text:
Williams Air Force Base

Williams Air Force Base is a former United States Air Force (USAF) base, located in Maricopa County, Arizona, east of Chandler, and about 30 mi southeast of Phoenix. It is a designated Superfund site due to a number of soil and groundwater contaminants.

It was active as a training base for both the United States Army Air Forces, as well as the USAF from 1941 until its closure in 1993. Williams was the leading pilot training facility of the USAF, supplying 25% of all pilots.

Since its closure, the base has largely been annexed by the city of Mesa, Arizona. It was converted into the civilian Williams Gateway Airport, later renamed Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. In recent years, the land has emerged as an educational and industrial campus anchored by Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus and Chandler-Gilbert Community College.

History
During March 1941, some citizens of Mesa, Arizona, were actively working on obtaining a U.S. Army Air Corps facility located near their city. One of the sites seriously considered for the new airfield was on the Gila River Indian Reservation located near Chandler, Arizona. At the time, the land on which Williams would eventually be built was vacant and not used for agriculture due to a lack of irrigation. It had no homes or farms and was essentially desert with a few Indian ruins scattered on it. On their own initiative, the city of Mesa began to acquire rights to the property that was divided among 33 different owners. Agreements were made for a railroad spur line, along with the appropriate electric, water, telephone and gas services.

The hard work paid off with the announcement in June 1941 that the War Department had approved the site for an Army Air Corps base. Construction of the new base started on 16 July 1941 with a ceremony attended by Mesa, Arizona, mayor George Nicholas Goodman and Arizona governor Sidney P. Osborn, who both attended the groundbreaking of Falcon Field that morning. Initial construction was completed in December, making the base operational.

As of 10 December, the airfield had no name and a debate ensued on what to call the new base. It was initially named Mesa Military Airport. the name was changed October 1941 to Higley Field, the base being in the proximity of the town of Higley, Arizona. In February 1942, the growing military airfield's name was changed to Williams Field in honor of Arizona native 1st Lt Charles Linton Williams (1898–1927). Lieutenant Williams died on 6 July 1927 when his Boeing PW-9A pursuit aircraft crashed near Fort DeRussy, Hawaii.

As a flying school, numerous runways and auxiliary airfields were constructed. The main airfield consisted of three concrete 6000 ft runways aligned NE/SW, ENE/WSW and NE/SW. A blacktop landing area 5500 x was aligned E/W to the south of the main field and a 4100 x blacktop landing area was aligned E/W to the south of the main field. Known auxiliary airfields were:
 * Gilbert Field (Aux #1) 33.38722°N, -111.67389°W
 * Redeveloped in the 1970s. Today housing development S of US 60 in Gilbert, Arizona.

 * Rittenhouse Field (Aux #2) 33.25806°N, -111.5175°W
 * Today: Rittenhouse Army Heliport used by Arizona National Guard, adjacent to suburbs of Gilbert, Arizona

 * Casa Grande Field (Aux #3) 32.955°N, -111.76611°W
 * Today: Casa Grande Municipal Airport in Casa Grande, Arizona.

 * Goodyear Field (Aux #4) 33.24333°N, -111.91306°W
 * Today: Gila River Memorial Airport southwest of Chandler, Arizona.

 * Williams Auxiliary Army Airfield #5 33.24333°N, -111.91583°W
 * Build 1942. Today Gila River Memorial Airport

 * Coolidge AAF 32.93583°N, -111.42667°W
 * Was auxiliary until 1944, turned over to Air Transport Command in May 1944. Today: Coolidge Municipal Airport.

 * Cutter Field 33.35306°N, -110.6675°W
 * Was emergency landing field. Today: San Carlos Apache Airport near Cutter, Arizona.

 * Ajo AAF 32.45278°N, -112.86139°W
 * Transferred from Luke AAF, June 1943. Part of the Gila Bend Gunnery Range. Today: Eric Marcus Municipal Airport

 * Gila Bend AAFAF 32.8875°N, -112.72°W
 * Transferred from Luke AAF, June 1943. Part of the Gila Bend Gunnery Range

 * Gila Bend #6/Williams AAF #4: 32.71972°N, -112.85389°W
 * Gila Bend #6/Williams AAF #5: 32.81806°N, -112.915°W
 * Gila Bend #6/Williams AAF #6: 32.88472°N, -112.81639°W

World War II

During World War II, Williams Field was under the command of the 89th Army Air Force Base Unit, AAF West Coast Training Center. The flying organization was the 38th (Bombardier and Specialized Twin- and 4-Engine) Flying Training Wing. Thousands of future P-38 Lightning pilots learnt their twin-engine flying skills flying the Beech AT-10 Wichita at Williams. By July 1942, there were 79 AT-10s assigned to the field, however the hot, dry climate of Arizona tended to dry out the wood and glue of the wooden AT-10s, causing at least 10 flying cadets to lose their lives in crashes. Training with the AT-10 was stopped and the aircraft were flown to more humid locations. They were replaced by the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat twin engine trainers, however the AT-17 was seen as "too easy to fly" and were replaced by the more demanding Curtiss-Wright AT-9. By January 1943, almost 200 AT-9s were at the airfield.

The RP-322 training version of the P-38 began to arrive also in early 1944, and by May, the flying school was involved in four courses of instruction. By far, the largest course was a single-engine advanced course where cadets received instruction on the AT-6 Texan. Graduates advanced to the twin-engine AT-9, then on to the RP-322. This training was intended to prepare pilots for photo-reconnaissance missions. Another course was given to experienced pilots who were transitioning to twin-engine aircraft, also in the RP-322. Later, a night fighter training program was established for pilots on the RP-322 for later transition to the P-61 Black Widow at Hammer Field, California.

By late 1944, there was an ample supply of twin-engine pilots in training and by late 1944, the single-engine T-6 training was discontinued. Williams then began to offer four-engine training with Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers in December. Its students would be experienced pilots who were transitioning to the large four-engine bomber. The B-17 pilot training ended in April 1945, graduating 608 officers for the Flying Fortress program.

The training mission of the base also conducted flexible gunnery training, and radar observer training.

