regarding much of Trine Day's lineup. (The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant is a notable exception.)
Some very legitimate investigative journalism is suppressed because the corporate publishers won't touch it; I think that is the case with Albarelli's work on Frank Olson. I don't agree with every point Albarelli makes, however his work is so extensive and so thorough that I believe his voice deserves to be heard.
Re: Kaplan--he lost considerable credibility with me when he claimed that the CIA couldn't have been involved at Pont-Saint-Esprit because they had no interest in "uncontrolled experiments." Nearly all of the MKULTRA experiments can best be described as "uncontrolled," which the CIA itself acknowledged during Senate hearings. Not to mention the fact that the experiments were "reckless," "immoral," and "illegal." And the acknowledged extension of MKULTRA experiments into Canada (like France also an ally) puts the lie to any supposed unwillingness we might have had to jeopardize such relationships; in fact the French may have been quite aware of what happened at Pont-Saint-Esprit, as were the Canadians with Cameron's work.
I would rather argue particular points rather than dismiss Albarelli in the ad hominem manner you have attempted. Apostle12 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend agree with Apostle - it may be worth bringing up the book and publisher at the reliable sources noticeboard for independent content, but even though the publisher does publish a lot of fringe stuff, that doesn't mean it's out of consideration. Without a reliable source saying the book is unreliable, for a fringe page it would seem that WP:PARITY supports the inclusion of the source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks WLU. I do believe inclusion of the material is justified, subject of course to revision should further information prove it unworthy. Apostle12 (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A Terrible MIstake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments; H.P. Albarelli Jr.; Trine Day LLC, Walterville, OR; pp. 350-58, 490, 581-83, 686-92

Footnotes strangeness

Does anyone have any idea why the footnotes currently display two #30's? The links work, but from then on the list of notes is behind by one.—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. .-. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 08:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this article out of date?

"...and several had just been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials." seems to say the word "just" as if the Nuremberg Trials, which took place more than 50 years ago, was recent to the writing of this article. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the English syntax here. The point of the sentence, which is correctly written, is that the Nuremburg Trial HAD "just" concluded when those responsible for "Operation Paperclip" cleared many scientists deemed valuable to American interests. BOTH of these sequential events happened well in the past, approximately 60 years ago. Apostle12 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable subjects section

The facts in this section appear cherry picked and skewed towards the Lyndon LaRouche "Aquarian Conspiracy". It's not neutral and needs to be removed or rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. I and a couple of other editors (chiefly WLU, I believe) worked on this section a year or two ago. At that time we eliminated questionable material (the Cathy O'Brien references, for example) and condensed it down to what we all could agree on after a careful review of the sources. There was no cherry picking, I assure you. Personally I have never heard of the Lyndon LaRouche "Aquarian Conspiracy," and I doubt the others approached the task with whatever preconceptions that point of view might entail.
Anyway what you see in this section is pretty much the way we left it way back then. We worked especially hard on the Kaczynski material until we arrived at a point of mutual agreement. Of course anything can be improved, so please let us know what you think after you've reviewed the sources. Apostle12 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the Kesey material. It reads as if it was written by conspiracy theorist Lyndon Larouche who argues that the hippie movement was a mind control experiment, and that The Beatles were its masters. For only one of many examples, SourceWatch writes:

LaRouche often disparages the counterculture. In 1978, he wrote that "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence."[1]

When you write, "Kesey's ingestion of LSD during these experiments led directly to his widespread promotion of the drug and the subsequent development of hippie culture", that implies, indirectly, many elements of Larouche's conspiracy. I would like to see the source text on this, as this connection takes many liberties with the conclusions reached about the genesis of the counterculture. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern. While I may have participated in editing that sentence at one time or another, I don't believe it originated with me, nor did the one reference, an article from The Oregonian. LaRouche's statement about The Beatles having no genuine musical talent is certainly outrageous--two generations removed from their music, young people everywhere (including my children and grandchildren) recognize and appreciate their music. It's also outrageous for LaRouche to imply that the hippie movement was a mind control experiment, though it would probably be accurate to say that the hippie movement was at least to some extent an unintended consequence of MKULTRA LSD experimentation. Certainly it's true that, following his well-documented participation in LSD experiments at Stanford (Stanford was one of the universities participating in MKULTRA), Kesey took off in his own direction and widely promoted the drug. And there is no question that his promotion of the drug--during the 1964 Prankster trip, at La Honda, and then at the West Coast "Acid Tests"--was central to the development of the consciousness and ideas that underpinned the hippie movement.
I know that when I initially saw the Kesey material, it seemed innocuous enough that I didn't carefully research the sourcing. I believe this may be the article from The Oregonian:
http://www.dropbass.net/news_updates/2001/ken_kesey/oregonian.html
Just read the article for the first time, and while generally supportive of the sentence in question, it's not enough; the sentence needs more sourcing. That shouldn't be a problem (Wolfe and Yablonsky come to mind), however the research will probably take me a couple of weeks to complete.
We've talked about some of this before while editing the "Hippie" article. At the beginning of the summer in 1965, I came into close contact with the circle of people who were seminal to sparking the hippie movement on the West Coast. Chan Laughlin, George Hunter, Owsley Stanley, and Luria Castell all became friends during that summer and fall. We were at Kesey's place in La Honda several times, which is where I met Neal Cassady and Anne Murphy. "Further" was there too. And a bit later we all conspired to create the first identifiable "hippie" event--"A Tribute to Dr. Strange." I saw one source that credited Kesey with producing LSD, which is not true; the first batches, used during the 1964 Prankster bus trip, were legally obtained from Sandoz Laboratories, and Owsley provided subsequent sourcing. Kesey was the most established, and the most respected, member of this group. He had money and stature as a newly published author. And his promotion of LSD was pretty relentless in the beginning; we all listened, and we all partook. I would say that Kesey, Alpert and Leary pretty much set things in motion. Yet it was Kesey who gathered the Pranksters around him, and they set the tone for all the rest of what happened with those who became known as "hippies." And it's doubtful any of that would have happened without Kesey's participation in MKULTRA experiments while at Stanford. Anyway, enough for now; some fixes are definitely in order. Apostle12 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Just edited the Kesey material in an attempt to clarify that while Kesey was initially inspired by his exposure to MKULTRA drugs, including LSD, his subsequent promotion of LSD took place outside the context of MKULTRA. It would certainly be a mistake to validate La Rouche's bogus conspiracy theory by implying that Kesey was somehow acting as an agent of the CIA (or any other intelligence agency)--Kesey's contributions to early "hippie" culture were his alone. Added one source, more to follow. Apostle12 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Larouche is a bit of a...character is how I would describe him if I'm avoiding BLP concerns...and not really a reliable source. At best, his opinion would be attributed but I would think it undue weight to give him much text - if any. Irrespective of what LaRouche believes (particularly since he's not cited on the page), the NYT is a reliable source and it does appear to verify the text in question. The current version reads fine to me, and I will be removing the NPOV tag. Without a good reason, particularly a counter-source stating the information is incorrect, there's no reason for the tag to remain given the text and sourcing as it currently exists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse

