Talk:Ethnic bioweapon

message: I fully agree with removing the speculative stuff, sourced only from newspapers. Among other things WP:RS states:
:The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.
Pjacobi 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are reprints of the same 1998 gossip from The Sunday Times. Deuterium inserts it here strictly for encyclopedic reasons, no doubt. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is valid data that is perfectly relevent to this article, especially because there are no other examples of ethnic bioweapon development.  Because the article is not about "experimental results" as Pjacobi says, there is no problem using the articles by these reliable sources. I edited the article's citations (many of them led nowhere) and removed some totally unsourced material.  Fact tags were also added where appropriate.  Also, the material about scientific opinion  was not supported by the source ("Debunking...").  I changed it to be reflective of all experts within that source.  Markovich292 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps there are "no other examples" because there are no examples at all? I've put this to article article RfC. --Pjacobi 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No other verifiable examples anyway.  Thats not to say I personally think there are governments out there working with biological weapons of this sort, but if there were I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want it to be public knowledge.  This is a rare instance where a reliable source actually printed an article stating that this was taking place rather than saying it could be done. Markovich292 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS 

message: Someone asked if Israel was developing ethnic bioweapons? As any anthropologist could tell you, the people of Israel are genetically almost identical to the surrounding people. It would be suicide. I'm guessing there are no reliable sources for this. Jefffire 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on genetics, but I would point out that the existance of the Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders, which lists Ashkenazi and Sephardic higher likelyhood disorders, suggests otherwise: "Although these diseases can affect Sephardi Jews and non-Jews, they afflict Ashkenazi Jews more often - as much as 20 to 100 times more frequently."  (See also Tay-Sachs disease.) I think the Sunday Times article claimed sources had told them certain traits of some Iraqi Arabs were being studied (at a time Iraq was perceived of as a biological weapon threat), not Israeli neighbours.  A weapon that could target a significant portion, say 10%, of another population might be considered by some a threatening (and possibly usable in the extreme) weapon. Of course it is quite likely plausible disinformation was being fed to the Sunday Times reporters - biological weapon scares were a big thing in 1997/8. Rwendland 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC feedback 

message: In ten years, there has been no confirmation, not one credible source. Uzi Mahnaimi never uses verifiable sources. He can't. They don't exist. It's a hoax.Scott Adler (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Been Ten Years -- Where's the Beef?

message: "The practicality of ethnic bioweapons is disputed, the biggest obstacles being the diversity of the human genotype..." I think this might be an error. Homo sapiens are extraordinarily homogeneous genetically, are they not?
:I assume this refers implicitly to the lack of diversity. Ajkkjjk52 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "the diversity of the human genotype"

message: Why is this in the See Also section?  Reading through it, I see no reference to ethnic targeting in the research conducted.  Anyone have any ideas why this program (of all the many NBC programs around the world) is listed? Ajkkjjk52 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Coast

message: articles says "The authors believe that information from the Human Genome Project will be used in just such a manner." Race: The Reality of Human Difference says "which they view as technically feasible but not very likely to be used." "will be " vs "not very likely" contradiction. Has somebody read the book to clarify the point of what is actually said? GangofOne (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. GangofOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarich and Miele 

message: I removed: "Usage of natural disease as an ethnic bioweapon in conflicts has a long history. In Nepal, for example, rulers maintained a malaria-infected Terai forest as natural barrier against invaders from the Ganges Plains. Natives of Terai had natural resistance to malaria, while the invaders didn't.[1]" Reference does not support this. What is discribed is not a weapon but simply differential selective pressures (malarial susceptability) on different groups. In no sense is this malarial forest "maintained" as a weapon, it is simply a fact of nature. No other examples of "a long history" are suggested. here is the ref. for the record: http://www.forestsmonitor.org/fr/reports/549391/549398 2006 GangofOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History wrongness