After the United States entered the war, the Army Air Forces also developed a pilot training program for the Chinese Air Force. The Air Corps conducted most of the training for the Chinese at Luke AFB, Williams, and Thunderbird Field in Arizona. Training the Chinese presented some special challenges because, due to their small stature, some students could not reach all the controls. That problem was usually solved through the use of extra cushions and occasionally by switching them to another type of airplane. A bigger problem was the language barrier. It took all the interpreters the Air Force could muster to support the training programs for the Chinese. In the end, 3,553 Chinese received flying and technical training, including 866 pilots.

Postwar era

After the end of the war in September 1945, most of the temporary training bases were put on inactive status and eventually closed. This was particularly true for bases like Williams that had sprung up overnight and were built with temporary wooden structures. However, Williams was an exception and remained open after World War II.

In early 1945, the first P-80 Shooting Star jet pilot school was opened at Williams. Army Air Forces Training Command was re-designated as Air Training Command, and in 1946 all flight instruction was integrated into a new consolidated program. The P-80 jet fighter pilot transition and fighter gunnery schools at Williams Field remained; however, the gunnery school existed only to fulfill research obligations.

Fighter gunnery training was reestablished in early 1947. The new program studied the use of fighter gunnery, bombing, and rocketry equipment. Students flew P-51 Mustangs, P-47 Thunderbolts, and beginning at midyear, P-80s. The gunnery school, however was again discontinued on 1 June 1948 and moved to Las Vegas AFB, Nevada.

By early 1947 the AAF had sped up its conversion to jet aircraft. However, the training program was handicapped by the fact that no twin-seat jet aircraft trainers yet existed. Putting untrained jet pilots into a single-seat fighter endangered personnel and expensive equipment. To overcome this problem, Air Training Command decided to use a newly developed "captivair" training device. It was received and installed at Williams in early 1947. In 1949, T-33 Shooting Star jet trainer derivatives of the F-80 began to arrive.

3525th Pilot Training Wing
With the establishment of the United States Air Force in September 1947, Williams Army Airfield was re-designated Williams Air Force Base on 13 January 1948. In addition, the 89th AAFBU was discontinued and the 3525th Pilot Training Wing (Advanced Single-Engine) was established as the host unit at the new Air Force Base. Training squadrons under the 3525th Pilot Training Group were:
 * 3525th Training Squadron, 26 August 1948
 * Re-designated 4532d Combat Crew Training Squadron, 1 July 1958
 * Re-designated 3525th Pilot Training Squadron, 1 October 1960 – 1 February 1973

 * 3526th Training Squadron, 26 May 1949
 * Re-designated 4533d Combat Crew Training Squadron, 1 July 1958
 * Re-designated 3526th Pilot Training Squadron, 1 October 1960 – 1 February 1973

Through the Mutual Defense Assistance Program began in 1952, international students received flying or technical training at various ATC bases. Students from Taiwan began to arrive at Williams, and training of Taiwanese pilots continued until the closure of the base in 1993.

Air Training Command redesignated the 3525th Pilot Training Wing (Basic Single-Engine) at Williams on 1 January 1956. It became the 3525th Combat Crew Training Wing (Fighter). A month later, on 1 February 1956, ATC reassigned the 3525th from its Flying Training Air Force to Crew Training Air Force. It also discontinued the single engine basic pilot school (T-28 Trojan) at Williams and replaced it with an advanced fighter school with T-33s exclusively. (Williams had transferred its single-engine training responsibilities to Laughlin AFB, Texas in September 1955.)

In 1958, Air Training Command transferred its combat pilot training to Strategic Air Command (SAC) and Tactical Air Command (TAC). ATC would concentrate on Primary and Basic flying training. As a result, jurisdiction of Williams was passed to TAC on 1 July. This was a brief transfer, as on 1 October 1960, TAC transferred Williams AFB back to ATC. Williams would become part of ATC's new consolidated pilot training program. On the same date, Tactical Air Command reassigned its 4530th Combat Crew Training Wing (Tactical Fighter) and subordinate units at Williams to ATC and ATC discontinued the wing. Concurrently, Air Training Command used assets from the 4530th to organize and establish the 3525th Pilot Training Wing.

Pilot training continued throughout the 1960s. The T-33s began to be phased out in 1962, being replaced by the T-38 Talon as the primary jet training aircraft. T-38s were used until the closure of Williams in 1993 along with the Cessna T-37 Tweet Both trainers were two-seat, dual-engine jet aircraft, the T-38 being capable of supersonic flight.

Students began with academic classroom and simulator instruction. After initial training in a Cessna T-41 at an offsite location (e.g., Eloy, AZ was used in the late 1960s), the first jet flight was largely a 'demo' flight in the T-37 aircraft with the instructor orienting the student to the aircraft, the local training area, and some basic flight maneuvers.

The undergraduate flight training program lasted just less than one full year and involved classroom, simulator, and aircraft training activities. Graduates were selected to remain as instructors, after an intensive training course, or went on to train in their primary weapon system aircraft.

F-5 Freedom Fighter
In 1963, Williams was selected to support the Military Assistance Program F-5A/B Freedom Fighter sales by providing pilots and maintenance training personnel to nations purchased the fighter under the MAP program. The F-5 was a lightweight fighter designed for allied nations, and was not programmed for USAF use. Initial deliveries, beginning in April 1964, were to the 4441st Combat Crew Training Squadron, which was activated to run the F-5 school.

The first overseas order for F-5As was from Norway, which ordered 64 aircraft plus four attrition replacements on 28 February 1964. Other nations whose pilots trained at Williams were South Vietnam, Iran, South Korea, Greece, Philippines, Taiwan, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Jordan, Spain and Yemen.

Skoshi Tiger Program

Although all F-5A/B production was intended for MAP, the USAF actually requested at least 200 F-5s for use in the Vietnam War. This sudden request on the part of the USAF which had previously perceived no need for a lightweight fighter, was a result of heavier than expected attrition in Southeast Asia and because the F-5 promised to be available with a relatively short lead time. The USAF request for combat evaluation in Southeast Asia was approved by the Department of Defense (DoD) in July 1965, and the evaluation was initiated on 26 July 1965.

