Talk:Black project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black project article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 Why no mention of funding/publication use? 2 We don't have an article called "Black project" 3 Fleecing of America 4 Project ARCELIC2? 5 Fictional Proof

[edit] Why no mention of funding/publication use?

A Black Project or Black Program is also a military/gov't project where the researchers, as per the RFP(s), cannot publish externally (e.g., refereed research in their field) anything about the project. That is a really common usage, and it is totally missing here. There's nothing secretive about it -- it is told to the researchers up front when they ask for money to work on the project. So why no mention -- too mundane?  ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.29.114 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We don't have an article called "Black project"

Search Wikipedia for Black project - it might be called something else. ...but you can write it! Type in the box below and click save page to start this article. Your article will be published immediately. Create an account to have yourself listed as the author. New to Wikipedia? Read the introduction and your first article. If you want to experiment, use the sandbox. Other test articles will be deleted, taking up the time of others.

It's a joke, the statement we don't have an article called "black project"...  :)

---

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Would someone (say, the person who placed this flag) please elaborate on why it is necessary for an article that basically explains that 'black project' is the term used in the USA to describe classified research projects that are not officially listed in the federal budget to have a worldwide view of the subject?

[edit] Fleecing of America

Shouldn't the "$50 hammers and $500 toilet seats" scandals of the 1990s fit into here? I'd Be Bold, but I don't have the source citations off-hand. 71.246.25.200 06:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh that happens every decade, but the difference is that they don't necessarily hide it completely, they just put it where people don't really notice it. The attraction of black projects to conspiracy theorists is that because they're black projects, an absence of evidence that they exist is also (to the conspiracy theorist) proof that they exist, because that's one of the distinguishing features of a black project.

It's interesting to note, however, that one need not be a conspiracy theorist to know that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence - after all, Al Capone was brought down on a charge that basically equates to aggravated tax evasion. Orethrius (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project ARCELIC2?

I can't find any other information on this supposed project, and it looks suspiciously like "Arse-Lick." I'm not deleting this, but if someone knows this is just a joke and not an actual project, I would suggest it.

(Tha Pyngwyn 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Even if 'ARCELIC2' is a real project, the only hits google turned up were from wikipedia and answers.com (which reprints wikipedia's entry)... which would make it original research.

IMO, it's very likely to be a bad joke. I've also noticed someone's been adding 'penis' to some of the video game entries... methinks this is going to be a bad summer for vandalism.

[edit] Fictional Proof

How can a non-existent project be used as an example of alternate funding?

The point is to illistrate that the funding did not come through government channels, but from agents operating outside of their governments. That the project may not have existed is in this case non-notable, as this is the best example to show evidenceof such covert funding. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this supposed alternate source of funding, the Montauk Project page makes references to a lot of conspiracy theories but not one to Nazi gold. Shouldn't either the Montauk Project link from this article be removed or the reference to Nazi gold be added to the linked article? Strategia 20:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)