WP:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat

:{{la|Operation Red Hat}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat Stats])

:({{Find sources|Operation Red Hat}})

Operation Red Hat was a US military mission to store chemical weapons on Okinawa and later to move them to Johnston Atoll. However, a reader will find it impossible based on this article to understand exactly what Operation Red Hat entailed and to establish a chronology. That is because this massive (200KB) article covers an enormous range of politically charged but irrelevant topics, such as nuclear weapons accidents, chemical weapons testing in places such as Utah, the use of herbicides on Okinawa (with no stated connection between these herbicides and chemical warfare agents), the development of counterinsurgency doctrine on Okinawa, CIA drug trafficking, the School of the Americas, etc, etc, etc.

A reasonable article about Operation Red Hat might include some discussion of what these weapons were and why people on Okinawa might have objected to them, but these topics should be provided as limited background information and the connection to Operation Red Hat should be clearly explained. What's happening here is that these and even more tangentially related topics are covered at incredible depth and the claims connecting the topics to Project Red Hat are, in some cases, contradictory.

To take a small example, there's a one-paragraph section regarding the testing of weather modification weapons by the US military. Two primary-source government documents and a newspaper article are cited. Yet there is nothing in the article that connects this project with Operation Red Hat.

This leads me to the issue of sourcing. Much of this article is sourced to primary source documents - namely government publications. Sometimes paragraphs of these documents are quoted. What this means is that this article is (at best) using a source that says "x happened" but there is no source that says "x was part of Operation Red Hat". In some cases the article is drawing conclusions based on very little - in one case the cited source is nothing more than a list of publications from the National Archives. It is original synthesis to draw conclusions from historical government documents without using a reliable secondary source.

There are also cases where this article uses unreliable fringe sources such as Nexus (magazine) and first-hand self-published accounts such as [http://www.johnstonmemories.com/usarmy.htm] (which is cited as a government document when it is clearly not). This is a symptom of larger problems.

In conclusion, I do think that an article can be written about Operation Red Hat, but this article is just unsalvageable. I would estimate that perhaps 80-90% of content needs to be removed or rewritten. Per WP:TNT, I think the best option here is to delete and start over.

Rationale for deletion:

1. Massive original synthesis of primary-source documents.
2. Massive amounts of tangentially-related content, with no clear explanation (based on reliable secondary sources) for its relevance
3. NPOV issues that are unavoidable when an article is essentially an interpretation of primary sources GabrielF (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::User Gabriel F has no understanding of the content or of the archived discussion that has taken place on the talk page. He cites his own lack of understanding as the reason for a deletion of content and has acted on that lack of understanding with a massive deletion of the article's content along with more by his fellow editors. The user did not like my addition to the "Allegations of CIA drug smuggling entry and has attacked the page I am working on.

::The Red Hat article is not complete and is linked to Project 112 by a newly discovered primary government source an subsequent news sources reporting the discovery. The government does not admit to this location and therefore sources are limited.