The program was given the code name "Skoshi Tiger", which was a corruption of "Sukoshi Tiger" (Japanese for "Little Tiger"). In October 1965, the USAF "borrowed" 12 combat-ready F-5As from MAP supplies (5 F-5A-15s and seven F-5A-20s) and activated the 4503rd Tactical Fighter Wing (Provisional) at Williams for operational service trials. The 4503rd TFS (Provisional) was formed on 29 July 1965 to conduct the evaluation, and their pilots underwent training at Williams AFB while Northrop modified the aircraft for duty in Southeast Asia.

The aircraft left Williams AFB on 20 October 1965 for Southeast Asia, arriving at Bien Hoa Air Base on 23 October. They flew their first combat mission the same afternoon.

Although the Freedom Fighter was judged to be a technical success in Vietnam, the Skoshi Tiger program was essentially a political project, designed to appease those few USAF officers who believed in the aircraft. The Freedom Fighter was destined to have a relatively brief operational career with the USAF, and the DoD turned down a second request for F-5s, deciding instead to look at other types such as the U.S. Navy A-7 Corsair II. The surviving F-5s were turned over to the South Vietnamese in March 1966.

After the Skoshi Tiger program, substantial numbers of Freedom Fighters were supplied to the Republic of Vietnam Air Force. The USAF directed ATC to initiate immediately a training program for South Vietnamese F-5 pilot replacements. The 4441st CCTS at Williams began this training on 15 April, although the base's training facilities were already saturated by the school's undergraduate program. The first Vietnamese crews left for Williams AFB for training in August 1966.

The 4441st CCTS was transferred to Tactical Air Command and re-designated as the 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron on 15 October 1969. It was placed under the 58th Tactical Fighter Training Wing at Luke AFB, Arizona, although the squadron physically remained at Williams AFB as a Geographically Separate Unit (GSU).

Training of South Vietnamese pilots on the F-5 continued until the collapse of the South Vietnamese government in April 1975, with some pilots being at Williams at the time of the fall of Saigon.

F-5E/F Tiger II

On 4 April 1973, the first upgraded F-5 Tiger II reached the 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron. This squadron was assigned the task of training for crews that had acquired the F-5E under MAP. Pilots from over 20 nations trained at Williams throughout the 1970s and 1980s on the F-5E. The F-5E/Fs assigned to the 425th for training carried USAF serial numbers and were procured through normal aircraft procurement procedures and channels. It initially carried tail code "LZ". Aircraft were re-coded to the common wing "LA" in 1974.

Although the USAF never did adopt the F-5E as a front-line combat aircraft, it did adopt the F-5E as a specialized aircraft for dissimilar air combat training (DACT). Beginning in 1975, some 70 F-5Es were turned over to the 64th and 65th Fighter Weapons Squadrons of the 57th Tactical Fighter Wing at Nellis AFB, Nevada. F-5Es were allocated to two more units that were created overseas: the 527th Aggressor Squadron of the 10th TRW in the UK at RAF Alconbury and the 26th Aggressor Squadron, 3rd TFW in the Philippines at Clark AB.

The 425th TFTS was reassigned to the 405th Tactical Training Wing as of 29 August 1979 when the 58th TTW was re-designated at Luke AFB.

The last two F-5Es off the production line were delivered to Bahrain on 16 January 1987. However, a few more were assembled from spares, the last ones being delivered on 29 June 1989. That month the squadron's F-5 training program terminated after having produced 1,499 graduates, and the 425th was inactivated 1 September 1989

82d Flying Training Wing

In 1972 and 1973, ATC inactivated its four digit flying wings and replaced them with two-digit and three-digit wings. All of the newly activated units then had a combat lineage. At Williams the 3525th PTW was re-designated the 82d Flying Training Wing on 1 February. Squadrons were re-designated as follows:
 * 3525th Pilot Training Squadron --> 96th Flying Training Squadron (T-37 Tweet)
 * 3526th Pilot Training Squadron --> 97th Flying Training Squadron (T-38 Talon)

One of the most dominant features on the ATC landscape in 1974 was the serious jet fuel shortage the command had to contend with for much of the year. The shortage arose when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) sent oil prices skyrocketing by proclaiming an oil embargo in response to the United States' support for Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Almost overnight, the price of aviation fuel tripled. To conserve fuel, ATC made numerous adjustments to the Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) syllabus, including a reduction in the number of sorties and flying hours and an increased reliance on the use of synthetic trainers.

In other efforts to cope with the crisis, the USAF initiated base closure and flying training wing inactivation actions at Craig AFB, Alabama and Webb AFB, Texas. ATC also cut overall pilot production goals by 18 percent, with USAF Officer Training School (OTS) not accepting any pilot or navigator applicants for FY 75, 76 or 77, and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) initiating a Reduction in Force (RIF) program, rescinding previously promised pilot training and navigator training slots for approximately 75% of those AFROTC cadets in commissioning Year Groups 75, 76 and 77 originally slated for flight training, re-directing them into non-aeronautically rated career fields or offering them opportunities to resign and transfer to officer flight training programs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Army. Unaffected by the reductions, USAF Academy (USAFA) cadets/graduates of the same period continued to maintain their guaranteed allotment of approximately 75% of USAFA graduates assigned to UPT, 15% assigned to undergraduate navigator training, and the remaining 10% assigned to non-flying duties.

In September 1976, UPT class 77-08 at Williams became the first UPT class to include female student pilots. All were serving USAF officers at the rank of 2nd Lt, 1st Lt and Capt who had been previously performing non-flying duties in the Air Force. All were OTS and AFROTC graduates; none were USAFA graduates, since USAFA had only begun accepting females in June of that same year. On 30 November 1976, Capt Connie J. Engle became the first female UPT student to solo in a jet aircraft when she took off in her T-37.

