Talk:The Report from Iron Mountain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Not a hoax, but fact.
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.'[1]
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' '[2]
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. Lewin[3]The 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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.