::GabrielF's judgement is further clouded by the fact that he has no idea what subjects Project 112 might entail or include which is all that he cites above as "tangentially-related content, with no clear explanation (based on reliable secondary sources) for its relevance". "It is original synthesis to draw conclusions from historical government documents without using a reliable secondary source." ::Most of the primary government sources used are copy/pastes, direct quotes, or rewording without any interpretation. Gabriel F cites above two references out of 175 sources. One of them was removed prior to this deletion request being made and he knew it. A user that is acting on his own self admitted lack of understanding is not acting in good faith and his good faith cannot be assumed.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::The fundamental issue here is sourcing. It isn't Wikipedia's role to discover, quote and interpret primary-source documents. (See WP:PRIMARY) Our job involves creating an encyclopedia article by identifying and summarizing reliable secondary sources. If what you want to do is create an archive of documents related to the history of American chemical warfare and related topics, then an encyclopedia article is really not the appropriate place to do so. The Japan Times articles that you are using seem to be perfectly appropriate, but primary source documents are not appropriate sources for an encyclopedia. Consider the following quote from the article: "A U.S. State Department memo from September 2, 1975, concerning a spill of Hexavalent Chromium, a substance now recognized as a known human carcinogen, exemplifies the attitudes and goals of some of the parties involved on Okinawa" This is original research. You are taking a document and you are concluding that it "exemplifies the attitudes and goals" of certain parties. You then draw further conclusions: "In a pattern that is repeated with almost every negative press issue, if a few details were modified, the State Department memo could easily describe current events on the island, be it the controversy over contamination at U.S. military bases, or the deployment of the Marine Corps' Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey to MCAS Futenma." You can certainly try to write a research paper in which you attempt to show how state department documents demonstrate a particular US government attitude that has existed over the course of 40 years, but you can't draw those types of conclusions on Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Those are valid observations and I have removed those statements from my future edits or reversions last week.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:TNT to the highest extent, or simply revert back before Johnvr4 started editing it, over 1,500 edits ago. At this point, Johnvr4, I don't trust your referencing ability as to what you are saying. I took one reference out of the bunch and examined it for what the article said. Here are six statements from Reference #7: "Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets". Retrieved 8 December 2012. (a WP:PRIMARY source):

:*Officially released documents of Project 112 do not list Okinawa and the island has not been officially acknowledged by the United States Department of Defense as a testing location.[5][7]

::*Clear WP:SYNTH, a fact sheet does not mean there is no acknowledgment of anything. Reference A says A, not B, so you conclude that C happened.

:*Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat and had undergone dispersal testing including tests in tropical environments as part of the Project 112 field test program.[4][7][14]

::*"Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat"? By your own admission in the previous statement about Okinawa being unmentioned, how is this statement even possible? There is no mention of Okinawa in the reference, so this is wrong.

:*The U.S. Department of Defense has never officially acknowledged any association with Project 112 activity on Okinawa or with Operation Red Hat.[7]

::*Same as the first statement, a primary fact sheet does not mean there is no acknowledgement of it.

:*(in image caption) Project 112 tests on Okinawa have never been acknowledged by the United States.[7]

::*Repeated statement in image caption, if it were verified, this would be fine.

:*Project 112 is known to have incorporated plans for large-scale field trials of nerve gas and other aerosolized agents in a tropical rain forest environment and included tests named "Red BEVA" (Biological EVAluation), "Red Cloud," "Red Oak," and "Red Oak II."[7]

::*There is no mention of plans, large-scale field trial with nerve gas or aerosolized agents mentioned in the reference. The only thing the reference mentions is places where tests were conducted, like tests "Red Cloud", "Red BEVA", etc. mentioned. However, reference 7 is the only reference for this statement, so where did the content about nerve gas come from?

:*Interestingly, among the 141 experiments falling under Projects 112 and SHAD are listed "Red Oak I," "Red Oak II," "Big Piney," and "Pine Ridge." While the "Red Oak I" and "Pine Ridge" tests were completed and concerned use of nerve gases VX, and Sarin and incapacitating agent BZ in a tropical environment, no record of results exist from the "Big Piney" or "Red Oak II." For this reason, the Department of Defense has declared that these tests were either never conducted or cancelled.[7]

::*Again, "While the "Red Oak I" and "Pine Ridge" tests were completed and concerned use of nerve gases VX, and Sarin and incapacitating agent BZ in a tropical environment", none of this is mentioned in the reference and it is the only given reference, so where did this material come from? You've provided no real connection to what the reference says to what you are claiming.