Sexual abuse is mentioned in the intro but never again. Some please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.90.26 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was about to post that question too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.175.116 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a previous entry on this talk page says it best:
Note that the documentation released by the CIA indicates that some 44 univerisities, 15 research companies, 12 hospitals and 3 prisons. The number of unsuspecting victims experimented on numbers in the thousands. The emphasis in the literature is on LSD (typical CIA cover, bought hook line and sinker by most authors), but the truly effective "truth serum" drugs are probably hypnotic type drugs that also give the victim amnesia. See wikipedia flunitrazepan. It would not be suprising if more than just the two victims indicated in the article were killed, and surely, many victims have long lasting mental problems due to these experiments. The development of the perfect spy, a Manchurian Candidate, development of truth serums, amnesia producing debriefing drugs and techniques, clandestine communication systems have all been successfully developed by these sort of experiments. Sadly, what came out about MKULTRA is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the country is ready for another dose of documentation, then again, perhaps not. After some time, amnesia wears off you see.
Sexual abuse is implied in the section that discusses the CIA brothels in San Francisco, with their one-way mirrors, filmed sessions with prostitutes, and so on. However, most MKULTRA connections to sexual abuse remain too much of a political hot potato, especially those that involve the sexual abuse of children; whenever this material is added to any Wikipedia page, it is summarily deleted. Investigators and highly credible journalists who have spent years researching high-level connections to child sexual abuse (including interviews with the children, collections of photos, and other evidence) have, at best, been marginalized. So, for now at least, direct discussion of this topic is off-limits; even here at Wikipedia, there seem to be limits to free speech. Apostle12 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cultural significance?

I know of at least one movie (The Killing Room) that references MKULTRA, surely there are others worth adding to this article as well? 96.254.15.157 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't contribute to Wikipedia often, so I am not aware of conventions regarding posting in the talk page. However, I thought it would be good to add a Cultural Significance section as well, since Muse's song MK Ultra at least gets its name from this program, and seems to be about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.157.93 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Who, What, But No WHY?

I read the whole article and I can say that it fails to explain what it’s all about. The article seems to say "something happened and it involved drugs and abuse", but it doesn't explain why. Does anyone know whose idea was it, specifically why was it set up and what were its goals?

Obviously they were 'testing the water' to make use of the mind-control methods that they were experimenting with. This makes it a very serious subject (this added to the horrible treatment of victims during the project itself and thus also a violation of human rights.) Thus, the question of WHY is so important. Neurolanis (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this paragraph:
Headed by Sidney Gottlieb, the MKULTRA project was started on the order of CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles on April 13, 1953,[14] largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.[15] The CIA wanted to use similar methods on their own captives. The CIA was also interested in being able to manipulate foreign leaders with such techniques,[16] and would later invent several schemes to drug Fidel Castro.
The precursor program was called Project Artichoke. A section of the Project Artichoke article reads as follows:
ARTICHOKE was an offensive program of mind control that gathered information together with the intelligence divisions of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and FBI. In addition, the scope of the project was outlined in a memo dated January 1952 that stated, "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?"
Basically the answer to the "Why" question is rooted in the Cold War imperative not to allow Communist nations (specifically the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and North Korea)to get ahead of us, especially when it came to the possibility of developing a "Manchurian Candidate." Some say that real life "Manchurian Candidates" WERE created during this period and continue to be a part of covert U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy. A related discussion would be the "conspiracy theory" that Sirhan Sirhan was a real-life Manchurian Candidate who was used as a cover during the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
If this topic is of interest to you, I would suggest you listen to the Pacifica Radio recording of Attorney Lawrence Teeter discussing Sirhan Sirhan's case. The link to this audio file appears below:
Lawrence Teeter, attorney for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan, believed Sirhan was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Teeter linked the CIA's MKULTRA program to mind control techniques that he claimed were used to control Sirhan.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/15830

