Wikipedia

Talk:Operation Red Hat/Archive 1

< Talk:Operation Red Hat
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Johnvr4 in topic Query about restoration of deleted edits
Archive 1

This section is edited often

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Miscellaneous

Published external recent articles

  • ‘Okinawa bacteria’ toxic legacy crosses continents, spans generations U.S. veterans who served in Okinawa believe Agent Orange caused their children's ailments' June 4, 2013 By Jon Mitchell

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/06/04/issues/okinawa-bacteria-toxic-legacy-crosses-continents-spans-generations/#.UbHRYdLCZ8F

  • 'As evidence of Agent Orange in Okinawa stacks up, U.S. sticks with blanket denial

No bases visited, no vets interviewed for Pentagon probe into dioxin in Okinawa' BY JON MITCHELL June 4, 2013 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/06/04/issues/as-evidence-of-agent-orange-in-okinawa-stacks-up-u-s-sticks-with-blanket-denial/#.UbHfe9LCZ8F

  • 'Were we Marines used as guinea pigs on Okinawa?' Growing evidence suggests that the U.S. military tested biochemical agents on its own forces on the island in the 1960s Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012 By JON MITCHELL Special to The Japan Times http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121204zg.html

content to add

  • ARPA, the next war, Japanese scientists, Australian test range and drone Ikara
  • LCI-1041 covert missions in Korea, US Drone program for BW
  • EPA Sierra depot dioxin-like (better reference)
  • Ishii in Korea (additional) Jeju island?
  • crop destruction into drug crop destruction by State Dept
  • DoD meeting/ Alvin Young report (responses)
  • Stolen Chemical Gas from Marines on okinawa (additional)
  • Limited war concept
  • Okinawa Bacteria (additional)

photos to add

PCP spill dead fish, water contamination young report Hand spraying of Japanese crops

References to add

  • CIA/intelligence in CBW

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/AppendixA.htm

http://www.madracki.com/usarmyhawk/history.html (double check that this is the best link for missile references) http://www.tacmissileers.org/ http://www.mace-b.com/38TMW/Kadena/kadena.htm http://www.smecc.org/nike_sites1.htm

Young allegations and denials

I've added sub-sections for areas that address a particular sub-part of the Young report released in March 2013. Other allegations attributed to Veteran's by Young were already discussed previously in the entry as well as where they actually came from. The sources of these "allegations" were documents from CMA, Fort Detrick, DVA (numerous), in addition to photos, news articles of what a vet alleged was unknown about the nature of these chemicals. Other "allegations" Young cites maybe further addressed as needed and as time allows. The claims of herbicide use, storage, exposure, contamination, chemicals, were not specific to Orange unless from an official source (CMA, DVA, photo,). To an extent, media focused on Onange and Young focused on Media. The Young report, "accusations," investigation, and denial is very specific to herbicide Orange. The following is a SUMMARY provided by Young. The full report is linked at the top of this page. Summary of allegations and findings: 2012-2013 HERBICIDE ORANGE INVESTIGATIONJohnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Allegation 1.

"Herbicide Orange and other tactical herbicides were tested and evaluated in the jungle areas of Okinawa in 1961-1962.  There were no records or correspondence that indicated any testing and evaluation of Herbicide Orange in Okinawa. Herbicide Orange was tested in South Vietnam, not Okinawa, as part of Project AGILE. Additionally, Herbicide Orange was not used in Vietnam until 1965."

Something was tested on Okinawa. What was being tested has not been officially disclosed. Young says there are no records of Herbicide Orange being tested there but does not say what was tested. Herbicide purple and pink, prior to 1961-1965 deposited the majority of the total dioxin sprayed in Vietnam.

Allegation 2.

"Beginning in 1962 in Project AGILE, Herbicide Orange and other tactical herbicides were shipped to or through, unloaded on or used in Okinawa by the DoD during the Vietnam War. The merchant marine ship SS Schuyler Otis Bland (T-AK277) transported Agent Orange from the US to Okinawa in the early 1960’s.  The log books and shipping documents required for shipping herbicides show that Herbicides Pink and Purple were transported directly from San Francisco to Vietnam on the SS Bland in Dec. 1961, arriving in Vietnam on Jan. 16, 1962 and were subsequently completely offloaded in Vietnam. The SS Bland later arrived in Naha, Okinawa with a cargo of shipping containers and petroleum products on Jan. 31, 1962. There is nothing in the records to support an allegation that the ship’s logbook shows that the SS Bland returned to Okinawa and unloaded a classified cargo under armed guard at White Beach on Apr. 25, 1962. Additionally, Herbicide Orange was not used in Vietnam until 1965."