In 1988, each UPT wing had two flying training squadrons one for T-37s and the other for T-38s, plus a student squadron. Air Training Command wanted to find out whether training could be conducted more effectively if student squadrons were eliminated. Instead, all training and administrative duties would be placed in the wings' two T-37 and two T-38 flying training squadrons. Officials at ATC chose the 82d Flying Training Wing at Williams as the test unit.

Air Training Command activated two additional squadrons at Williams the 98th Flying Training Squadron (T-37) and 99th Flying Training Squadron (T-38) on 1 June 1988. That gave the 82d a total of four flying training squadrons. However, by year's end, the test had shown that a fifth squadron was needed to provide operational support. The 82d became the first ATC wing to have five flying training squadrons when, on 1 September 1989, the command activated the 100th Flying Training Squadron (T-37).

However, it did not last long. In December 1990 ATC implemented the objective wing organization. The command's UPT wings kept four flying training squadrons each, two for T-37s and two for T-38s. The fifth squadron was redesignated as an operations support squadron, but fulfilled essentially the same functions as the old student squadron.

Closure in the 1990s

Air Training Command was directed to close four of its training bases as a result of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The non-flying officer and enlisted technical training center at Chanute AFB, Illinois, and the sole undergraduate navigator training base at Mather AFB, California, were chosen to close in round one, with Chanute's technical training activities relocating to other USAF technical training centers or similar activities operated by the other services, and the latter UNT activity slated to relocate to Randolph AFB, Texas. The non-flying officer and enlisted technical training center at Lowry AFB, Colorado and Williams AFB as an undergraduate pilot training base were selected in round two.

Air Education and Training Command (AETC), the 1992 successor major command to ATC, inactivated the host unit at Williams AFB, the 82d Flying Training Wing, on 31 March 1993, redesignating it as the 82d Training Wing and transferring it to Sheppard AFB, Texas, where it would control non-flying officer and enlisted technical training, a role it continues to this day. This left the now independent 82d Operations Group to close Williams AFB. The command inactivated the operations group on 30 September 1993, and the approximately 4127 acre base was closed 30 September 1993.

At the official closing ceremony, two men, who as Boy Scouts in 1941 had raised the first flag at Williams Field when it was first officially opened, were there to officially lower the flag at its closing, after a combined fifty years of military service.

Today, Williams continues to serve the Phoenix area as a growing industrial park and commercial airport.

Major units assigned

 * 89th Base HQ and Air Base Sq (advance detachment), 16 October 1941 – 4 December 1941
 * 89th Base HQ and Air Base Sq, 4 December 1941 – 1 May 1944
 * Re-designated 3010th Army Air Force Base Unit, 1 May 1944
 * Re-designated 3010th Air Force Base Unit, 27 September 1947 – 28 August 1948

 * Air Corps (Later Army Air Forces Advanced Flying School), 26 June 1941 – 1 June 1948
 * 38th Flying Training Wing, 26 February 1945 – 16 June 1946
 * Army Air Forces Pilot School (Specialized Fighter), 1 December 1945
 * Re-designated USAF Jet Pilot School, 1 June 1948 – 1 October 1949

 * Army Air Forces Pilot School (Advanced Single-Engine), 6 July 1946
 * Re-designated USAF Basic Pilot School (Single Engine), 1 June 1948 – 8 January 1956

 * 3525th Pilot Training Wing, 26 August 1948
 * Re-designated 4530th Combat Crew Training Wing, 1 July 1958
 * Re-designated 3525th Pilot Training Group, 1 October 1960 – 1 February 1973

 * 1922nd Comm Squadron – Air Force Communications Service (AFCS) – Teletype, Crypto, Computer Maint., MARS Radio, Ground to Air Radio, Ground Radar, ILS, Localizer, Glideslope, Tacan; Lt. Col. Frank Ely – Sq. Commander (1968–1970)
 * 4441st Combat Crew Training Squadron, 1 December 1963 (MAP F-5 Support)
 * Re-designated 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, 15 October 1969 – 1 September 1989

 * 4503rd Tactical Fighter Wing (Provisional), 22 July 1965 – 10 March 1966 (F-5 Skoshi Tiger)
 * 82d Flying Training Wing, 1 February 1973 – 30 June 1993

Major commands assigned

 * Air Corps Flying Training Comd, 23 January 1942
 * AAF Flying Training Comd, 15 March 1942
 * AAF Training Comd, 31 July 1943
 * Tactical Air Command 1 July 1958 – 1 October 1960
 * Air Training Command 1 July 1946 – 1 July 1958; 1 October 1960 – June 1993

Historic sites
Historic resources of the Williams Air Force Base were identified in a 1995 study.

Seven separate objects or buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 19 June 1995. These are:

Accidents and incidents
Williams Field suffered its first fatal accident in the six months it had been open as an advanced training base on 3 June 1942 when Curtiss-Wright AT-9-CS Fledgling, 41-5867, of the 333d School Squadron, crashed five miles NE of the base, apparently flown into the ground, killing John Clifford Eustice, 23, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Irving C. Frank, 24, of Brooklyn, New York.

title: Williams Air Force Base


text:
Talk:The Doors of Perception

Citation requests
From the article:

 * This must be similar to how manic-depressive people feel and helps to understand them and their way of perceiving and reacting to their environment.

Really? Cite, please?

To be added:

 * Mention of walt disney's involvement with Aldous Huxley? Is this just a rumor, or are there any reputable sources avalible?