Apostle12 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When did MKUltra end

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

Casing of MkUltra

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

This is problematic. Some of the direct quotes in this article are now inaccurately cased compared to the original source; I just fixed one example. Without expressing a preference to how this should be spelled within body text, direct quotes still need to be accurate. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

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

Proposed merger with Project ARTICHOKE

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

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

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

Oppose: Project Bluebird links to the MKUltra page and yet there is absolutely no information about it. I suppose we can expect the same standard this time around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.21.149 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: It appears from new documents most recently declassified as of 2013 that in fact Artichoke might possibly have existed prior to Bluebird, prior in fact to the formation of the CIA, and might indeed have originated out of Paperclip. Evidence supporting this view seems to imply that there was spying amongst the spies, and questions as to whom should be let in on Artichoke. It would seem to imply that Gottlieb was in fact originally out of the loop, but as head of Technical Services Staff division at CIA, Chemical Division, ordering LSD-25 from Sandoz, he was already privvy to some of the details so why not let him in on all of them. MK-Ultra itself was merely a funding umbrella, which is noted in Subproject 28. The most troubling new revelations seem to concern the use of hypnotism and "special" chemical agents on "witting" or unwitting "students" (quotation marks from source documents) and questioning who should choose the subjects. It seems to imply a coordinator effort with a CSI unit with FBI, CIA, Treasury to dose and then murder students (one would assume at McGill, Harvard, Cornell and other participating universities) and then later collect the bodies. To this fact, the point that artichoke was an assassination program, not just a torture or drug interrogation program, and to the point of developing manchurian candidate assassins, it puts many other salient details of other related programs in new lights. Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam for instance. Co-ordination with doctors working with troubled youths and gangs. Which would presumably be "less missed" than college students. And just seems vaguely more nazish. The really important and overlooked hiding in plain sight observation though, which you don't need any new material for, though, is contained in the appendix of the NY Times research on the Church hearings. It mentions the building of an annex at Georgetown Hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.179.2 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

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

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

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

Hypothetical Technology

Can anyone explain what the Hypothetical Technology section is doing in this article? It contains no references, it's distracting, factually inaccurate, and reads like some pseudo-scientific conspiratorial speculation. Moreover, it has no relevance to this article, other than a vague and ambiguous statement that a quantum computer may have been possible around the time of MKUltra (it wasn't.) This section should not be here at all, let alone at the beginning of the article. 124.176.29.160 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I question its inclusion as well. Additionally, if you look at the page history, the editor adding it claims that it is his invention and he won't source it until it's declassified. SO this means the material, even if actually relevant in some way we can't see due to poor writing, has problems with WP:VERIFIABILITY and potentially WP:COI as well. Millahnna (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe subjected to MK Ultra Mind-Control in her own words.

BEST FINEST SURGEON

The following was written by Marilyn Monroe in 1955 while staying at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. It describes Sensory Deprivation, Dissociative Anesthetic Drugs, Psychic Driving and the effects of these applied Mind-Control techniques. The principle players in this story, Lee Strasberg received 75% of Marilyn's Estate and his theater and Anna Freud received 25% of Marilyn's Estate her 'permanent psychiatric cure': The Anna Freud Foundation. The Story is located in the book FRAGMENTS which was released in 2010. It was subsequently discovered by Jason Kennedy who is Marilyn's 2nd cousin once removed. The family webpage is located at www.marilynmonroefamily.com

Marilyn writes:

Best finest surgeon – Strasberg

waits to cut me open which I don’t mind since Dr H

has prepared me – given me anesthetic

and has also diagnosed the case and

agrees with what has to be done -

an operation – to bring myself back to

life and to cure me of this terrible dis-ease

whatever the hell it is -

Arthur is the only one waiting in the outer

room – worrying and hoping operation successful

for many reasons – for myself – for his play and

for himself indirectly

Hedda – concerned – keeps calling on phone during

operation – Norman – keeps stopping by hospital to

see if I’m okay but mostly to comfort Art

who is so worried -

Milton calls from office with lots of room

and everything in good taste – and is conducting

business in a new way with style – and music

is playing and he is relaxed and enjoying himself even if he

is very worried at the same time – there’s a camera

on his desk but he doesn’t take pictures anymore except

of great paintings.

Strasberg cuts me open after Dr. H gives me

anesthesia and tries in a medical way to comfort

me – everything in the room is white in fact but I

can’t even see anyone just white objects -

they cut me open – Strasberg with Hohenberg’s ass.

and there is absolutely nothing there – Strasberg is

deeply disappointed but more even – academically amazed

that he had made such a mistake. He thought there was going

to be so much – more than he had dreamed possible in

almost anyone but

instead there was absolutely nothing – devoid of

every human living feeling thing – the only thing

that came out was so finely cut sawdust – like

out of a raggedy ann doll – and the sawdust spills

all over the floor & table and Dr. H is puzzled

because suddenly she realizes that this is a

new type case of puple. The patient (pupil – or student – I started to write) existing of complete emptiness

Strasberg’s hopes & dreams for theater are fallen.