The ships log was found in the Military Sealift Command records and inspected by Michelle Gatz who took detailed notes and made some copies. The log was then moved to NARA where Young accessed it. It is assumed that nothing with the log has changed but that has not been confirmed. There was never an allegation that this shipment was Orange (except by Young himself). Only Herbicides purple and pink were noted in the log.

Allegation 3.

"That the Port of Naha, the adjacent US Army’s Machinato Supply Depot (now Makiminato Service Area, part of the US Marine Corps Camp Kinser, bordering Urasoe City), and Kadena Air Base were used to receive and store large quantities of Herbicide Orange for subsequent shipment “on merchant ships such as the USS Comet, SS Sea-Lift and the SS Transglobe” or by air transport to Vietnam during the Vietnam war.  There were no records found that authorized the shipment of tactical herbicides by these three ships. These types of ships were unsuitable for transporting the types of heavy barrels that herbicides were shipped in. Source records show that tactical herbicides shipped to Vietnam were transported under the highest priority of shipment; thus they would not have been delayed by unnecessary stops, unloading/transporting or storage. Tactical herbicides were shipped to Vietnam on ships, not sent by air."

These ships transported chemicals to Johnston Atoll for Operation Red Hat and brought retrograde chemicals in drums an containers back to Okinawa and the U.S. from Vietnam. They were sufficiently suited for that purpose. The first load of herbicides to Vietnam was brought by air because they were the highest priority and could not wait for a ship. That is indisputable documented history. The cargo of the S. Otis Bland was also considered for similar air transport.(source linked in article) Whether some portion of the second shipment was actually transported by air or not is unclear.

Allegation 4.

"That shipments of the remaining surplus inventory of “25,000 barrels” of Herbicide Orange from Vietnam were sent to Okinawa prior to shipment to Johnston Island in 1972 during Operation RED HAT.  Herbicide Orange was shipped directly from Vietnam to Johnson Island as part of Operation PACER IVY, not Operation RED HAT. Operation RED HAT occurred in 1971 and involved the removal of nerve gas from Okinawa to Johnston Island. Regarding the 2003 report “An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll,” the report’s statement about storage of Herbicide Orange in Okinawa is inaccurate and does not reflect the facts as known to the Army or to the U.S. Government. The report was an independently prepared report funded by the U.S. Army that evaluated the ecological conditions and impacts on Johnson Atoll from military activity. The report was never intended to document the history of Herbicide Orange."

An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll notes a clear distinction between Operation Red Hat in 1971 and the Agent Orange Operation in 1972. An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll was authored by a government contractor scientist like Dr. young himself. The authors of the report were scientists documenting the Environmental effects of dioxin at Johnston Atoll. Their findings were contrary to Young's findings that there was no major dioxin problem at Johnston Atoll. One scientist was from the Smithsonian which had conducted similar studies for the Army at Johnson Atoll and the island was an actual Project 112 site as were previous sites of Young's focus such as Range C52A at Eglin AFB which was used for Defoliation tests. During Project SHAD's "Shady Grove/Red BEVA" test both Johnston Atoll and Eglin were part of this test (PS the biological agents were mixed in an inflatable building on Johnston). http://mcm.fhpr.osd.mil/Libraries/CBexposuresDocs/shady_grove_revised.sflb.ashx

Allegation 5.

"That large quantities of Herbicide Orange were buried “in and around Chatan Town at Hamby Air Field,” and/or “buried at White Beach near the Machinato Supply Depot (Service Area),” and/or “buried near the Futenma Air Station near the city of Ginowan.”  There was no evidence that Herbicide Orange had been found or buried on the MSA shoreline or any mention of pesticides, Herbicide Orange, dioxin, or PCBs in the cleanup operations near the Futenma Air Station."

Discussed in article

Allegation 6.

"That an American Cargo Ship was stranded on a reef near Naha and drums of Herbicide Orange were recovered and subsequently buried on Okinawa. There is no historical evidence of drums, Agent Orange, or the description of “other cargo” noted in either the history of the LST-600 or the USS Current. USNS LST 600 went aground at Kanno Se Reef near Naha on Dec. 22, 1968 and was refloated on 17 January 1969. The USS Current arrived on Christmas Day to off load cargo from the LST 600. The barrels offloaded were petroleum products. Additionally, the last shipment of Herbicide Orange to Vietnam was in May 1968."