While I'm sure Jim Morrison was familiar with this book, I'm also pretty sure he knew Blake, so without a citation I'm not sure if it's clear that he named The Doors after this book or after the quotation from Blake's poem. Does anyone have a citation for that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.129.30 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doorsofperce.jpg
Image:Doorsofperce.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * although i too question the necessity of the image. it is stated, "the image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (the book). it illustrates educational articles about the book from which the cover illustration was taken." however, is the "visual identification of the book" really pertinent, and belonging to the article? Twipley (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't much like this article
Because it taught me nothing about the Doors of Perception. Where is the summary? You just have a few quotes written by Huxley himself. Please, a synopsis. What is Aldy's philosophy in this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanpatnaude (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

did Huxley write this while ON mescaline?
The quotes are rather...obscure, not to mention verbose. It sounds like he wrote it while high on whatever drug he was taking (mescaline or otherwise). Or perhaps he did write it while sober, but no one who has taken such perception altering drugs could possibly understand what he's really trying to say. 72.92.173.86 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

insert:

In the appended reference section on Humphry Osmond, it is stated:

<<<>>

Although this commonly ascribed attribution that Osmond gave Huxley the impetus to write Doors of Perception, to my knowledge this is not correct....My understanding of the situation, of which I have first hand knowledge based on a conversation with Dr. Kluver, is that Huxley was inspired to write Brave New World on the basis of direct conversation, advice, discussion, and recommendation (to try mescaline) by Dr. Heinrich Kluver. Kluver had written "Mescal and Mechanisms of Hallucination" in 1929-based on personal trial and observation of mescaline induced hallucination. Kluver was also the direct instigation (and so credited) for Weston La Barre to write "the Peyote Cult" as a thesis in 1938 (and who later wrote the superb "Ghost Dance Religion"). Dr. Kluver was also the principal inspiration who persuaded Richard Evan Schultes to enter the field of ethnobotany (per personal conversation with Schultes)....This academic chain of events is a far more cogent explanation for the true genesis and origin of Doors of Perception than the Osmond thread. It is probably Kluver that Huxley referenced without specifically naming him....I did not discuss at the time with Kluver whether he may have given Huxley a sample of mescaline, although Kluver was a profound scholar and experimentalist as well as being a specialist expert in the chemistry, pharmacology, and behavioral effects of psychoactive phenethylamines, and definitely had a supply of pure mescaline on hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta 77 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

blake's original quote wording
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."

-- i've reverted "through" to "thro'," so as to reflect the way blake chose to write it in his original manuscript. however, i still wonder if it should be written as "thro'" or as "through," and thought i could call for some opinions here. Twipley (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

zaehner's criticism
i think in order for that section to be neutral, smith's views on zaehner's criticisms should be included, as observed there: http://www.psychedelic-library.org/hsmith.htm. Twipley (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article, I was not aware of it. Yes, Huston Smith's points should be included within the Zaehner section.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * nice to have "fell in," then. :)
 * the following might have to be taken into account (so as to attain neutrality of the section):

 * "The principle of causal indifference is this: If X has an alleged mystical experience P1 and Y has an alleged mystical experience P2, and if the phenomenological characteristics of P1 entirely resemble the phenomenological characteristics of P2 so far as can be ascertained from the descriptions given by X and Y, then the two experiences cannot be regarded as being of two different kinds—for example, it cannot be said that one is a 'genuine' mystical experience while the other is not—merely because they arise from dissimilar causal conditions" (Stace, 1960, p. 29); psychedelics "can induce religious experiences indistinguishable from ones that occur spontaneously." (Smith, 1964)

 * - Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W.. A., McCann, U., & Jesse, R. (2006). Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance, “Psychopharmacology,” Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
 * - Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and Philosophy, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
 * - Smith, H. (1964). Do Drugs Have Religious Import?, “The Journal of Philosophy,” Vol. LXI, No. 18.

 * Twipley (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think we must be careful here to include specific responses to Zaehner's criticisms of Huxley's Doors....rather than just general discussion of the validity of psychedelics as a cause of religious experience - something that could be discussed elsewhere. Huston Smith's article attempts to make arguments on Huxley's behalf, but I'm not entirely sure if Stace is engaged with the Huxley/Zaehner debate. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * you're right. if those infos would have to be included, it would mostly be in a section else than in zaehner's, as to my mind smith is the only one of the mentioned authors engaged in the involved debate. Twipley (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * As the Huston Smith response to Zaehner is now included, do you think we could get rid of the 'neutrality contested' tag?--Evenmadderjon (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I've just removed the POV tag. Thanks Evenmadderjon, for all you've done. Twipley (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Most important quote

 * You are the most articulate guinea pig that any scientist could hope to engage.

The importance of this quote cannot be emphasized enough. One of the problems with people who use drugs, is that very few of them have the mind of Huxley. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Publication date?
It is written in this article that the book was published in 1954. However, it also says that the experiment that Huxley is talking about happened during October, 1955 (this date also appears in Laura Huxley's Timeless Moment--and might be inaccurate). One of those two dates must be wrong. But which one? (2/19/2013 - 3:21PM - USA)

 * Pub date is definitely 1954, see . The other date doesn't have to be wrong. The next edition may have been a revised one. Yworo (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Oh, you're talking about the LSD date. The book isn't about his LSD experiences. He didn't take LSD until after the book was finished. The book is about his mescaline experiences. Yworo (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Doors of Perception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101205224536/http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mes01.htm to http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mes01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:The Doors of Perception


text:
Wolfgang Capito

Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (also Koepfel) (c. 1478 – November 1541) was a German Protestant reformer in the Calvinist tradition.

His life and revolutionary work
Capito was born circa 1478 to a smith at Hagenau in Alsace. He attended the famous Latin school in Pforzheim, where his friend Philip Melanchthon studied.

He was educated for the medical profession but also studied law. He received a doctorate in theology at Freiburg. Having joined the Benedictines, taught for some time at Freiburg. He acted for three years as pastor in Bruchsal. In 1516 he became cathedral preacher of Basel Minster. Here he made the acquaintance of Zwingli and began to correspond with Luther. He persuaded Johann Froben to publish a collection of Luther's works in 1518.

In 1519, he removed to Mainz at the request of Albrecht, archbishop of that city, who soon made him his chancellor. In 1523 he settled at Strasbourg, where he remained until his death in November 1541. He had found it increasingly difficult to reconcile the new religion with the old, and from 1524 was one of the leaders of the reformed faith in Strasbourg. He took a prominent part in the earlier ecclesiastical transactions of the 16th century, was present at the second conference of Zürich and at the conference of Marburg, and along with Martin Bucer drew up the Confessio Tetrapolitana.