Dr H’s dreams and hopes for a permanent psychiatric cure

is given up – Arthur is disappointed – let down + — Preceding unsigned comment added by MM FAMILY (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Under the heading "Legal issues involving informed consent," an unnamed editor keeps adding the following:

"At the outset, it is important to note that no individual has ever been found criminally responsible for MKUltra related activities, and, therefore, all MKUltra operatives are presumed innocent until proven guilty by an independent court of competent jurisdiction."

An opinion similar to the above could be added if it can be reliably sourced. Otherwise this is OR, original research, which is not allowable.

Regarding repeated elimination of the word "illegal" in the lede, the article abounds with sourced information about Project MKUltra activities that were not legally sanctioned--the "Midnight Climax" operation in San Francisco, for example, where illegal brothels (not a sting operation) were operated so that "johns" could be dosed with LSD without their knowledge, observed and filmed.

In its reports the Church Committe was unequivocal in condeming the illegality of MKUltra programs run by the CIA. It is pure sophistry to claim that all the actions were "legal" simply because no individuals were criminally prosecuted. That no individuals were criminally prosecuted is evidence only of the effectiveness of government shielding, not the lack of criminality. An apropos antecedent would be Hitler's Third Reich, where the "legality" of murdering millions was meticulously maintained and documented. Apostle12 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is OR in the strongest sense, unless statements like "the sky is blue" are OR. Do you require a University Textbook to tell you what colour the sky is? Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock premise of fundamental justice. As no MKUltra operative has ever been convicted qua MKUltra operative, this is not OR so much as a statement of what can be inferred from all of the research present in the article.
The use of "illegal" is not NPOV. That's a political viewpoint that some people have about MKUltra. Unfortunately, due to the destruction of records and the selective release of damaging records, we will never know all of the Good Things MKUltra did for humanity.
The Church Committee was not a court of competent jurisdiction. It was a fact-finding committee with no power to come to conclusions of law, especially when the MKUltra operatives were not able to defend themselves, often because the materials explaining their activities would have been destroyed or classified such that it would be inappropriate to release them to such Committees. I think your comparison of MKUltra to the Nazi Genocide somewhat Godwins your position, does it not? Giving people LSD without informed consent is nothing like mass-murder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.191.141 (talk • contribs)
According to the CIA’s Inspector General in 1957, “Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProjectMKULTRA_Senate_Report.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AProjectMKULTRA_Senate_Report.pdf&page=78) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

As there has been no rebuttal to the statement above that the use of "illegal" is "not NPOV," I am going to remove it. It is merely an opinion and has no place in a factual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.191.141 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Apostle12 has re-included his personal opinion that MKULTRA was illegal---obviously that is sensationalist nonsense from someone with an axe to grind. Where is the citation for it being "illegal"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.191.141 (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of soucres included for this paragraph, though I have just added one more. The rule about trolls is "simply don't engage," especially if they aren't even willing to sign their posts. Apostle12 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
No, there are no such sources for the statement you have made because it is one that can only be made by a court of competent jurisdiction---name the court that made determinations of "illegality" in respect of MKULTRA. You cannot because such has _never happened_. Your view is sensationalist and designed to discredit the beneficial work done by US intelligence operatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.191.141 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Refer to the citations which are quite clear about the illegal nature of many of the program's activities. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the CIA’s Inspector General in 1957, “Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProjectMKULTRA_Senate_Report.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AProjectMKULTRA_Senate_Report.pdf&page=78) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That is still not a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction. People can believe, perhaps through pervasive and long-standing hypnosis, that perfectly lawful activities are unlawful, and vice-versa. That quotation does not meet the burden of having been determined illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction. What you need to make that conclusion stick is the determination of some court of competent jurisdiction, and given that MKULTRA is not a body corporate, I doubt it could ever find that MKULTRA "itself" conducted illegal activities; you would be confined to the rather less sensational claim that XYZ, under the auspices of the MKULTRA program, conducted an activity deemed illegal by such court on such date. So if you cannot cite a conclusion from a court of competent jurisdiction, I will again remove the sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.60.70 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
IP address 75.156.60.70, you are clearly attempting to promote a biased POV that MKULTRA was not illegal. Please stand down. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The illegality of many MKULTRA programs is beyond question. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree heavily. I guess you can say that the presumption of innocence is "POV," but I take it to be part of fundamental justice. Even if someone says his conduct is illegal, that does not render it illegal. For example, I could be mistaken about how it is illegal to sell newspapers, so I might conduct a very secretive program to sell newspapers, not because the sale of newspapers is illegal but because I suffer from a false belief. The only way you get to call MKULTRA and its associated activities illegal is after that determination is made by a court of competent jurisdiction. So far we have the CIA's inspector general, who is not a judge with the power to declare illegality. We also have a senate report which is certainly not the report of a court convened to determine illegality. Therefore, we have nothing but smoke being blown up people's asses in a prejudicial manner. I would be quite willing to accept that various activities were illegal, if there were judicial findings rebutting the presumption of innocence, but I don't see any cited, so I don't know why you people keep suggesting that MULTRA engaged in illegal activities. Then there is the issue of whether or not MKULTRA activities fall under the law of war, which is far different, possibly without any rules at all, from the civillian law. Indeed, these acts were undertaken during the cold war, so there is a good argument to be made that there was (is?) a general suspension of law due to a state of war. Nothing is beyond question. I am even willing to engage in a discussion of whether or not the presumption of innocence is POV---I cannot see how it is, tho, so perhaps someone who believes in the illegality of MKULTRA activities absent judicial proceeding having made such a determination can enlighten me on that front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.60.70 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Our only hope is that people who think as you do are excluded from positions of power. Apostle12 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And you are making personal attacks which have nothing to do with the burden upon you to provide a refence that says "illegal" you only provide a reference that says it is "unethical and illicit." Who said it was "ILLEGAL". Give the reference where the word ILLEGAL is used. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.43.99 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower Carl Clark