The history of the salvage of LST-600 by USS Current that Young is referring to states that fuel and cargo were offloaded during the salvage operation without saying what was unloaded or what was done with it. There are the reports of a ship on a reef in the late 60s; barrels buried on a beach together with a hand drawn map by a vet; drums and waste unearthed in Chatan/Hamby which was only in local news and only in the Japanese language; U.S. denied any association to the uncovered waste. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/08/13/news/agent-orange-buried-on-okinawa-vet-says/#.UYpn1aLCZ8F The burial spot on the map drawn by the vet did not perfectly match the spot of the unearthed drums in relation to the shoreline. In 2011, the LST-600 was identified (by John Olin) as the ship on the reef in 1968-69. When aerial photos and an old map was compared to a new map of the area it was learned that the shoreline had been previously filled in to reclaim land. When the vets map was compared to an old map of the shoreline, the reported burial site drawn by the vet matched the location of the actual unearthed waste almost perfectly. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Jon-Mitchell/3659 The records of the ship on the reef were also confirmed with a historical record and photos of the salvage operation. http://www.usscurrent.com/usscurrent/index.htm There is no laboratory analysis of what was uncovered except oily, tar-like substance description. The Japanese paid for the clean up of the site in excess of one million USD.

Allegation 7.

"That numerous US Vietnam-era veterans stationed in Okinawa handled and sprayed Herbicide Orange, or were witnesses to it being sprayed by a C-123. Moreover, some veterans claimed that they cleaned the contaminated aircraft at Kadena Air Base.  No evidence was found that validated this claim. However, approved insecticides, not herbicides, were sprayed in Okinawa. Repairs of the RANCH HAND UC-123-B and K models were conducted in Taipei, not Okinawa."

Discussed in article.

Red Hat Pin

Morale pin issued to Operation Red Hat participants in 1971

I'd like to know what the 2-3-4 means. The veteran who provided the photo did not remember. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

significant concerns about this article

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have a number of concerns about the article:

  1. Lengthy digressions on topics that are only tangentially related to the topic, for instance detailed discussions of accidents involving American nuclear weapons, when the topic of the article is supposed to be about chemical weapons. There are also some mentions of allegations of CIA drug trafficking, CIA activities in Cambodia, the School of the Americas, etc. There is also a lot of text about Japanese/American collaboration on chemical and biological warfare that is only tangentially related to this specific operation which, if I understand correctly, had to do with relocated chemical weapons stocks from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll.
  2. Dodgy sourcing such as Nexus (magazine) which, based on the Wikipedia article, looks like a fringe publication with no reliability
  3. Massive use of primary source documents, including lengthy quotations from these documents, without the use of a secondary source
  4. Enormous article length (200,000KB)

Crossposted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Operation_Red_Hat. GabrielF (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've just removed a large quantity of material from the article which had no clear connection to its topic. Accidents with atomic weapons around the world during the 1960s are clearly not relevant to the removal of chemical weapons from Okinawa in 1971, nor is "Japanese participation in US Cold War bio-warfare program", " Development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa" or the use of herbicides and a proposal to use nerve gas in and around Vietnam. Nexus is not a reliable source for anything. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I continue to have some serious concerns. The article covers such a broad spectrum of topics and the narrative is so scattered and confusing that I am having trouble understanding exactly what Operation Red Hat entailed and what the chronology was. It sounds to me like Operation Red Hat involved (1) maintaining chemical weapons on Okinawa and subsequently (2) moving them to Johnston Atoll. There is a lot of discussion about Project 112, which appears to involve research and testing of chemical weapons. It is not clear to me how Project 112 connects to Operation Red Hat. I don't understand how, for instance, chemical weapons testing in Utah relates to an article that's supposed to be about a mission to ship chemical weapons around the Pacific. The cited Japan Times article suggests that these were separate efforts. It looks like the connection between these operations is being drawn by original analysis and synthesis of government documents, not by reliable third-party secondary sources. There are a couple of usable sections (for instance, Storage and demilitarization) but then there are huge sections where the link to Operation Red Hat seems to be entirely speculative. I'm going to keep cutting down irrelevant material and removing dubious sources but I'm not sure that this article is salvageable. I am seriously considering AfD'ing this mess. GabrielF (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that as well. The topic of the article also wasn't clear to me, and I was going on the basis of what was in the lead. The article is basically a big dump of information of varying degrees of relevance, and WP:TNT might not be a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I am reverting all of your changes as you obviously do not have any understanding of what you just did (for example the connection of these topics to Project 112, which is the true reason for Red Hat). How each of the topics relate to the subject has been discussed extensively on this talk page.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "when the topic of the article is supposed to be about chemical weapons"
This demonstrates your lack of understanding of the nature of the subject. That is a misguided understanding and the concern and subsequnt deletion was improper. Operation Red Hat was part of Project 112 which included C-B-R CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIOLOGICAL and Toxin weapons.
  • "Accidents with atomic weapons around the world during the 1960s are clearly not relevant to the removal of chemical weapons from Okinawa in 1971, nor is "Japanese participation in US Cold War bio-warfare program", "Development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa" or the use of herbicides and a proposal to use nerve gas in and around Vietnam."
The lack of understanding is apparent. These subjects are absolutely related as I explained in the article before it was mangled without prior explanation. The original Wall street Journal Article that broke the nerve gas leak talked all about the connection to Okinawa's atomic weapons and the CBR activities and accidents on the island. Project 112 could not have happened without the information from Japanese scientists after WWII and the Rice blast experiments on Okinawa discuss the Japanese workers technical achievements in that program. Counterinsurgency in SE Asia was the purpose defoliation, crop destruction , limited warfare, and CBR as a limited warfare tool was being developed. Project 112 perfected each of these techniques and capabilities. The agents being proposed for use were the Red Hat agents being stored on Okinawa (this was stated during a DoD investigation into Sarin use in Laos). Project 112 documentation also describes the switch between a volatile 2,4,5-T ingredient of Agent Orange being replaced with a non-volatile 2,4,5-t ingredient (Silvex).
  • "Dodgy sourcing such as Nexus (magazine) which, based on the Wikipedia article, looks like a fringe publication with no reliability"
the Nexus Magazine citation was included only because it was published. That makes it verifiable. It was not a source of information and was one citation out of 175. I used the primary source about himself where further verifiable material (documents) are available. Nexus Magazine was a published secondary source to show that the primary source had been published. That is a Wikipedia requirement for using Primary sources that are not about themselves. In this case however the self published primary source WAS a source about himself AND it had been published. Therefore its use was perfectly acceptable.
  • "Massive use of primary source documents, including lengthy quotations from these documents, without the use of a secondary source"
There is nothing disallowed for massive use of primary sources as long as it is done with care and the entire article in not based on it. The other side of the story is required for NPOV. Primary sources are allowed when they are sources about themselves. In this case The US Government is a source about itself. The government information is sometime contradictory. If you have a specific concern about a particular word or sentence, Put a tag on it or open a talk page section so that I can address it.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there is confusion over what is a primary source. Those making a claim about the entire entries reliance on "Primary" sources did not look closely at the sources on which the article relies. Some are calling them primary but which are actually in fact secondary or tertiary. If there is still some doubt, this may help: http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources. There was a primary source which I did not use and is apparently lost to history (according to the army). The following primary source of the information is cited within the (secondary or tertiary) reference that I cited in the entry : Personal Transportation logbook Operation YBA, YBB, YBF Ms. Beverly Graham, AMCCCM Transportation Office, Rock Island, Illinois. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup Article instead of Deleted?