:Like I said, this is from one reference and there have been 173 references since you've began editing it. Please don't make me go through all of them and see what else you cooked up in your spare time. However, Johnvr4, you appear to be too closely associated to the topic to be writing about it and your writing is questionable, so I advise you to get help writing the article and to stop reverting all changes made to it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::The fact sheets are the released information that was declassified per the law that was passed. The facts sheets are secondary while some of the primary were released under FOIA. A Government document that is a primary source is allowed as it is a source about itself. Reinterpretation and reanalysis is not allowed. The law requiring Declassification specified that all test locations be disclosed. The fact sheets are the officially released information and the facts sheets do not list Okinawa which is apparent in the view I used in the linked reference. There has never been any admission by DoD that Okinawa was in any way involved in Project 112 except for one Primary Document apparently accidentally sent from the Army ans is backed by a secondary source. In THIS case, the lack of mention of Okinawa in these fact sheets is exactly what I stated it means. These are controversial issues requiring proper weight to both sides of an argument. I would be happen to remove the DoD side of the argument. They also state there are no health effects for these tests but science has not answered that question yet.

:::I think you are saying that there is no fact sheet that states Sarin was tested in the tropical environment of the Hawaiian Islands and was chosen because that location was tropical jungle. If this is what your position is, you are wrong.

+

−

:::Reference 4 states exactly that Red Hat=Project 112 but it does not mention Sarin. Ref 7 which are the Project 112 fact sheets, don't mention Red Hat but do mention Sarin, VX, and BZ testing in the tropic jungle. So it is synthesis to say both Red Hat and part of Project 112 included Sarin? Ref 14 you have read the whole book haven't you?

+

:::You ask "Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat"? Do you not understand that it was or did you just say that conclusion was based on synthesis? As stated in the text look at or click on "Pine Ridge" from the source link. or directly: http://mcm.dhhq.health.mil/Libraries/CBexposuresDocs/pine_ridge.sflb.ashx

:::You have another valid point so, perhaps the current citation needs to be made into two or three separate linked references.

:::Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

:::Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

:::The unreliable source concern was but one citation that had been removed by another editor and it was included only to show that the primary self-published other source material had at least been published.

:::If you are accusing me of "cooking up something", I take offense to that and again have to point out that you also are not acting in good faith. If you want to go on a witch hunt, don't let me stop you.

:::If each of you want to debate facts I can do that too. I've been working on this entry for years and am highly knowledgeable on this subject. What you might think is synthesis is possibly not correctly sourced. If you were acting in good faith, you would understand this. The content has been discussed on the talk page where this discussion should have taken place prior to any deletion (coincidentally, after years of writing the entry much of it was by all of you without discussion on the same day). Ho hum recently did the same thing. Now You want to justify the prior deletions by deleting the entire article? I understand GabrielF's Wikipedia talent is excessive deletion. Just saying.

Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT. The article is now unsalvageable. I tried to steer the editor in the right direction several months ago, but it fell on deaf ears. (Hohum ^@) 18:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nuke it and restore the pre-Johnvr4 material, per Moe's examination of the sources. There is far too many problematic areas, and John appears to have some WP:OWN issues here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE I have extensively culled this article of (almost) everything except chemical, biological, and herbicidal weaponry references and transfer of such materials from Okinawa to Johnson Atoll. Some other related material that I couldn't make a quick decision on has also been retained. This has reduced the size of the article from 200k to 100k. I have also locked the article at the reduced size for a week, noting some editors' repeated actions in re-adding irrelevant material. In this regard I am utilising WP:IAR in the interests of the wider encyclopedia. I believe this will aid discussion as to whether the article can be retained in its present form. My personal opinion on this deletion debate follows below. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup This article requires further cleanup, and focusing on the primary topic, as well as investigation of sources. There is also an enormous amount of useful material in the previous versions that deserves to be in a wide range of other CW, BW, and Vietnam War related articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::This is a joke. Quit vandalizing my entry. Your changes are unacceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs)