I don't have time to work out how to do an edit but I think the "Aftermath" section needs something on the Carl Clark interview by Armin Gross that recently was translated into English. It gives a clear indication that the methods developed in the MKUltra Project continue to be used today by Secret Services. see: Carl Clark Interview

I would suggest something like:

"In 2010 another intelligence community whistleblower Carl Clark claimed that he used techniques akin to those developed by the MKUltra Project on many targets and he claims to have become a target himself after talking about his work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Stuart (talk • contribs) 04:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Jed Stuart (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If we assume that Carl Clark is a real person, why should we believe that he is imparting accurate information and not simply making up stuff like so many others who have claimed to have worked for the CIA? Raum & Zeit is a German conspiracy publication and the claims have not been reported on by any source that is remotely considered reliable. This is a non-notable hoax. - Location (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought it might be a hoax at first too. However, I don't think conspiracy magazine is clearly Raum & Zeit's category. The translated WP article on them says 'Your publishers see them as "scientific, totally independent journal" to, publish the information, "which are concealed particularly of journals, but also by the mass media". [1] Critics see them instead as an institution for propagating conspiracy.' Whatever, the article itself is not about a conspiracy theory anyway. It is an anecdotal account which if true does lead to some important questions about the way things are done in and by intelligence organizations. It might not get taken very seriously as an account if it were not for the fact that it says things that are very similar to what many people describing themselves as targeted individuals (TIs) are saying and sending many petitions to governments about. I will find a few examples if you want. He does seem to be a real person. He has written a book on the subject of the article and he was on the bill at the recent covert harassment conference. His picture is still on the web page but as far as I know he didn't show as he had some problem with his leg.Jed Stuart (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Lot's of people have truthfully-sounding anecdotes about being in the CIA: Richard Brenneke, James Files, Chauncey Marvin Holt, Ronald Lister, Oswald LeWinter, Robert Morrow, Tosh Plumlee, etc. The list goes on. But even they are set apart from this person in that their claims have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that would be a dangerous thing to do. And also that what he is saying could even be too dangerous to discuss for the media. I will do some more research on him. There might be a better angle to achieve my objective with this topic, which is to have the writers of it give a little more substance to the Aftermath section. It seems obvious that MKUltra ending wasn't the end of covert on or between citizens. But, by the nature of covert, that might be hard to justify. I don't think it needs much. Perhaps something from the 2007 Washington post article would do the job: Mind Games It seems to be a reasonably comprehensive statement of where the aftermath questions are at present.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
What questions? The WaPo article discusses the claims of someone who claims to have been a subject of MKUltra - it even suggests he may be mentally ill - so I'm not sure what information from that article proves that the project is still ongoing. - Location (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Archives box missing

In June, someone removed the archives box, I'm not sure how to add it. Archive 1 Archive 2 Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect citation (51)

Citation 51 cannot possibly be correct:

"Later forensic evidence conflicted with the official version of events; when Olson's body was exhumed in 1994, cranial injuries indicated that Olson had been knocked unconscious before he exited the window." (Marks 1979: chapter 5)

A book published in 1979 cannot testify to events taking place in 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.174.156 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MK Ultra Electronic

MK Ultra subproject 119 included remote control of humans by electronic means experiments. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.120.112 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Memorandum http://waves.lima-city.de/pdf/mkultra.pdf

Deletion of material from section titled "LSD": Better, perhaps, to reword and supply page numbers from existing source.

Regarding the following edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_MKUltra&diff=579465536&oldid=579283700

At a glance, it would appear that the information that was deleted is, in fact, documented in the book Acid Dreams. Here is a pdf of the book: http://wessexsolidarity.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/acid_dreams.pdf. Why don't we try rewording and locate the appropriate page numbers, given that there's a source. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Where can the declassified documents be found?

they should be public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.0 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable subjects

The two references used for including Theodore Kaczynski are articles in acceptable publications. However, these articles present not "evidence" but speculation and opinion. Saying (as the current MKUltra text does) that there is a "considerable amount of credible circumstantial evidence" is misleading, and indeed the srticle goes on to say "Beginning at the age of sixteen, Kaczynski participated along with twenty-one other undergraduate students in the Harvard experiments" when in fact neither of the references present factual evidence of this, but rather opinions based on "credible circumstantial evidence" - such that it is. The wording implies that there is little question, when in fact it is almost completely speculation. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

All you had to do is remove credible from the sentence to keep it neutral. It allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. There is no reason to delete it or to tag it with a POV tag. TheycallmetheDoctor (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no references that say Ted Kaczynski took part in Mk Ultra experiments - to say otherwise is Original Research. I've removed the section. Zambelo; talk 03:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed this again. If a source does not explicitly link Kaczynski to MKUltra, then we should not use it. - Location (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to include the current status on mind reading and human body control

I propose to include the following updates at the end of chapter "Aftermath".