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I propose a cleanup of the article instead of deletion if Johnvr4 is willing to agree to it. It is quite a large article as I have seen it grow in length. Can there be some compromise in what information can be taken out or re-worded? Adamdaley (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a rough breakdown of how I see a cleanup of this article going (this is based on how the article stands now after about 50kb or 25% has been removed):
  1. Significance of a Red Hat to the U.S. Army - lots of original research and synthesis (see the Rip Van Winkle thing, for instance) far too long, should be cut down to a few sentence
  2. Project Deseret - I think this has to go in its entirety as it relates to tests in Utah. The connection to Operation Red Hat is tenuous and speculative.
  3. Okinawa Deployment Operation - This is relevant to the subject but is based on a self-published account[1] and on primary-source documents. I suspect that a lot of this will need to be rewritten.
  4. Okinawa nerve gas accident - Key to the subject and uses appropriate secondary sources, but will need to be checked for accuracy.
  5. Attempt to move weapons to Continental United States - Key to the subject but with some primary sources that need to be checked
  6. Chemical Munitions Removal Operation - same as above
  7. Storage and demilitarization - same as above
  8. Chemical and Biological Warfare Research Programs on Okinawa - almost all of this will need to be eliminated as the connection to Operation Red Hat is not clear
  9. Projects Waterfall, Red Cap, and Red Rock - major concerns about relevance, sourcing and accuracy
  10. Operation Red Hat, Okinawa, Johnston Atoll and Agent Orange - I think all of this or nearly all of it has to go, there's just a massive amount of analysis of original documents which is not appropriate for Wikipedia
Even if all of the OR and irrelevant material is excised, the remaining material will require careful scrutiny. On the AfD page User:Moe Epsilon has looked in depth at the use of one source and found that that source has been misrepresented and misused.
I do think that the Japan Times articles are excellent sources and can be used with some of the other secondary sources to rewrite this article. However, I have very little confidence in the existing text. GabrielF (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
First, On the AfD page User:Moe Epsilon has accused me of "Cooking things up" as in my sources. I take offense to that and also to you being a proxy for him in repeating his attack and further stating that sources are being misrepresented and misused by me. It is not true, the comments are directed at me and they are personal attacks.
I would like to point out that you still do not understand that:
  1. Significance of a Red Hat to the U.S. Army - There is no OR or synthesis. The hat is significant to the Army. That is not synthesis, It is a sourced fact. The Cap/Hat is a symbol throughout history. Rip VW is a literary use of the symbol/Hat which has the same meaning as the artistic one in the Army's logo and on flags. See Red Cap.
  2. Project Deseret is key to the subject because it is an alternate name for Project 112. The organizing of Project 112 took place at the Deseret test center. No test took place there but it was supported by Dugway where tests were conducted. Operation YBA of Red Hat Project 112 shipped out just as extensive tests were authorized. The extra-continental field tests were authorized because Dugway could not safely contain the experiments and only secondly, it only provided a desert environment when the war in SE Asia and the wars on the horizon were not going to be in a desert.
  3. Okinawa Deployment Operation there is no other source for this information about YBA, YBB, YBF. only two documents mention them. I got one a copy from EPA (from the Camp Lejeune Superfund document release.) This report is actually a secondary source based on the primary sources which are referenced in the report. Either way, it is from a military source document about this military mission, so It is also a primary source about itself and the section does not require a major re-write.
  4. Okinawa nerve gas accident - so check it.
  5. Attempt to move weapons to Continental United States- is a dumb section name and will be changed.
  6. Chemical Munitions Removal Operation- go nuts
  7. Storage and demilitarization- same
  8. Chemical and Biological Warfare Research Programs on Okinawa.- This needs to stay because this is CBW testing being done in Okinawa and each one relates directly to Project 112 activities conducted elsewhere. I cannot say which of these may have been a part of 112. There is no source. I am saying that we don't know what the Project 112 activity on Okinawa was. These are activities going on at that time and that actual CW/BW research information from Okinawa is still classified.
  9. Projects Waterfall, Red Cap, and Red Rock- These projects all concerned the Red Hat chemical gasses being stored on Okinawa.
  10. Operation Red Hat, Okinawa, Johnston Atoll and Agent Orange. These subjects are all joined at the hip and would not fit anywhere but within an Operation Red Hat discussion. That should be obvious to anyone who read it.

