Talk:The Report from Iron Mountain

Redundant or non-NPOV?

There is a statement that flirts with being non-NPOV: "...who seem unaware that in 1972 the satirist Leonard Lewin admitted he wrote it." It was stated earlier in the paragraph that Leonard admitted writing it. The second statement is redundant and possibly not NPOV. Any thoughts? 207.98.195.44 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a hoax, but fact.

My interest in the report centers not upon if it is a hoax or not, but rather upon if or not the ideas contained in it are meaningful and interesting, i.e. do they have anything productive to say about real world situations past or present, particularly regarding the role of war in the world, economically and psychologically? The report represents a perspective and an analysis regardless of it's authenticity and since wikipedia is a starting point for knowledge seekers; perhaps it would be useful to point the reader in the direction of any extant perspectives and analyses that are similar to, or sharply contradictory of the substance of the report conclusions. I feel the conclusions of the report are perhaps not clearly enough described in the present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.14.104 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoax?? Yeah sure..look around since 1963, wikipedia is bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this history is questionable. The claim of hoax regarding "The Report from the Iron Mountain" is questionable due to the lack of background details on Leonard C. Lewin. We don't know much about why he would write such a convincing hoax in spite of actual circumstances and real events that are oddly correlated to the Report from the Iron Mountain. Even the confession from Leonard C. Lewin is dubious and suspicious. Perhaps he's not telling the whole story and just misleading you with a bizarre deception that we may not fully comprehend...yet.

• Unsurprisingly, the above remark (made 20 July 2005) is anonymous. Navasky, I assume, is well enough known that I don't need to explain who he is, and is hardly a man one would expect to "cover" for the U.S. government. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we should err on the side of calling this a hoax, simply because the author (Lewin) and the author's friend (Navasky) both said publicly that the piece was intended as a hoax. However, there have certainly been a lot of interesting observations made over the years regarding this report being factual and the hoax story being a cover, so we shouldn't necessarily conclude it's 100% a hoax either. In any case, since few people (i.e., primary or secondary sources) have been willing to go on the record as saying this is a real report, we should leave the hoax label as is and confine alternate theories to a proportionally small space. 99th Percentile 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this article is very accurate in saying the Report From Iron Mountain is a hoax. I believe John Kenneth Galbraith himself confirmed its authenticy. Sincerely, Sutjo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.131.253 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Report from Iron Mountain is not a hoax, and it is a real report in all seriousness. On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations), said that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'

Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was 'a member of the conspiracy' '

The original reporter reported the following six days later: 'Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: 'Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr. LewinThe joyous one (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elboertjie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 January 2008

I'm reverting to the January 3 version, prior to the addition of rewording which claimed that it was not a hoax on the basis of self-contradictory assertions by one person. I'll find a way to incorporate the additions concerning Galbraith's role as reviewer, but they cannot be taken as definitive or even credible evidence of a non-hoax. I also think it's bad form to change the title of a discussion section unnecessarily as Elboertjie did [1] --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to use your way of arguing, that because there is not evidence of it being fact, then the same should apply to what you are claiming, there is no evidence that this is a hoax. Whatever evidence you point to that this is a hoax, has the same weight from counter-evidence that it is fact. So, you can't claim something to be a hoax if you say that fact can't be proven; whatever you claim has to be proven. I have changed the wording now to reflect that there are claims that it is a hoax just as there are claims that it is fact. The joyous one (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's present all the information, with references to it (very important), and let the reader decide for themselves if this is a hoax or not. The joyous one (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a hoax, get over it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.6.26 (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

References

"Reveal"/"Revelation"

This edit changed "The reveal" to "The revelation". Normally, I would consider "revelation" the better word, but I believe that "the reveal" is the more common term in stagecraft, mystery novels, etc., for the part of the performance/story where everything is made clear. But I won't revert without a third opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See [2] for a similar use of "the reveal". - Jmabel | Talk 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very new at this and am completely unfamiliar with the topic, but that may make me exactly what you're after. I think "The revelation" reads quite a bit more smoothly and naturally as a section header than "The reveal". If for some reason you're philosophically opposed to the use of the word "revelation" to describe a hoax, it might be better to rephrase the whole thing as "Revealing the hoax". Kickaha Ota 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Leonard C. Lewin

I notice this author (who this article makes to be an important figure in 20th century literature) doesn't have an article -- not even a stub! Can't someone write it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.132.209.231 (talk • contribs) July 17, 2006.

I'm not sure I'd say "an important figure in 20th century literature"—no one would ever put him in a top 100, not even a U.S. top 100—but he's certainly a lot more important than a lot of people we have articles on. I'll see what I can do. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Validity of the document

Perhaps there are actually two questions:

1) How valid is the report as a description of the situation (as it was some 40 years ago "or at points thereafter), whatever its origin.

