Talk:The Men Who Stare at Goats

Project JEDI and The Special Forces Unit

In the book "The Men Who Stares At Goats" and it's movie. There is an attempt to discern the practical and crackpot uses of "Psychic Warfare" to it's extremes in the search for future military applications. For what it's worth, there is an additional background story.

During the "Project Stargate" period of military and domestic applied psychical warfare research conducted by various agencies, there were a number of "Sub-Projects" that were conducted and various fundings according to the nature of the study. In the case of sub-project "Project Jedi", a select number of candidates from the U.S. Special Forces were selected. Their mission was to explore and nurture (if any was discovered) the extreme edge of psychical applications that could for on-field use and deployment. The various uses of simple ESP, Clairvoyance, Remote Viewing, Psychic Spying, and other related non-psychical applications that might be successfully utilized as a offensive and/or defensive weapon. In the case of "Project Jedi", the mere idea and use became such a mixed bag of practical and crackpot ideas, that those involved in the project began to take a more larger than life attitude towards "Project Jedi", that they could walk through walls and stare at goats till they died in a sort of Starwars-Darth Vader style of Jedi thought stranglehold. Eventually, "Project Jedi" became a diluted, non-useful study to eventually fall away to the wayside as a non-practical element in the study for future warfare applications. Part of the blame for it's failure, was it's lack of supervision and/or acute micro-management in portions of the project. Because it borrowed from other sources, it was never to reach it's apparent goal. Aedwardmoch (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk)

No need for more references

"This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications." This is really stupid. The article describe the content in a book, nothing else. The book itself is the only references that is needed here.

Cut the crap ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.181.95 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. Review WP:RS and WP:V for information about sources. Works need third party coverage. --208.57.178.16 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is not encyclopedic. It references no sources (aside from the book), and contains no information aside from advertising the book's existence.75.172.69.233 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And there is a link to the wrong John Sergeant: compare http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-sergeant, to the link in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sergeant_(journalist). Not the same guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.172.166 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

Was interested in the military connection with Heaven's Gate:

"the role of a military "remote viewer" in the Hale-Bopp spaceship hoax that inspired the Heaven's Gate suicide cult" [1] (Remote viewing (RV) is the purported ability to gather information about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means or extra-sensory perception.)

"[The Men Who Stare at Goats] claims that General Bert Stubblebine actively recruited the now highly-controversial Ed Dames to become a remote viewer. It then implies that because of this, Stubblebine was responsible for the eventual deaths of 39 Heaven's Gate cult members through a very convoluted chain-of-events."

"The real facts are that Stubblebine had nothing to do with Dames becoming a remote viewer. Dames had been involved with the remote viewing program for months before he and Stubblebine ever crossed paths."[2]

69.243.7.203 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Goatse

The Men Who Stare At Goatse redirects to The Men Who Stare At Goats. Is that right? If so, should we add Goatse to the "See also"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.94.46.216 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"original research"