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take the Rip Van Winkle thing as an example because it is small and not too politically charged. Here is what the text says:

Interestingly, Washington Irving's character Rip Van Winkle awakens from his long sleep in his now strange and incomprehensible post-revolutionary, war-torn village, and one of the first things he sees is something that looks like a red night cap on top of a tall naked pole and an unfamiliar flag with an assemblage of stars and stripes

It is not original research to state facts about Washington Irving's book in an article on, say, Rip Van Winkle. It is original research to imply that there is some sort of connection between Rip Van Winkle and Operation Red Hat. You need to quote a secondary source that makes this connection. If you want to write a book about this topic you can make whatever literary allusions you feel would be useful, but you can't do that on Wikipedia.
You need to understand how original research and original synthesis works. Please read WP:SYNTH and the examples provided on that page carefully. At this point multiple, independent editors, all of whom have a great deal of experience and many of whom I have not previously interacted with, have come to the conclusion that much of the text of this article does not conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. Moe Epsilon is not a "proxy" of mine, he has done his own reading and drawn his own conclusions based on his experience as an editor. At this point throwing around accusations and insults is not productive. If you want to help reconstruct this article then you are going to need to understand Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that there are significant problems then you are not going to be part of the process of fixing this article. GabrielF (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not your determination whether or not I am going to be part of this process.
  • I stated that the Red Hat is significant in history and literature and that it is incorporated in the U.S. Army seal which is who named Operation Red Hat. I have renamed the section and the text below and believe it is is entirely appropriate, sourced and referenced. The Cap is an artistic expression also used by both the Army and Rip VW. I am not combining ideas, implying, analyzing, advancing a position, nor reaching a conclusion. I do not say or imply that they got the idea of naming operation red hat from Rip van winkle. It would be synthesis to say that it was or was not without a secondary source.
Which specific sentence from the text has the synthesis? This question has been asked repeatedly on this talk page. The text your provide in your example PROVES MY POINT in that the text provided is sourced fact. You are accusing me of OR and Synthesis when that line you provided as your example is almost a direct copy and Paste out of Rip Van Winkle!
Get your fact checker User:Moe Epsilon to verify that for you if you are unable to without help. Your concern is UNFOUNDED. here is the link. http://books.google.com/books?id=0KUtin0ODWYC&pg=PA13&dq=rip+van+winkle+red+hat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnC3Udm6CJKa9QTy0YDwDQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rip%20van%20winkle%20red%20hat&f=false
  • I was stating that you were being that users proxy in restating his offensive allegations in an equally offense way.
  • I am not refusing to change it. I am asking for specifics of your complaint of the changes that need to be made. Deleting whole sections does not provide any information and the reasons you have cited do not stand up. I make lots of mistakes. Point it out to me the concern you have or tag it and allow me time to fix it. That is all I am asking.
Deleting my contribution to the community without prior discussion or explanation is not acceptable. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.
You should have discussed your changes first and obviously in using this method, you have found out this editor is opposed to the deletion.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously there's nothing in Rip Van Winkle about Operation Red Hat. The idea that this description from a 200-year-old short story has some bearing on a 1960-1970s era military operation is entirely your idea. That's the essence of original research. You're taking something from a primary source document and you're drawing your own conclusion from it. In this case the conclusion is implicit rather than explicit, but that doesn't change the fact that without citing a secondary source saying that Rip Van Winkle has some relevance here you are drawing your own conclusion. You do this explicitly in many other places, some of which I have cited above or on the AfD page. GabrielF (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there is some synthesis through out the article (probably a lot more than I realize) and I will be re-editing each case. However, in this case, You chose a poor example. You did not point out a sentence containing synthesis or a combination of ideas. I am open to discussion on improving however the Army logo is staying and it has the Red Cap.
The Red HAT and RED CAP are highly significant to the United States and U.S. Army. There is no doubt about it. The Red Hat was significant to Greeks and Romans from 2000 years ago. Flags of many nations (mostly unfamiliar) incorporate the Cap. Rip V Winkle written 100 years ago was the more familiar and appropriate example of the artistic use use of the cap because it mentions not only the Red Caps symbolism in liberty and revolution but its association with flags and that it is displayed by putting it on a pole. The Army description has an explanation of the Caps Red Color and replaces the pole with a sword.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