Capito was always more concerned for the "unity of the spirit" than for dogmatic formularies, and from his endeavours to conciliate the Lutheran and Zwinglian parties in regard to the sacraments, he seems to have incurred the suspicions of his own friends; while from his intimacy with Martin Cellarius and other divines of the Socinian school he drew on himself the charge of Arianism.

In 1532, Capito married Wibrandis Rosenblatt, the widow of Oecolampadius. After Wolfgang Capito's death, she married Martin Bucer.

Capito died in Strasbourg.

Works
His principal works were:
 * Institutionum Hebraicarum libri duo
 * Enarrationes in Habacuc et Hoseam Prophetas
 * a life of Oecolampadius and an account of the synod of Bern (1532)
 * a Greek version of the Iliad in which he refers to himself as volfivs cephalaevs or wolfius cephalaeus

title: Wolfgang Capito


text:
Talk:Black September Organization

American Journalist
The article states, "According to American journalist Charlie Cranston John K. Cooley, the BSO represented . . . " Which was it? Was it Charlie Cranston or John K. Cooley? Or both? It seems that Cooley authored the quote, but I am somewhat ignorant of the subject. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Rehtworc (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arafat

 * Most likely, Arafat knew about the organization, and saw it as a convenient way to vent Palestinian direct action against Israel, but chose not to "get his hands dirty" by talking directly to the group.

Comment
Text removed from article because it's entirely speculative. Also, we have a sentence "sources say". Which sources? DanKeshet 18:02 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Black September-Fatah links
The links provide evidence of the links, or at least claims of links. Why is Alberuni deleting them? Is every single source that says something Alberuni doesn't like "biased"? Jayjg 19:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, yes. --Viriditas 20:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Claims of links"? This is an encyclopedia not a forum for right-wing Israeli speculation and disinformation. If you are going to make political claims of terrorist links to Yasser Arafat you should be able to provide more substantive and reliable historical references than Sports Illustrated, Sony Pictures or World Net Daily. If it is a fact instead of right-wing speculation or book/movie promotion then why isn't this information provided in history books? --Alberuni 20:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Other links have been provided in the Yasser Arafat article. Jayjg 20:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, they are the same spurious sources. --Alberuni 20:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who says they are spurious? --Viriditas 21:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's factual history that Arafat led Black September and was responsible for the Munich massacre, you should be able to find a citation from a reliable historical account or text better than World Net Daily and Sony Pictures. If you can't, then it just shows how spurious the speculation is. Only those with a pro-Israeli POV would accept such speculation as fact because it reassures them that their biases are accurate. --Alberuni 21:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Black September Organization (BSO) was formed in 1971 as a clandestine wing of al-Fatah. BSO was founded with the objective to avenge the expulsion of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Jordan in September of 1970. This time was referred to as ?Black September,? hence the name chosen by the Black September Organization. While Black September was originally described as a splinter group of al-Fatah, direct linkages between the groups were revealed with the arrests of BSO agents. Al-Fatah formed Black September in order to circumvent an al-Fatah declaration that they would not interfere in the domestic policies of Arab nations. However, some al-Fatah members planned to assassinate King Hussein, ruler of Jordan from 1953 to 1999. Hence, Black September was partially formed in order to pursue this specific objective. While Black September failed several times to assassinate King Hussein, the group is notorious for a number of brutal, high-profile terrorist incidents. Black September expanded their list of targets from the Jordanian government to include Israeli and U.S. citizens and facilities. The group also carried out attacks against general ?Western? targets. Black September is infamous for its attack against Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Munich Olympics. In retaliation for the attacks against Israel citizens and facilities, Israel launched a significant response to eliminate the terrorist organization. Israeli security forces retaliated against BSO terrorists in Western Europe and Lebanon. Following the Israeli response, al-Fatah dissolved Black September in December 1974.  Black September "Many terrorist experts speculate that Arafat controlled the BSO and utilized it as his primary military force. Arafat attempted to keep the association at arm's length to provide a factor of plausible deniability." More sources for dismissal: Jayjg 01:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * None of these sources support the claim in the article that Arafat controlled the group. The memoirs are being misquoted. Abu Daoud never claimed that Arafat controlled the group --Alberuni 06:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Surely it was not the cell structure which "offered plausible deniability to the Fatah leadership? Wasn't it simply that Fatah didn't in fact control Black September, and that it was a separate organisation?203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Linked to" is a weasel term
Arafat/Fatah linked to Black September is just a sleazy way of spreading disinformation. See Avoid weasel terms. --Alberuni 13:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Read the sources above. The membership was the same, etc. Jayjg 21:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I NPOVified the article, adding "According to some evidence", etc. Unless there are serious objections, please remove the POV sign. I also moved the line about the MM up (so the reader knows what operation we are talking about) and the links down.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Much improved but still not NPOV.
 * "According to some evidence (see below), the organization had links (WHAT LINKS SPECIFICALLY? THEY WERE A SPLINTER GROUP) to various groups within the PLO, most notably Fatah and the PFLP. Some sources claim that the organization was controlled by Yasser Arafat, (WHO? WHAT SOURCE?) the leader of PLO. Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the man who (claims) to have conceived of the attack), stated in his autobiography Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, that funds for the massacre were provided by Mahmoud Abbas ((Abu Mazen) Secretary General of the PLO, led by Arafat ("though he (Abu Mazen) didn't know what the money was being spent for" YOU CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE EXCULPATING LINE). ALEXANDER WOLFF reports that in his memoirs and a July 1999 interview with Sports Illustrated, 72-year-old Abu Daoud living with his wife on a pension provided by the Palestinian Authority, told Don Yaeger: "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat" Though he wasn't involved in conceiving or implementing it" (AGAIN YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT THE EXCULPATING LINE.) (WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS "ENDORSEMENT" IMPLY?? THAT ARAFAT APPROVED THIS SPECIFIC OPERATION? NO. IT MEANS THAT THE PLANNERS OF THE MUNICH OPERATION BELIEVED THAT ARAFAT WOULD APPROVE IF HE KNEW ABOUT IT. THIS IS AKIN TO SAYING THAT "ARIEL SHARON ENDORSED THE SABRA AND SHATILA MASSACRE" BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT HE WOULD HAVE APPROVED OF IT IN ADVANCE EVEN IF HE DIDN'T! WE KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT!"
 * NPOV version: "Black September was a radical splinter group of the PLO, drawing members from Fatah and the PFLP. Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the militant who claims to have conceived of the attack, stated in his autobiography Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, that funds for the massacre were provided by Mahmoud Abbas ((Abu Mazen) currently the Secretary General of the PLO "though he (Abu Mazen) didn't know what the money was being spent for". In a Sports Illustrated article about the autobiography and a July 1996 interview with the 72-year-old Abu Daoud, journalist Alexander Wolff claims that although Yasser Arafat was not involved in conceiving or implementing the attack, Abu Daoud believes that "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat." --Alberuni 16:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I integrated most of your text and removed the NPOV note. As a sidenote, I have to admit that this time you were a bit more reasonable than usual. FYI, I have a policy to skip the all caps text.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source
The document linking Arafat and the PLO to Black September is likely a forgery. It purports to be a poor quality reproduction of a "secret" State Department telegram from 1973 that the Jewish Virtual Library cites as coming from WorldNetDaily, a notoriously biased site. The supposedly secret document has no provenance indicating how WorldNetDaily came into its possession and there is no validation of its contents from any official verifiable source. If this is not the official position of the US government, why is Wikipedia perpetuating unsubstantiated Zionist hasbara propaganda? Deleted. --Alberuni 16:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're the arbiter of source reliability. Jayjg 18:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * WorldNetDaily is no more worthy of being an encyclopedia source than Jew Watch. If there is one independent, non-partisan, or official government source to verify this allegation, please point it out. If there is no independent verification, it does not belong in an objective encyclopedia; maybe its suitable for Jewish Virtual Library, but this isn't Ziopedia. Try to remember that as you curb your POV. --Alberuni 21:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Despite being uncivil about it, Alberuni's got a good point. World Net Daily is truly notorious, and can certainly not be considered a reliable source. - Mustafaa 21:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Notorious" in what sense? I don't know that much about it, do other sources Talk: about Worldnetdaily? Jayjg 21:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look around [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ the site]... let's just say their POV is beyond obvious, and their motives for faking something given that POV are clear. As usual with fringe news sources, there aren't too many comments on them online, although I quite like this blogger's. - Mustafaa 22:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A couple of articles have deigned to notice it:, , , , , , , although their own sources are no doubt a bit POV. And, of course, it's home of the notoriously Islamophobic Ann Coulter. - Mustafaa 22:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abu Iyad and Black September
I thought it had been established that Abu Iyad, Arafat's security chief, was in charge of Black September. In his book Stateless, he wrote: "Black September was not a terrorist organization, but was rather an auxiliary unit of the resistance movement, at a time when the latter was unable to fully realize its military and political potential. The members of the organization always denied any ties between their organization and Fatah or the PLO."