Noam Chomsky identified ten media manipulation strategies[1]. The last strategy on his list is called "Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves":

Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the system has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.[1]

Bogdan Alexandru Caprarescu published a document called "The Secret Organized Crime" in which he accuses an international criminal organization composed of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), and presumably other secret services of many crimes including mind reading and human body control. Caprarescu witnesses that CIA and SRI read the thoughts of people and recorded the thoughts of people at least from 1996 to the present. Caprarescu witnesses that CIA and SRI control the following systems of the human body: nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and urogenital.[2][3]

Caprasescu's theory does not seem to be coming from a reliable source, and I can't find any RS that back it up. So this theory shouldn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia unless reliable sources can be found supporting it (doubtful). Chomsky's theory, on the other hand, might be valid on the article "propaganda" or something, but not here (it's not about MKULTRA). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Good quote from Chomsky. Your inline citations don't work. I suggest that you use [ ] instead of the ref syntax to create links to your sources. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Chomsky, Noam. "Top 10 media manipulation strategies". Retrieved 8 February 2014.
  2. ^ Caprarescu, Bogdan Alexandru. "The Secret Organized Crime" (PDF). Retrieved 29 January 2014.
  3. ^ Caprarescu, Bogdan Alexandru. "Standing for Human Rights and Justice". Retrieved 29 January 2014.

See also

Aren't there too tangential to be included? I added some context, but they seem way too tangential. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I agree. I have removed them. - Location (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

MKUltra article has been messed with...

Conspiracy theorists again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyris (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

− − Hello fellow Wikipedians,

− − I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Project MKUltra. 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.

− − This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

laurel halo song

there's a laurel halo song off her album quarantine called "MK Ultra". obviously that's a reference to this. it could be added to the pop culture references section if someone's up for that128.187.97.23 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

MKUltra article has been messed with...

Conspiracy theorists again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyris (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

− − Hello fellow Wikipedians,

− − I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Project MKUltra. 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.

− − This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

laurel halo song

there's a laurel halo song off her album quarantine called "MK Ultra". obviously that's a reference to this. it could be added to the pop culture references section if someone's up for that128.187.97.23 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 16:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Kershaw MKUltra

I noticed some fringe groups saying that Sarah Kershaw was involved with exposing ancient MKUltra. The post was on Anonymous group page on Facebook:

The article they are referring to was a New York Times article in 2008, "Sharing Their Demons" found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?pagewanted=all

Quote:

"For people who say they are the target of mind control or gang stalking, there may be enough evidence in the scientific literature to fan their beliefs. Many sites point to MK-ULTRA, the code name for a covert C.I.A. mind-control and chemical interrogation program begun in the 1950s."

Moscowamerican (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources giving this meme any notice, much less any credibility, so nothing we can use for the article. (But the notion of the CIA waiting EIGHT YEARS to murder somebody because they made passing mention of MK ULTRA in a 2008 newspaper article gave me a good chuckle) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE LuckyLouie deleted my comments here. Thank you. Moscowamerican (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Moscowamerican (talk) you're right. He's a whitewashing shill. Deleterious to wikipedia. Just have a look at his contributions, the subjects he edits, and at his "co-editors"' contributions too. They tend to delete comments too. They are conservative groups with no respect for WP:NPOV policy. They are killing wikipedia's liberal-democratic attribute. 80.117.21.214 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Harold Blauer was killed by USGov in the Project and there is Judfe opinion about the goverment conspiracy

This source "Constance Baker Motley, District Judge: OPINION / U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 660 F. Supp. 1291 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), May 5, 1987" can be used to add some facts about goverment consiracy and "wrongful death" caused by army&goverment into the article. `a5b (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Brice Taylor

States that Bob Hope was one of her handlers in the MK ultra program and she was a sex slave..wrote book "Thanks for the memories "..also mentions Henry Kissinger..maybe include this (with disclaimer..sounds ridiculous to me) Beaglemix (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Her statements and self-published book should be included in "conspiracies " with cathy o'brien Beaglemix (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This information should only be included if there are reliable sources that discuss it. A self published book is not a reliable source. -- GB fan 18:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Obrien is listed in the article and her book was also self-published Beaglemix (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to separate MKSEARCH

This is a suggestion to separate MKSEARCH from MKULTRA. I have some material to put into MKSEARCH from my sandbox Johnvr4 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unabomber

Should mention be made of Ted Kaczinski's supposedly being a Control test subject codenamed "Lawful"? It seems to be generally accepted as fact in any news article I read on it but even a mention in the Conspiracies section would do. --109.77.53.25 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, then sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree... and it would require proper attribution, too. My understanding is that Alton Chase made the link from Ted Kaczynski to Henry Murray in his 2003 book, Harvard and the Unabomber, but did not make the claim Murray's experiments were part of MKUltra. It may be a short leap to claim that Murray was involved in MKUltra, however, it is a leap nonetheless. Those making that leap appear to be the usual fringe sources that would ultimately put the blame for Kaczynski's actions on the CIA. -Location (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