::::This is not your entry. Please read WP:OWN. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::For God's sake, If you are trying to help and you don't understand the significance of a section, look to or write on the Talk page of the entry or ask me what the significance is before deleting it. The significance was already discussed on the talk page. Please undo your changes immediately. I have a senator and DoD OIG investigator looking at this info. Senator Nelson.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Please understand that this is not your entry, it is an encyclopedia article which is written collaboratively. Please see WP:OWN. Please also understand that an inspector general or a senate committee has a very different role from Wikipedia. They are looking to uncover information that is not well known and to draw conclusions. Wikipedia doesn't do that. We take information that is already published in reliable secondary sources and we present it in a condensed and digestible (not to mention neutral) form. Please see WP:NOT. If you want to publish your research into government archives and your conclusions about what the documents archives have to say, you will have a lot more success starting your own website or blog rather than using Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nuke it Per Parsecboy and others. This isn't a congressional hearing. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Intothatdarkness 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE User:Prodego has just queried why the page is protected. Again, for the information of all, I removed all the irrelevant data I could find, for the purpose of focusing the page on the core subject during the deletion debate. A look at the page history will show that some users have fiercely resisted the deletion of material which doesn't really seem to have much relevance. Thus to keep the page focused on the core subject while the debate is ongoing, I protected the page for a week. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::: I understand that the deletion was based on "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Those are non-sensical arguments and suggestions. A rule to ignore all the rules is also invalid.

:::::Go ahead and look at the Pre JohnVR4 Operation Red Hat reversion or Nuke it. If you don't understand the issue or have not read the entire article and each source butt out. One person was kind enough to speak to me on my talk page. Here is the discussion you missed:

:Johnvr4, thank you for your long and hard efforts on Red Hat. However, despite your suspicions or direct knowledge on what may have been connected to the core subject, transfer of chem/bio weapons from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll, masses of other related info does not belong in the article; it belongs in articles such as MACVSOG or the other chemical/bio programs, or 1st Special Forces Group. Too many other subjects in the article make it unreadable. I'm perfectly happy to work sympathetically on this with you, but you *cannot* keep adding huge amounts of non-CW/BW transfer from Okinawa to Johnston material into the article - or you have to change the article's subject significantly. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::For God's sake If you are trying to help, ask me what the significance is before deleting it. It was already discussed on the talk page. Please undo your changes.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The significance of the material needs to be *very clearly evident* in the article itself. I have absolutely no intention of reverting any of my changes, because this is *not* your article. However, should you wish me to drop a copy of the full version in your userspace (see WP:USERSPACE), I can easily do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Should note that (a) all the material in the previous versions can easily be accessed via the history tab, and (b) other people trying to help will find it easier if they don't have to wade through enormous masses of barely related material. I would probably be considered as a knowledgable expert, and I could not see myself why some of the material was in there. Happy to keep chatting... Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::The entry belongs to the community however as the primary author, it is more mine than yours or at least the work that went into it is. It was started by someone else before any of the new information was known. It was just a transfer from on place to another and this is what I began writing about. New info came out and it seems that Operation Red Hat was much more. It is controversial and requires both sides plus a bit of a history lesson that is not completely readily available in secondary sources- which I discuss and provided. It seemed like a lot of material but I included the minimum info for a proper understanding. Nuking it is not an improvement and neither are any of the changes made. The time for discussion was prior to the deletion. Not a justification after. What exactly are you knowledgeable about? If you were knowledgeable about this, you would understand the relevance of the sections you deleted. I am not a wiki expert. I am a researcher and the primary docs I have obtained are are what is available. In some cases, there is a less reliable secondary source. I try to use all sources but you have to understand there are only a few or one sources for some material (it has been classified) and many sources for other material and I don't always include them all.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::It's the nature of wikipedia that related material doesn't belong all together in one article; it belongs in other articles. Now this may be controversial, but Wikipedia is not for advocacy. What you really need to do is write and publish a research paper on the subject, not paste different chunks of things into wikipedia. We also should not use primary sources only; only things backed by reliable, published secondary or tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCES). Primary sources unsupported by other material simply don't belong on wikipedia. Now, should you believe that there is other material that should go into the article, go through the normal procedure in such cases: open a header on the talkpage, and request an edit be made, saying what needs to go in and why. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::Way to dodge the issue. Your opinion that it is not closely related to the topic is based upon a lack of understanding of the topics link to Project 112, CIA, Counterinsurgency, covert missions, herbicides, or anything else. The article is not to advocate, its purpose is to state reliable sourced facts. Those facts can be cited by advocates. The Sources link each of these subjects to RED HAT. It was not my choosing to include them nor would have I chosen to if they would fit anywhere else. They are included because Operation Red HAT and project 112 information does not fit under any of those other subjects other than in trials or testing. We should not RELY on Primary Sources for the entire article. They are but one type of source and I have supported them where it is needed. If you have a specific example, I can address it. All of this discussion is already on the archived Talk page. Can you please un-archive that discussion? It blanked the talk page and is useless. I am open to suggestion and improvement. I'm not even done writing it. Can you just put tags in where improvement is needed and let me improve rather than delete entire sections and lock the page? One editor deleted content and after discussion, I re-wrote to address his concerns. He quit talking on the page 2 months ago and apparently came in today again with his two cents.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup per Buckshot06. If there are continuing issues over "ownership" of the article, it might be appropriate to suggest a topic ban at WP:ANI.-gadfium 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::What is the "ownership issue" exactly? I said "The entry belongs to the community" Are you making some point about your inability to read or only jumping on the bandwagon of people who did not read the whole conversation I had with Buckshot06 ?Johnvr4 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup per above. John, the article is NOT yours more than anybody else's. That statement in itself implies OWNership. (and even though WP:ANISUCKS, it might be the way to go here.) Ansh666 02:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::The subject seems to be changing here so If you are going to quote my statement, it says the time and effort I put into it- MY WORK is mine and I feel it was vandalized without discussion or merit. I have provided the content to the community. If you did not work on the page, then it not "yours" to delete without discussion and merit. It belongs to a community and you have rights edit it because you are part of that community. You are exercising that right only because you can and not because you put any work into it nor are you trying to improve it. The fact that it has been nominated for deletion and each of you are on board with that ridiculous idea does not imply-it Proves that your motivations are inconsistent with the the purpose of the community project. The communities main goal is to improve a free encyclopedia. Deleting all or huge part of MY WORK on the Community Article is not consistent with those goals.Johnvr4 (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:::WP:ANI?? It might be the way to go. When I formally accuse a person of WP:Tag team activity or a demonstrating a pattern of it, I will post a notification on their user page. I am not there yet.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::Ah, here's where you go off. Editing is not a right - it's a privilege. Nor is "your content" actually yours. This "community project" has very strict rules on the matter, and you misunderstand them - and the idea of the project - completely. Ansh666 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, I wasn't telling you to go to AN/I...