2) Whether the document was associated with an official/government source.

The truth or otherwise of the answer to each question is not dependent upon that of the other. (And - separate question - what "component of logic" describes the above?) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference in fiction

The 1983 science fiction novel The Olympus Gambit by William Rollo contains a reference to the Iron Mountain report. One of the characters is approached by agents of a high ranking figure in the US intelligence community and asked to take fake alien artifacts to Mars. When asked why, the following is said:

I quote from the State Department Special Study Group paper of 1966 entitled On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace.

I thought that was a hoax.
Who told you that?
When it was published, all the reviews said the chap wrote it himself.
When it was leaked. Did the publishers say it was a hoax?

The Olympus Gambit, pg 44

The discussion then continues on to describe how the discovery of the fake artifacts will be used to channel military monies into space exploration. This might be worth mentioning in the article. Graham1973 (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC) There is also a refrence to it made in Hanah Arendt's "On Violence" (page 5 footnote 4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.161.151 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs rewrite

This article really needs a complete rewrite. This book was an antimilitarist satire/spoof and minor bestseller from the Vietnam War era (if anything a farce on the same level as the movie Dr. Strangelove), which for some reason conspiracy theorists rediscovered 20 years later and decided was a top secret government blueprint for implementing the "New World Order". The problem with the article is it doesn't make clear from the beginning that the book is satire, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe view that the book is a real government document. Conspiracy theorist interest in the book should of course be covered in the article, but not in such a way as to make it appear there is still some kind of legitimate controversy over the book's origins. According to all WP:RELIABLE sources the book is a spoof written by Leonard Lewin. There was a legitimate controversy over the book's origins in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but that was settled when Lewin came forward in 1972 and admitted he was the author. The article should state this upfront in the intro. 74.111.69.158 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some things to the intro that should address those issues. 74.111.69.158 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because for some reason, J.K. Galbraith is not a reliable source. He was quite sane when he vouched for its authenticity, so either he was part of the great hoax or he was telling the truth and later recanted because he was threatened. Which is more unlikely? I leave now because Wiki is not worth anyone's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Looks Good To Me.

I am actually amazed that this page has not been sanitized to fit the bias of American Wiki staff. Usually if you want balanced information you have to search on the Spanish, Russian, Chinese and German wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.4.7 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether "Report From Iron Mountain" is fiction or fact is a moot question

It doesn't matter whether the report is true or not, it is enough for it to be alarming. The present disarmament rate seems agonizingly slow. Yet disarmament is now serious. It appears to be the logical result of determining, with worldwide transportation, communications and space flight, the present array of secular facts about the world. The dream of flying to the Moon (and possibly Sun) is thousands of years old. At that time, religion was crude and imagination dominated it with images of all kinds. It was believed monsters and aliens could live in the Moon, Sun, planets and stars; gods might be there; wonderful new lands to live in might be there and fight over. It is no wonder that wars dominated the world until the recent, actual attainment of space flight by the Apollo Project. For peace, it was a terribly close shave. If the Apollo Project had failed miserably, world nuclear conflict could have ensued with the intention of destroying most of the existing cities. Fortunately the truth was determined: no place in the solar system is worth-or dangerous enough-to fight about with weapons of mass destruction. Habitable worlds and life may exist at other star systems but that's a very much different question. For the next century and possibly much more time, Earth is the only place to be and suddenly peace is vital and much more attractive.SyntheticET (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You really believe that those in charge simply abandoned research into space travel? Of course many very intelligent engineers find it hard to believe you could land a rocket powered craft on the moon without a computer (given 1960s tape driven calculators are not computers). Under the existing police state we cannot get enough data to make informed conclusions about much of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.4.7 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Creature from Jekyll Island?

Almost half this article seems to be taken almost verbatim from "A Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin p516 - 528. Although the article does reference the book's original references, shouldn't the article reference the book as well? Could anyone comment on how much (if any) the book had to do with the popular understanding of "The Report from Iron Mountain"? Tcolgan001 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Publishing History

The publishing history lists only book publication. Sometime between 1966 and 1970 I read this work in some mass-circulation magazine---Saturday Evening Post, Look, something like that. 72.94.98.156 (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Similar document

Should we create an article for Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, a similar document? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson & Authenticity

I've done a little clean up on the lede and section on publishing history. I'm inclined to remove "Reaction by Lyndon Johnson" and "Authenticity", since these don't really add much to the article. (The question of authenticity seems settled in reliable sources and what remains belongs here, on the talk page. The two-part issue of validity seems well-enough settled by simply pointing out that it is satire.) The bit on Johnson seems to be lifted from hoaxes.org, "authenticity" from Creature from Jekyll Island (and risks WP:PLAG). Before I remove those section, though, I thought I'd add a discussion note here to see whether there are any objections. Mr leroy playpus (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)