John, do you not understand that unless you have a source that explicitly ties Operation Red Hat with the Phyrgian Cap, Rip van Winkle, you are, by definition, synthesizing when you connect the three? It doesn't matter how obvious the connection might be to you. You are still synthesizing by connecting them, and that is expressly prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not think consensus on anything was reached. There is synthesis in the article as I've read the synthesis policy carefully. The fact that the Cap is mentioned is not synthesis. In the context I used it in, I think its acceptable. It implies nothing and reached no synthesis conclusion unsupported by sources. Is the concern than I made it all up or that is needs more support for any inclusion at all? I am trying to understand if the current concern is wording as the previous synthesis concern before it was re-edited or a another source. Please help me out, I can re-edit or find an new source without deleting huge parts of it if you simply place tags on the sentences with issues. I understand it is long too but that is a separate concern to be addressed later.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the fact that there is a red cap mentioned in Rip van Winkle is not synthesis. That is a simple fact. As is the fact that a red cap is featured on the Army seal. But, connecting the two of those things with this operation in any way, in the absence of a secondary source making said connection, is the very definition of synthesis based on your own original research. It's not a matter of wording. It's the very connection you are trying to draw that is fundamentally problematic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE QUIT REVERTING AND DELETING CONTENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED ON THIS PAGE OR HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SUBJECT. such as the 267th Chemical company. THE VERSION TO WHICH THE ARTICLE KEEPS BEING REVERTED HAD NO DISCUSSION OR CONSENSUS PRIOR TO THE DELETION AND NEITHER DID THE LAST REVERSION. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EDIT THE AREAS OF CONCERN IF IT KEEPS GETTING REVERTED TO SOME EDITORS MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT. TALK ABOUT YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE A DELETION AND THEN CHANGE IT LONG AFTER IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that users who have an issue with certain information within this article, point them out and let Johnvr4 correct them with other information sources and what not. Because Johnvr4 has gone through a lot of information and someone in the Wikipedia community must also have access to the same information as Johnvr4 does. Until another user can help (which I see it would greatly help the article and Johnvr4). What's the point of reverting and getting blood pressures up and not letting anyone get the article right so it doesn't get deleted? I know Johnvr4 wouldn't want to make any enemies on Wikipedia, so please give him a chance. Adamdaley (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the vote of confidence and Thank you to those helping to improve without the deletions. Please use you expertise to point out the (specific) issue(s) that needs attention. To be honest, I did not even know how to do the format of a citation when I started so there may a few errors. There is some obvious synthesis in the Agent Orange Young section that I intend to remove or re-edit but I am also "cooling off" per request.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Red Hat. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I do not believe this article should be merged, as it is a separate, distinct U.S. military operation which deserves it's own page, in line with many other U.S. military operations (eg. see all those in Category:Military operations involving the United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This painfully incomplete and non comprehensive article is a stub that should go over at Japan and WMDs in line with your often-stated stated very simple goal of placing onto the main page a brief synopsis of the Red Hat operation that (in your opinion) only moved chemical agents to Johnston Atoll which not all of the reliable sources will support. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
"the creation [of the current main space article] was done to show what a cut down version, more acceptable to article rules, might look like. ... Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016"
"I wanted to make sure the mainspace included something about the 1971 munitions transfer. No more, no less. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017"
"As I've said above, this was about placing something about the 1971 munitions transfer in the mainspace. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)" Johnvr4 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
In line with WP:BOLD, at User talk:Mark Arsten I have repeatedly urged you to expand this article should you think it is incomplete. Be careful, however, in trying to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources, to avoid WP:SYNTH. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've used care with primary sources. There is no interpretation (or there shouldn't be any) and the primary sources used are (some recently) supported reliable by non-primary sources. I propose moving this condensed content to Japan and WMDs. This can be a stub. After we get done with nukes we can do a main:US chemical weapons and Japan-themed article. Here.  ? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Red Hat. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Red Hat. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have moved the summary text in this article to Japan and weapons of mass destruction # U.S. chemical weapons and Japan. I will replace the article with material I have redeveloped in my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing PAGE HIST

