From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont know if it's permissable to use images from the F.A.S. Web Site without getting prior approval, but since, after a cursory search, I couldnt find any notification one way or the other, I foolishly went ahead and did it anyway. Oh well; mistakes can be corrected, and I remember reading somewhere that non-porfit and government organizations were subject to different regulations than others. I'm sure someone will yell at it if it becomes a big deal.

The image in question is the diagram I may or may not use on the article for the TOPOL-M missile I'm writing. Thanks. --Oceanhahn 08:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 FAS.org sources, as received by email from FAS 2 List of projects incomplete 3 Political Leanings? 4 Editorial vs. Encyclopedia

[edit] FAS.org sources, as received by email from FAS

FAS.org sources, as received by email from FAS. ( bold emphasis mine ) Please note that images found on these source sites maybe still be under copyright. Be sure to read the disclaimers on these sites as well or contact the maintainer of those sites. DarkLordSeth 17:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

As a policy, we do not allow the images on the FAS website to be reprinted. Although many of our images are in the public domain, others are copyrighted, and we simply do not have the staff resources to help other organizations sift through them to separate one from the other. However, I have included a list of the image banks which we have used for our site. I hope that they will be similarly helpful to you.

Satellite Images

Our recent satellite images were purchased from Space Imaging, Inc. ( http://www.spaceimaging.com ). Historical satellite images (CORONA, etc.) were obtained from the National Archives and are in the public domain.

General Military

http://www.defenselink.mil:80/multimedia/
http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/AVE US Marine Corps Aircraft, Vehicles, and Equipment

Aircraft/USAF

http://www.af.mil/news/indexpages/fs_index.shtml Air Force Fact Sheets
http://www.af.mil/art/ Air Force Clipart
http://www.af.mil/art/3_insign/shields.htm Air Force Clipart - Insignia
http://www.acc.af.mil/imagebank/ Air Combat Command Imagebank
http://www.acc.af.mil/imagebank/links.htm Links to other Image Banks
http://www.concentric.net/~Roperha/ Air Force Patch Collectors Home Page - Richard Operhall (Opie)
http://www.aeroemblem.com/ aeroemblem.com - The Leader in Air Force Patches for the Collector
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/44-80/preface.htm FM 44-80 VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
http://147.71.210.21/fm4480/preface.htm M 44-80 VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION - Ft Bliss Illustrated Edition
http://www.kolibri.lr.tudelft.nl/eject/planes/pictures.htm EJECT! - The Aircraft Image Archives
http://www.baskerville.it/Flynet/GAVSTO/foto.html Aeromedia Aircraft Image Archive
http://www.rccad.com/Gallery.htm The largest gallery of VRML aircraft on the Internet! @ RcCad
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/manatee/272/ AIRPLANE 3-VIEW DRAWINGS
http://www.totavia.com/gallery/ TOTAVIA Image Collections - Original Aviation Photography
http://www.achilles.net/~rjl/warplane.html The Warplane Picture Gallery by Richard J. Longchamp

Navy

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.html Navy Fact File
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/news/digital-imagery/in-news.html NAVSEA Digital Imagery
http://209.75.54.135/images/image.htm Fleet Imaging Command Pacific Website
http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/Gallery/Gallerysearch.cfm Patuxent River Naval Air Station Photo Lab
http://www.bluejacket.com/ bluejacket.com - United States Navy, Marine Corps & Coast Guard History & Graphics
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/9697/ Navy Command Insignia Index

Land Warfare

http://www.saalt.army.mil/sard-zs/saal_zs_public_docs/wsh.html Army Weapon Systems Handbook
http://sill-www.army.mil/Graphics/clipart_library.htm ClipArt Library @ Ft. Sill
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/land/land00.hts Gary's Military Land Page
http://sorex.tvi.cc.nm.us/~rhernend/tanks.htm Armored Fighting Vehicles line art @ RENE'S HOT ARMOR

---

[edit] List of projects incomplete

Maybe we could add the other projects...--Beth Wellington 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to DarkLordSeth it's done. Expand as you will.--Beth Wellington 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Leanings?

Is FAS partisan? 24.17.32.26 18:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above point. Surely, even the most politically unreasonable would be inclined to agree that it is not possible to deal with many of the politically sensitive issues that the FAS does deal with without becoming politically embroiled and entwined with those issues.

This is certainly an issue that relies upon the requirement of knowing who determines how much the FAS gets paid. I'm going to see if I can put in a "Politics and Funding" section for the FAS to determine how transparent this organisation is with its funding.

Actually, the fact that this article on the FAS presents the FAS as non-partisan, ("Their first projects focused on controlling nuclear weapons and research on civilian nuclear power, issues that remain prominent to FAS today."), is the very reason I followed the link to the Talk page.

I think that the FAS serves a valid purpose. I'm glad to see that there is a Wikipedia article. I have been to FAS.org many times. I have had pleasant correspondences with Henry Kelly and a couple of others in reference to specifying soy-based foam for Third-World ThermaSave project. But they have always given me the impression that there overriding interest is in trying to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle with the idea that if they could somehow make the United States nuclear-free the rest of the world would abandon nuclear technology, terrorists would forswear nuclear weapons, and Humananity would magically enter into an Utopian Dreamtime of goodness and light.

I think that the sentence I quoted above should be rewritten in a way that does not imply the non-partisanship and agenda-ism that I see at the core of the FAS worldview. It is so close that it is difficult to suggest a specific edit other than perhaps it is the use of the world "controlling" that gives what I consider to be the wrong impression. I suggest replacing "controlling" with "restricting", "limiting", "eliminating" or something along those lines. If memory serves, the FAS was founded by scientists who opposed anything atomic or nuclear but were always more particularly critical of Western nuclear capability than others'.

The "Politics and Funding" section is an interesting proposal and the only logical place for any reference to the FAS's obvious historical preference for the Democratic Party and any allusion to the fact that one would have to be stupid to think that the Soviets and other enemies were so stupid as not aid and influence the FAS as a "dissident" group whose goals were compatible with their own. Unfortunately, recent history demonstrates to me that even an implied criticism of a political party will attract trolls and vandals like blood attracts sharks.

207.65.41.95 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) James

[edit] Editorial vs. Encyclopedia

The FAS article as presented was an advertisement for FAS. FAS has a lot of knowledgable, respected members, and I visit their website frequently. They have a point of view, and are entitled to it. They are also entitled to have their point of view accurately reflected in Wikipedia. But the previous version of this article was an opinion piece which represented FAS' work as gospel. It is not. The article also did not acknowledge that there are other points of view.

I've edited it to correct some of those problems. It badly needs more impartial references and a discussion of some of the controversies. Without these changes, the article is not an encyclopedia article. 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel