Talk:Phoenix Program

Harbury Truth, Torture, and the American Way

By this diff [1], User:Skornezy seeks to add Harbury as a ref. Harbury is clearly WP:BIASED and not qualified to write about the Phoenix Program. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The very section you are linking to shows that there is no ban against biased sources on Wikipedia and that you have no right to remove a sourced claim just because of the (alleged) bias of the source. The question is whether Harbury is a Reliable Source, not whether he is biased. I have no idea what grounds you think you have for describing him as 'clearly biased' either, but the issue is irrelevant in any case, unless you want to add some description of Harbury.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Because Skornezy repeatedly added biased sources while removing sources that he claimed were biased. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I said at all. Again - biased sources are not prohibited and I am saying that you have no right to remove sources with the justification that they are biased. If Skornezy did the same at some point, he shouldn't have, but I am not discussing every single thing he has ever done, I am discussing what you have done and keep doing. For what it's worth, as far as I could see, Skornezy argued that a source was unreliable (written by a non-expert), not that it was biased (although, of course, it was that, too). But this is irrelevant in any case. In addition, unlike Skornezy, I didn't remove the source and its claim, I just added the reliable sources and their claims; you nevertheless reverted my edit.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Your source is also unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Edward Miller, NYT

By this diff [2], User:Skornezy seeks to add the statement "however witnesses have stated "American advisers routinely carried out torture" as well. The quote has been contracted, the full quote reads: "Witnesses claimed that members of the program’s teams and their American advisers routinely carried out torture, murders and assassinations, accusations that American officials denied." Either it all goes in or none of it does. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Truncated quotes are unacceptable, especially when they change or misrepresent the original quote. Any competent editor should understand that. Intothatdarkness 13:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Truncation of quotes is a perfectly legitimate and standard practice on Wikipedia, and this particular quote does not change or misrepresent the original quote - the fact that 'witnesses have stated "American advisers routinely carried out torture"' is still true regardless of the rest of the quote. It can be added also that American officials have denied this, but adding it was no obligation of Skornezy, it was up to you.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It completely misrepresents the quote which is much more nuanced in full. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't misrepresent it, and I have explained why; the full quote just adds the fact that the USG had denied what the witnesses have said (duh). In any case, you should add the rest of the quote if you consider it important, but this is no excuse for you to remove the part of the quote that was added, which is sourced information.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Either the entire quote goes in or none of it goes in. Truncating quotes that only support one POV is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Kuzmarov in Decolonization and Conflict Colonial Comparisons and Legacies

By this diff [3], User:Skornezy seeks to add Kuzmarov as a ref for statements apparently made by William Colby to Congress. If Colby actually said those things, the Congressional record should be provided and the relevant date given. Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Here is a link: [4] to Kuzmarov's chapeter. It doesn't provide any ref to support the statements apparently made by Colby. Interestingly it starts: "In November, 1967, Frank Armbruster of the Hudson Institute drafted a policy brief which provided a blueprint for Operation Phoenix..." Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no such requirement for direct sourcing of citations found in sources. The only question is whether Kuzmarov himself is a reliable source; if he is, and you are not disputing that, we are supposed to trust him about what others have said, too.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I am disputing exactly that. We should be able to find that testimony in the Congressional record. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You haven't said a word about why Kuzmarov shouldn't be considered a reliable source, who he is, what the publication is, etc. If he is a reliable source, then there is no need for us to 'find that testimony in the Congressional record'.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am questioning the reliability because the quote can't be found in the Congressional Record. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

McCoy in Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation

By this diff: [5] seeks to add Alfred W. McCoy as a ref. As can be seen on his page, McCoy made various accusations of involvement of senior South Vietnamese and Laotian politicians and generals in drug trafficking. As such he is unlikely to be a RS. The ref is used to support claims that an Army investigation largely confirmed Osborn's claims, if that is true, then a better source should be able to be provided. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't judge the reliability of sources by the claims they contain and the extent to which they agree with your own version of reality. The publication by McCoy is academic and peer-reviewed, and that makes it a Reliable Source for Wikipedia purposes. Your assumption that anyone who accuses senior South Vietnamese and Laotian politicians and generals of wrongdoing must be unreliable is an expression of your own bias. --Anonymous44 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No there should be more than one source that supports the claims if they are disputed. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no such rule on Wikipedia. If you think there is one, cite the policy that says so. You can't just 'dispute' information personally - your views as an editor do not override a reliable source; that would be the opposite of what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

All part of WP:V, if extreme/disputed claims are made they must be backed by multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Standard academic practice is to use multiple sources if something is contentious or disputed. While I realize Wikipedia is pretty much the polar opposite of academic practice, using multiple reliable sources is the best way to support this kind of claim. Intothatdarkness 22:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Price of Knowledge

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakeswarren25 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jakeswarren25 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)