I understood this to mean that Black September was a "claim name" attached to certain operations, rather than a fixed and specific group of people; or if it was a fixed group, it was a small number of Fatah people prepared to go the extra mile when required to. In the animal rights movement, if a group of people (or even one person) carries out a non-violent act, they might claim it as Animal Liberation Front. If it's violent, then it'd be Animal Rights Militia. It's the same thing here. Sorry if this issue has already been covered. Slim 10:44, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Request for comment/Arafat and Munich
Regarding Arafat/Munich: Alberuni's NPOV version above is not accurate, in my view. Journalist Alexander Wolff did not write that Abu Daoud simply believed the Munich operation had the endorsement of Arafat (as though he wasn't sure whether it did or not). Rather, this journalist (and many others) reported that Abu Daoud stated, very clearly in his autobiography, that the operation did have Arafat's endorsement. Abu Daoud was in a position to know and he wrote in his book that he did know, not that he merely believed it. He was a primary source and what he said therefore has to be quoted, not interpreted. The phrase "had the endorsement of" does not mean "would have endorsed it had he known about it." It means "did endorse it" which of course means he knew about it.

Alberuni, I feel you may be flogging a dead historical horse here. Arafat never denied he was involved in Munich, so far as I know. There's no Middle East journalist that I know of who claims Arafat was not involved, even if only as an "endorser." My own feeling is to say he only endorsed it is already a charitable interpretation of history in favor of Arafat. Slim 01:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * A dead historical horse? :-)  Slim 07:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Arafat denied involvement in the Munich operation. Wolff claims that Doaud said that "the operation had the endorsement of Arafat," although Arafat wasn't involved in planning or conceiving of it. If Sports Illustrated's translation of Arabic and quote are accurate, which I doubt, it means that Arafat generally endorsed attacks on Israel and BSO took it upon themselves to plan Munich. If Arafat knew of it in advance, they would say he helped plan it. --Alberuni 05:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Another proof of the PLO "influence" is right in the article: "After the March 1973 attack, the organization was disbanded, apparently under pressure from the PLO, which believed that terrorist acts were damaging public perception of the Palestinian cause." But, if Arafat denied it, we have no choice but to trust him, even though all the evidence and participants say otherwise. And Alberuni, you are so right to doubt the correctness of SI, after all they are just another outlet of Hasbara world conspiracy.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "apparently under pressure from the PLO" Apparent to whom, I wonder? I have no doubt that Sports Illustrated is the most intellectual reference on Middle East politics that you have ever used. --Alberuni 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why PalestineFacts is not a reliable source
It is a hasbara propaganda channel. The quotes taken from there and Worldnetdaily will be deleted. This isn't Ziopedia. Get neutral sources and leave the hasbara at home.

Palestine Facts is a project of the Jewish Internet Association.