MKUltra in Australia

It is often thought here in Australia that MKUltra operated here too, but there is not much evidence in the media to support that. This deep sleep seems to do that. I don't know whether SMH is regarded as a reliable source though, but regardless would it serve to establish the fact? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I came here after reading this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_O%27Brien_(conspiracy_theorist)

I wouldn't suggest linking to Ms. O'Brien's page in a serious context, since it sounds like her descriptions of a supposed "Project Monarch" have been pretty thoroughly debunked. But since she has apparently had a pretty big effect on the culture of conspiracy theory fans, it might be worth including some reference to her -- perhaps in a "pop culture" section that also includes the Robert Ludlum books and the TV series Treadstone, both of which are also partially based on ideas central to this page's topic.

Neathming (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project MKUltra. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Source for article expansion

This reference includes details about Canadian experiments and victims' claims for compensation and is suitable for article expansion. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/03/montreal-brainwashing-allan-memorial-institute --Danimations (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, no such thing as too embarrassed to x, can talk any no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendy (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

MKUltra as a cover story

While there are no public references, there are claims that MKUltra was a cover story for the very early development of a computer interface to both the neurons of the brain and the wider body by means of a 3D maser scanner. The MKUltra experiments were to hide early test subjects, improve brain mapping and to test the effects of electrical load on the human body to confirm suspicions that muscle could be remotely driven. This latter issue being of prime importance due to the potential of AI impersonation of humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.115.85.231 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Frank Rudolph Olson

This article states: "The experiments continued even after Dr. Frank Olson, an Army chemist who had not taken LSD before, went into deep depression after a surprise trip and later fell from a thirteenth story window." The Wikipedia page on Frank Olson himself states: "At a meeting in rural Maryland, he was covertly dosed with LSD by his CIA supervisor and, nine days later, plunged to his death from the window of a 10th-story New York City hotel room. "

There may be a discrepancy.

207.161.30.26 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Claims Ken Kesey volunteered to be a subject, but the cite-ref #48 does not support the claim. It merely states that Kesey began promoting LSD after the CIA project. 伟思礼 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Source number 50 https://www.thefix.com/cloak-and-dropper-twisted-history-cia-and-lsd?page=all seems to support claim he was volunteering. Polyison (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

German Science

Mkultra is really a German Science or is derived from German/Nazi Science. find operation paperclip as process by which German Scientists worked here in the Usa and Mkultra has a link to those sciences https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/pdfs-vol-58-no-3/Watkins-Paperclip-3SEP-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9A00:2170:D1C4:5BCA:7DE2:B35F (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be heavily disclaimed: All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in Studies in Intelligence and CSI Publications are those of the Authors. They do not necessarily reflect official positions or views of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of an article's factual statements and interpretations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin A. Ross findings

Why would we not include Dr Colin A. Ross findings in the article? He is an expert on mind control and is one of the few authors who have reviewed the 15,000 declassified CIA reports. See this edit for details. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Colin A. Ross is a government-mind-control conspiracy theorist who has claimed to possess the paranormal ability of being able to emit beams of energy from his eyes. Aside from that, no independent sources have discussed his "findings", and until they do, their inclusion is WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Colin A. Ross claims to have psychic powers and to have uncovered evidence of Satanic ritual abuse. Sources by him would fall under WP:FRINGE and not WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
yeah, but what if he's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.7.40 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If he's right, then hopefully a reliable source who is not insane will publish similar findings. That info is still available out there for those who want to dig deeper, but it's not yet appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Satori Son 19:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Doctor title removed

I asked the editor who removed my addition of the doctor title to the doctors , on the notable people list why it was done, with no response. These people could only do what they did because they were doctor, and so should be identified as doctors. Just like in the Holocaust all killings were done with a doctor present to make it a legal operation. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mark v1.0, for the Wikipedia view on obsessive use of honorifics for proponents of crank theories, see WP:PROFRINGE. For the more general point, see appeal to authority. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darrenb21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Project MKUltra → MKUltra – "Project" is extraneous. Common name is MK ULTRA, MK Ultra, or a similar variation. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Schierbecker (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: States and their Secrets

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnbvcxz1234567 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jadassims, Explorer300.

— Assignment last updated by Explorer300 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Granite Flats

Granite Flats is a 2013 TV show with MK Ultra as a major plot element. 216.97.250.186 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Problems with lede

"Project MKUltra (or MK-Ultra)[a] was the code name of an illegal human experimentation program designed and undertaken by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[1][2][3] The experiments were intended to develop procedures and identify drugs such as LSD that could be used in interrogations to weaken individuals and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture." - this implies that MKULTRA was solely a human experimentation program run by the CIA, and does not cover the large amount of research projects not conducted by the CIA but funded by them under the umbrella of MKULTRA.

"activities carried out under the guise of research" - first off, MKULTRA was by definition a research project. Second, many experiments they funded were entirely legitimate and conducted entirely by non-CIA personnel (as well as some deeply unethical experiments that were not the CIA's idea and were not conducted by them). --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Illegality?