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is missing the complete page history and appears to contains text attributed to me which I did not submit. The specific text (regarding Night Moves of Chemicals) was falsely used as justification for a previous AfD. It was userfied at User:JohnVR4/Operation Red Hat and the complete Page history was deleted recently by Buckshot06. The userfying editor Buckshot06 reinserted that same text among other issues into this mainspace article and it needs to be corrected. Preserving the pages history is one of our five pillars WP:5P5 where every past version of a page is saved. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

POV concern

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I feel this article fails WP:NPOV because it does not explore the majority and minority viewpoints in each cited source. I feel this article has profound POV issues because it in too condensed, hopelessly incomplete. It is basically a summary of a more complete article that that Buckshot recently nominated for deltion by presenting untruths in those discussions. In addition near copy of this article (Nearly the entire contents of which is only a summary article anyway) already exists at Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#U.S._chemical_weapons_and_Japan. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Query about restoration of deleted edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
  • Operation Red Hat is missing the complete edit history and contains text attributed to me with I did not submit. That specific text regarding night moves of chemicals was falsely used as Justification for a previous AfD (and MfD and DRV). The complete WP:PAGEHIST was userfied at User:JohnVR4/Operation Red Hat. The userfying editor reinserted that text into the main space and It need to be corrected. WP:5P5 Preserving the pages history is one of our five pillars where "every past version of a page is saved". Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Johnvr4: There is a visible history at Operation Red Hat starting at 01:45, 23 April 2006‎. It is sitting over 2,050 deleted edits running from 00:11, 24 May 2012 to 21:27, 27 December 2016. User:JohnVR4 is not a registered user. There are 75 deleted edits and no visible edits at User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat. Please who is "the userfying editor"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The closing admin for this request should probably quickly look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30, and the original AfD of June 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. The material involved is a lengthy treatment of a variety of very unrelated issues to the acknowledged core of the subject, a chemical/biological weapons transfer from Okinawa to Johnson Atoll in the 1970s. The weapons had been intended for war use against North Korea, it seems. The community consensus, as shown at the June 2013 mainspace deletion request, the MfD this month, and the DRV, is to delete, but Johnvr4 is very emotionally attached to having this material visible in some form on Wikipedia and wishes it to be resurrected. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @Anthony Appleyard:, it was User:Buckshot06. It was same administrator who previously locked that page so only he could edit it, resurrected a POV copy with the same problems that originally got it AfDed, and recently nominated all existing versions, including the PageHists and drafts that I had redeveloped for MfD by asserting a plethora of utter misrepresentations. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Johnvr4 and Buckshot06: Operation Red Hat (visible edits) was 957 bytes at 01:45, 23 April 2006‎, gradually growing to 9296 bytes now. Operation Red Hat (deleted edits) See [2] for Operation Red Hat's delete/undelete/protection history, including 3 actions by Buckshot06. See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. None of the edit comments of its edits (deleted or undeleted) seem to mention page-moving. If the deleted edits were undeleted, they would all fit between the consecutive visible edits 01:09, 24 May 2012‎ and 13:39, 28 December 2016. Do you want me to undelete those deleted edits to reassemble its edit history? As Buckshot06 seems to be involved, please, I do NOT want to be involved in a WP:Wheel war. If there is need to re-discuss this matter here, please be concise. If this dispute centers on which matter to include and which matter to exclude :: several times I have run into intractable disputes between inclusionists and exclusionists; often, one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter.
    • In "text attributed to me with I did not submit" written by Johnvr4 hereinabove, the page's history list will show who inserted what. Or what is supposed to have happened? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm involved here and arguing my side of the story. I cannot take any admin actions. I do not want you to undelete all the deleted edits, because that would breech the consensus arrived at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat. I would kindly request you, Anthony, to refuse the request for undeletion, as it goes against the AfD and MfD, as well as the DRV. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify another of Buckshots06's misrepresentations quote:"of a variety of very unrelated issues to the acknowledged core of the subject, a chemical/biological weapons transfer from Okinawa to Johnson Atoll in the 1970s". He knows Red Hat was more than a ship ride off Okinawa in 1971. His own POV version that HE Resurrected admits that. There were were two drafts in my userspace. Legacy of... in JohnVR4/Operation Red Hat (with the old history) covers US WMD in Japan rather than unrelated issues. The other draft being edited was JohnVR4/Sandbox which would have been finished and moved to Johnvr4/Operation Red hat before merging. Or at least that was the plan. Instead Buckshot nominated every bit of it for deletion ever after I told him the PAGEhist was there. He has another motive however and numerous discussions are taking place where he and another editor User:Moe Epsilon,Absolutely do not want the fact that I did not write a particular passage exposed. They accused me of "Cooking up in my spare time" up that passage and it has been the foundation of their arguments for over four years to date. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