User:Valerius Tygart who has been editing this article (he's upfront about the use of IPs) claims there is no OR in the article, and the material is in the book. So, where does the book say "this was the Stargate Project" and "curiously, Ronson never refers to it by name." It seems very doubtful that Ronson's book actually says that. User:LuckyLouie, am I missing something here? Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement was that "Stargate Project" was NOT mentioned in the book. Not that it was there. Please read more carefully. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading a nonfiction book and then adding your own observations into its Wikipedia article isn't helpful and runs afoul of WP:OR, since (with a few exceptions) it always involves interpreting what's in the primary source and deciding what detail to emphasize and what to ignore when describing it. Better to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about the book and its contents. We have some good secondary sources, and I don't see anything in them that indicates "this was the Stargate Project". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that summarizing a non-fiction book in a "Synopsis" or "Contents" section is best done with "reliable secondary sources" as opposed to the book itself. That seems incredibly laborious & twisted. I've never seen it done that way. Just summarize the book. (Would you summarize the plot of a movie only by reading "reliable reviews" of it?) Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out all the reliable secondary sources I added and reverting the article back to your personal impressions of the book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, according to recently added references, the book/movie described something called "Project Jedi" rather than Project Stargate, so as you can see, it's always best to go with what secondary sources say rather than rely on one's own interpretation of a primary source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. "Project Jedi" (yes, mentioned in the book) is alleged to have been a Special Forces program at Fort Bragg. (There are no good sources on it, and who knows to what extent it was an actual program?) "Project Stargate" was an official unit at Fort Meade, and there are several books that describe it. (Not very good books, but what can you do...) As for whether the "psychic spy" unit described throughout Ronson's book is the same as Project Stargate: they were both US Army psychic warfare units; they were both at Fort Meade, Maryland; they both started in the late '70s & were in full flower in the '80s; they were both overseen by Maj. Gen. Stubblebine & Lt. "Skip" Atwater; and they both included "psychics" named Lyn Buchanan, Ed Dames, Joseph Moneagle and Ingo Swann. All of these elements are in Ronson's book on the one hand and in published books (see the Project Stargate refs) on the other. They are clearly the same unit and a link between this Wikipedia article to the one on Project Stargate is more than justified. I don't consider this "original research", I consider it linking one Wikipedia article to another related one. There is a Wikipedia policy about not inserting original research, but there is not one that says you have to be stupid. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, why do I get the feeling that, of the three of us, only I have actually read this book? Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are, it doesn't appear that you understand, or perhaps you just don't agree with, our policy on original research. You still need to source " (This was the Stargate Project, although Ronson never refers to it by name.)" Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this the anon who keeps getting reverted for WP:OR? Guy (Help!) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've brought this up at WP:NORN - specifically the repeated insertion of "(This was the Stargate Project, although Ronson never refers to it by name.)" Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Valerius Tygart, please use the talk page to propose and gain consensus for your changes as you are close to breaking WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have been doing so. User:Dougweller insists on doing most of it on my userpage, despite my request that he not... Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than adding to the synopsis, you may want to propose something like an "Analysis" section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I brought it up at the editor's talk page (where my edits were moved around and section headings changed despite my objections), because the discussion here had gone dead with no responses. It's only after I brought it up there that the editor started to respond again. As for 3RR, Valerius says he isn't reverting, the 4 editors who have disagreed with him are the only reverters. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If it matters to anyone, my original edit regarding the name, was simply an entry/link under the "See also" section. It had "Stargate Project, the Fort Meade "psychic spy" unit described (but, curiously, never named) by Ronson." In my view, that is perhaps the best place for the link, not the synopsis. But Dougweller has been determined (until very recently) to squash any mention of it wherever I may put it. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I doubt that there's enough additional text to make up an "Analysis" section. Also, I think that the name issue is really a non-issue anyway, blown way out of proportion, and not deserving of all this attention. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I should note that although I certainly reverted that small bit of text as OR, I'm not the one who reverted most of your added text - I left that alone. Other editors reverted that. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 8 -. May 2015 (UTC)

re Star Gate. Ronson, p257, acknowledges Schnabel, _Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies_, 1997. "This book gave me invaluable background information..." Schnabel says program of remote viewers went under names "Grill Flame", "Center Lane", "Sun Streak", "Star Gate". Schnabel p 380, the only mention of Star Gate in the index, says "'Sun Streak' came off the rubber stamps, and was replace by 'Star Gate'". This was very late in the program's existence. Ronson follows this in that the program had several names, Star Gate only one of them, thus he doesn't feel it necessary to identify the program by name, it would seem. GangofOne (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another ref, this one calls it "known by several names... finally..Project Stargate", from the book already called "unreliable" on, Valerius's Talk page, or maybe the OR Noticeboard, the discussion is oozing out in many places,

https://books.google.com/books?id=-ZNaGhPQdUEC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=Jon+Ronson+Stargate&source=bl&ots=sDX-c9ACWV&sig=lyh--PysGPV4CBXKPCpweVbg1fE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t35NVYmKO4qoogS5r4GIAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Jon%20Ronson%20Stargate&f=false GangofOne (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

...and the sequence of the various names has long been at the Stargate Project wikipedia article. As far as I know, the earlier names don't have wiki articles themselves, maybe redirects. Certainly any should redirect to Stargate Project, the name overwhelmingly used in the published books & articles about the program. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure 'nuff. "Grill Flame", "Center Lane" & "Sun Streak" all redirect to Stargate Project already... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)