Also "illegal" -- on what basis are we calling this "illegal"? Was there a court decision? At least two of the cited sources make no reference to whether MK Ultra is illegal (indeed, the google doc link, which appears to be a primary source, seems to quote a lot of people opining that the program was legal.) The rather amusingly titled "Today I found out..." site doesn't reference it either. The History Channel (a secondary source at best) talks about the program coming to light as part of an investigation into illegal activities...but it doesn't call MK Ultra illegal, either. Douglas Valentine does call it illegal from the quoted text, but judging from the rest of his body of work, at best he's a lone wolf, and at worst, it's an unreliable, biased source. (See, e.g., https://www.douglasvalentine.com/).

I'm not saying there aren't reliable sources establishing the illegality of MK-ULTRA, but they haven't been cited here. Jkp1187 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I think the issue of legality of the program is a bit more nuanced that what the lede sentence would have us believe.
The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 states that "the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to exercise the authorities contained in" the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947[7], and I would assume that the general purpose of MKUltra fell within those permitted actions and was legal. It's likely some activities did stray from those boundaries, but I haven't seen reference to specific violations. -Location (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Experiments on Danes

The section title "Experiments on Danes" currently states:

Unlike the US and Canada, Denmark had a centralized population register, allowing participants to be tracked over the course of several years. U.S. psychologist Zarnoff Mednick teamed up with Danish professor Fini Schulsinger to study schizophrenia progression in Danish orphans. The project grew out of QKHilltop and was later absorbed into MKUltra. In 1977, Schulsinger completed his doctoral dissertation on the project, but as MKUltra had been officially declared in the U.S. to have been discontinued with records destroyed, Schulsinger's thesis became a state secret. The children were required to undergo frequent and harsh mental health assessments for which there was no informed consent. In December 2021, radio documentarian Per Wennick discovered 36 boxes of MKUltra records stored at a psychiatric center in a Copenhagen suburb, but when he asked for access, the center shredded the records, in violation of Danish law.[1]

I have read the English translation of the source provided and a few other articles about this (e.g. [8][9][10]). Per Wennick has made a few different claims here: 1) the CIA experimented on Danish children, 2) he was the subject of experiments, 3) he found MKULTRA records, and 4) the MKULTRA records were destroyed when he asked for them. I don't see that he has any actual evidence, but this passage seems to be written with the assumption that all of this actually happened. Certainly, we have a WP:REDFLAG claim here. @LuckyLouie, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Rja13ww33: I'm pinging you because you all seem to have had some experience with this article or other CIA-related articles, but don't feel any obligation to comment. -Location (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A quick search shows that a few sources simply repeat WP:SENSATIONAL claims as fact, while most RS are more careful to qualify these allegations as "Per Wennick claims" [11]. Note that "International Policy Digest" may not qualify as an independent reliable source [12]. For such a big story, I'm not finding any of the mainstream journalistic sources covering it, which seems to indicate a WP:REDFLAG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie: It appears as though the DR article HERE (December 28, 2021) was effectively a press release announcing Per Wennick's DR-affiliated documentary HERE (December 27, 2021). Shortly afterwards, the story was picked up by various leftist/left-leaning sources, many of which are affiliated with the governments of Russia, China, and Iran. Examples include:
Veterans Today - site blocked by Wikipedia (December 29, 2021)
RT (December 29, 2021)
Fars News Agency (December 29, 2021)
Press TV (December 29, 2021)
Daily Sabah (December 30, 2021)
Cobrapost (December 30, 2021)
People's Voice (December 30, 2021)
China News Service (January 20, 2022)
Independent Australia (February 6, 2022)
Dissenter (January 26, 2022)
Global Times (March 15, 2022)
Were you able to find any reliable sources, or sufficient sourcing to develop a blurb about these claims? -Location (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I found no mainstream news outlets that have covered this story. Only the above sources (although I wouldn't call Russia Today or Veterans Today left or left-leaning, they are more straight up conspiracy-mongers). I can't even find a non-funky source to use to cite a "Per Wennick claims X" WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV sentence, so I think removing the entire paragraph is the best course of action until better sources arise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for the feedback. -Location (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Danske børnehjemsbørn brugt i hemmelig undersøgelse støttet af CIA". DR (in Danish). 2021-12-27. Retrieved 2023-05-05.

Lede

I have removed the following sentence from the lede:

Over 7,000 American veterans took part in these experiments non-consensually during the 1950s through 1970s, many of them suing later on.[1]

The cited article states:

Attorneys for the Vietnam veterans estimate about 7,000 troops were subjected to the secret experiments under a program codenamed 'MKUltra.'

Morrison & Foerster are the attorneys for the veterans, and https://edgewoodtestvets.org/ is their website for this lawsuit. I think we need a neutral source of information for these figures, particularly since this is conflating MKUltra with the Edgewood Arsenal human experiments (e.g. although Rochelle said he believed he was given hallucinogenic drugs, all other documentation about his complaints appear to discuss chemical and biological weapons testing rather than mind-control testing[13]). -Location (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ ABC7. "U.S. vets say there were human guinea pigs | ABC7 San Francisco | abc7news.com". ABC7 San Francisco. Retrieved 2022-10-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MKUltra/Archive_1&oldid=1222868131"