          • It's funny because I haven't interacted with you for four years and was begrudgingly brought back into this because you pinged me a couple days ago. I honestly don't give a crap what is restored, but after an AFD, an MFD and a DRV, you'd think you'd stop going around asking people to undelete this material for you and just re-write it already. Do you actually have anything to contribute to the article on Operation Red Hat? Minus deleted content, the last time you added real content to it, it was 2012 according to the edit history. How many years are you going to plan the content and not release it to the main namespace? I ask because if you never plan to, then it's no difference whether it is deleted or not. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
            • It's not funny at all. Since you asked (snarkily) and are only here, "simply because you honestly don't give a crap" Please allow me to clarify that you and especially Buckshot06 bought your bunk assertions (same issues that got it deleted 4 yrs ago) back to life. It came to a head this week and your name came up as a result. Editors need proof of who of who is making the bogus assertions however buckshot06 deleted the Pagehist and all proof. After my repeated explanation that I did rewrite the draft completely in the last few months; There's a truckload of new sources; you again just in the last few days (much like four years ago), still have no idea what you were talking about- which will be available to prove for you. Again. You should never had made that false attack back then in AfD, or come back to make it again. this is not revenge. I can't help but set the record straight and show that your assertions were unfair and that the fabrication of concern that you made has persisted for far too long. Four years later and both you and the other editor keep pointing to it. You should never have based the foundation of your arguments on a concern about me that you seem to have apparently cooked up. Your entirely Bogus offensive personal attack of me cooking up night moves of chemicals in my spare time as one main reason for deletion at AfD is the fact that has been asserted. The concern about night moves was valid (I told you it was a good find and it would need to be fixed) but you assumed bad faith and you very publicly blamed it on me. That continued assumption and your accusations over four years is likely the only reason why you are here. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Buckshot06, Johnvr4, and Moe Epsilon: (I am in England and I had never heard of Operation Red Hat until I read this article.) The last deleted edit at User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat seems to be all or largely about chemical-warfare-materials-related events on Okinawa, even if not directly about Operation Red Hat. Similarly with the last deleted edit at Operation Red Hat. About the description of each event described in these two sets of deleted matter, these queries arise, for each event individually:-
      1. Presence of a reference, and reliability of that reference. (Unreliable matter may have to be edited out.)
      2. Relevance to Operation Red Hat. If it is reliable but not related to Operation Red Hat, it might be useful in a more general article about chemical weapons.
      3. In the previous message, the text "... offensive personal attack of me cooking up ..." :: please specify individually the described chemical-warfare-materials-related events whose descriptions are in your opinion to be queried, and why in your opinion the description is queryable. It is better to specify details than to argue about generalities.
      4. Please no more flamage.
Redevelopment Drafts of former Operation RED HAT
User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat (scope covers US WMD in Japan) and had the Operation Red Hat oldest page hist showing that I did not submit the text regarding night moves of chemical agents. The most recent version had been condensed and was in User:Johnvr4/sandbox (scope covered Operation Red Hat and Agent Orange with a surveillance part that hadn't been moved yet). Johnvr4 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Anthony Appleyard I just got power and internet back on after a week sorry for the delay. No the page history prior to my edits is missing. the page history still has the same issue and the page is missing the complete deletion and restoration history as well. It still needs to be resolved. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Johnvr4, unless you would like administrator action taken against you, do not edit at this page, or anything related to either Japan or weapons, broadly construed. You have been topic banned from these areas. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Buckshot06, Johnvr4, and Moe Epsilon: There are two opinions about restoring these edits :: see the discussion above. See also User talk:Johnvr4#Topic Ban Enforced. (If your power outage is due to the recent hurricanes, you have my sympathy; I saw the effects on television news.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No restoration should take place, as this would violate the consensus of the AfD and the MfD. Anthony, you quite rightly closed this discussion earlier, and it should not be reopened. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Buckshot, Anthony. Also, since this discussion started, John has been topic banned and will be unable to edit anything under the umbrella of Japan or weaponry unless it is appealed. So, I feel like this discussion can close for now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Purposely ignoring both Buckshot06 and Moe in order to respond to your inquiry about a timely response, the condition of this article, just as reported above, remains. Please See Johnvr4 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Red_Hat/Archive_1&oldid=1075433814"