::Upon further thought, WP:TNT delete would better serve the article and the community. Ansh666 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article is an opinion piece, not an informational wikipedia article. It needs to be re-written completely. Best to delete it in its entirety, then re-write it as a factual, historical article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT and the above comments. This article is such a mess that none of its current content can be confidently used to redevelop it, even as a stub. Starting again would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Nuke it from space. WP:TNT. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:TNT while observing Space Law, with respect to suggestion by Bueller 007. Entire article and this AfD is WP:SOAP. Jun Kayama 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This is not an encyclopedia entry. It is a partisan essay. Bluehotel (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as an extreme case of disinformation and propaganda. I suggest topic banning the author for great justice. For example the Wikipedia article says: "Most of Okinawa Red Hat movements were to take place at night to avoid observation of the operation by the Okinawans, who resented the presence of the American military and especially nuclear and chemical munitions on the island.[33]" The entire text of ref 33 is: "The Army leased 41 acres on Johnston Island in 1971 to store chemical weapons formerly held in Okinawa, which were transferred to the atoll from Okinawa during Operation Red Hat in 1971. Phase I of Operation Red Hat took place in January and moved 150 tons of mustard agent munitions to Johnston Atoll without incident. Phase II moved the remainder of the munitions, about 12,500 tons, in September" Nothing about moving stuff at night, etc. Compare this article with Operation Steel Box (which is a topic usually discussed together with O. Red Hat in secondary sources [http://books.google.ro/books?id=ZzlNgS70OHAC&pg=PA172].) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• The lead itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Red_Hat&oldid=560291659] is a case of extreme misrepresentation and disinformation: it claims that in 2012 a groundbreaking discovery of documents made "Operation Red Hat" into... well... something ominous and vague, but surely different from what it referred to "Prior to the discovery". But the source cited, Japan Times, claims no such thing. It just says "Operation Red Hat, the mission to transport the weapons off the island, [...]". In other words, nothing new about what Operation Red Hat stands for has emerged in 2012; the meaning is the same and a matter of well-known public record since 1971 (at the very least) when a Department of State news letter mentioned "Operation Red Hat, the Army's removal of toxic chemical munitions from Okinawa". This is a serious case of just one Wikipedia editor on a mission of disinformation. I have requested a topic for him at ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• And the other bullshit about this being some coverup not only fails verification in the sources cited, but is also contradicted by army documents (1977) which said [http://books.google.ro/books?id=TOo3AQAAMAAJ&q=%22operation+red+hat%22+okinawa&dq=%22operation+red+hat%22+okinawa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PB2_UdHlKs_b4QSK04DADQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCDgU]: "Operation RED HAT, the relocation of all chemical agent stocks stored in Okinawa to Johnston Island was conducted in 1972, again with maximum public visibility." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::The Resenting and Moving at night sentence citation looks like it is pointing to the wrong source. I think this was from the film Operation Red Hat Men and a mission but I will have to check that one. I thought Phase I was mustard and during the day and Phase II was nerve gases was at night. Good find and valid point on incorrect sourcing.

::I don't think that whether the understanding and information from 1977 is prior to 2012 needs to be addressed but the primary Army document source states:

"The 267th Chemical Platoon had the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD Project 112."

::The secondary news source states:

"Newly discovered documents reveal that 50 years ago this week, the Pentagon dispatched a chemical weapons platoon to Okinawa under the auspices of its infamous Project 112. Described by the U.S. Department of Defense as “biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests,” the highly classified program subjected thousands of unwitting American service members around the globe to substances including sarin and VX nerve gases between 1962 and 1974.

According to papers obtained from the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the 267th Chemical Platoon was activated on Okinawa on Dec. 1, 1962, with “the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD (Department of Defense) Project 112.” Before coming to Okinawa, the 36-member platoon had received training at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal, one of the key U.S. chemical and biological weapons (CBW) facilities. Upon its arrival on the island, the platoon was billeted just north of Okinawa City at Chibana — the site of a poison gas leak seven years later. Between December 1962 and August 1965, the 267th platoon received three classified shipments — codenamed YBA, YBB and YBF — believed to include sarin and mustard gas.

For decades, the Pentagon denied the existence of Project 112. Only in 2000 did the department finally admit to having exposed its own service members to CBW tests, which it claimed were designed to enable the U.S. to better plan for potential attacks on its troops. In response to mounting evidence of serious health problems among a number of veterans subjected to these experiments, Congress forced the Pentagon in 2003 to create a list of service members exposed during Project 112. While the Department of Defense acknowledges it conducted the tests in Hawaii, Panama and aboard ships in the Pacific Ocean, this is the first time that Okinawa — then under U.S. jurisdiction — has been implicated in the project.

Corroborating suspicions that Project 112 tests were conducted on Okinawa is the inclusion on the Pentagon’s list of at least one U.S. veteran..." continuesJohnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.