Israel and the Jewish people are under attack in one of the front line battles of the war between peaceful Western nations and hostile forces that seek to destroy our civilization, our freedom and way of life. Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support. In the 21st century, the Internet is one of the battlefields of that war and JIA is determined to hold the line. - Jewish Internet Association --Alberuni 05:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni, your entire argument is fallacious. This article is about Black September.  NPOV policy is about presenting both sides, even if you disagree with the claimants.  Your disputes with the POV in question have nothing to do with the organization, and everything to do with your inability to adhere to NPOV policy.--Viriditas 05:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The sources are biased Zionist sources. They are being used as sources for claiming that Arafat is the chief BSO terrorist, which is typical for Zionists to believe that about Israel's arch-enemy. They are unreliable and they admit that they should utilize every channel to convert others to their way of thinking. Hasbara! Should I quote Jew Watch on articles about Israel? --Alberuni 05:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Please review my user page: "If you can finally pin them down in Talk:, they insist that you provide evidence for every statement of fact you make, and when you do, they insist that all your sources are "unreliable" or "biased". Jayjg 06:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe you should learn to find and use independent, unbiased sources instead of your usual POV neoconservative hasbara. --Alberuni 06:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I did not produce these sources, and you are definitely not the arbiter of what sources count as "biased". Jayjg 06:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * When a Zionist propagandist says "Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support," it;s pretty obvious that they are biased. --Alberuni 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * However, it says nothing about falsifying facts. On the contrary, the Palestinefacts website states "Every fact and assertion on this web site is backed-up by elaborate documentation hyperlinked right into the materials presented or available in the supplemental references. If you question anything, follow the links for more and more in-depth discussion and information. The most authoritative sources were sought and are presented for each topic. Lies and propaganda are excluded." Jayjg 06:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * When a propagandist says "Every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support," and also "lies and propaganda are excluded," that means that they are feeding you pure unadulterated bullshit. And, by the way, the documentation is not hyperlinked into the page about the Munich attack. I guess they expect us to believe their "authoritative sources," read Dore Gold and the IDF. --Alberuni 06:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5 reverts in one day, Alberuni
I correct myself, looking over the record that's actually 5 reverts in one day for you, Alberuni. I strongly encourage you to respect Wikipedia policies, of which you are well aware. Jayjg 06:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I strongly encourage you to get a life. --Alberuni 06:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Please review No personal attacks Jayjg 06:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I reviewed it but I didn't find anything in there that could help you get a life. --Alberuni 06:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich: primary sources
Alberuni, there are three primary sources who appear to have talked about Arafat and Munich:

(a) Arafat -- If, as you say, he has denied involvement, please supply a quote or citation of some kind, so that his denial can be included in the article;

(b) Abu Iyad -- He was Arafat's security chief and he wrote a book in which he talked about Black September. Yet you deleted his quote from the article. Why?

(c) Abu Daoud -- He says he planned Munich and that Arafat "endorsed" it. If you're saying he wrote his book in Arabic, and that he gave the Sports Illustrated interview in Arabic, can we find the original Arabic and have it translated by some Arabic-speaking Wikipedians? My understanding is that he spoke fluent English and would have given the interviews to the journalist and the publisher in English. I am willing to try and track down the Sports Illustrated journalist to ask him if you, Alberuni, are willing to find out whether Abu Daoud's book was written in Arabic, then translated. Let me know if you think we should do that.

Even if Abu Daoud did give the interview in Arabic, and if the book was written in Arabic, don't you feel the translators would have been extra careful to get that crucial bit right? Slim 07:19, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Is the Cooley quote accurate? "Cut-offs"?
Did the Cooley quote actually use the word "cut-offs"? "Each cell's members were kept ignorant of other cells. Leadership was exercised from outside by intermediaries and 'cut-offs'" The correct term is "cut-outs". --Alberuni 17:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Alberuni, I'll check the quote and get back to you. Slim 20:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, he uses the word "cut-offs." Cooley got this information after interviewing members of Fatah, including Arafat and Abu Iyad, and also people he believed were Black September operatives, so maybe they said "cut-offs". It was written in 1973; perhaps the word was used then. The quote's on page 123 of the original 1973 edition ISBN 0 7146 2987 1. If you think it might be a mistake that Cooley or his interviewees made, you could add [sic] after the word to signal that. Slim 20:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Munich Games Aftermath
There should be something on there about the after math of the munich games with the following facts:

1) The leaders of it were tracked down and killed. 2) Part of the operation included Barak going into lebanon 3) During one of the assasinations of an alledged black sepetermber person they killed the wrong person in i believe norway, that cuased a bit of a raw between israel and normay (I believe it was some european country) Since Israel wanted its spy back.

I dont have the source on me, i saw it on a special on the history channel. But its relavent to it.

 * Most of that information is found in the Munich Massacre article. Jayjg 19:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"terrorist"
When I looked up Black September, the 2nd entry directed me to a page about a "terrorist" organization. Why is the word "terrorist" surrounded by quotation marks? { unsigned}

Lead in paragraph describes them as "militant organization". I think this is a mislabeling based on the era (time Frame) of their operation. If they operated after 2002 they would be called a "Terrorist organization". Why are they labelled as inactive status - and no mention of how /why classifed such Wfoj3 (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

People murdered/assisinated

 * Recent remarks by Abu Daoud, the alleged mastermind of the Munich kidnappings, deny that any of the Palestinians assassinated by Mossad had any relation to the Munich operation, this despite the fact that the list includes 2 of the 3 surviving members of the kidnap squad arrested at the airport

Has it been clearly established that the people killed/murdered/assisinated by Mossad were indeed the people arrested? Given the covert nature of such an operation as well as the covert nature of the people involved, establishing a clear link between the two would seem rather difficult, especially in 1973... Nil Einne 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CIA
In the Movie Munich the CIA is said to support Black September financially. Is this true? Anyone have any sources? Tchadienne 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Munich never said anything about the CIA funding black september

Western month as a name?
Why was the group called "Black September" instead of being named after a month of the islamic calendar? 193.171.121.30 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the English name. The Arabic name apparently refers to aylul, which is the Arabic name for September. It's a secular organization, which is probably why they did not name themselves after the Islamic month.--Doron 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Khartoum hostage crists.jpg
The image Image:Khartoum hostage crists.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage
Any thoughts on this link http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200112/hoffman where the author claims Black September was dissolved by all its members being married off? The current article doesn't mention anything about how Black September ceased to exist. --Gwern (contribs) 02:52 13 April 2009 (GMT)

Black September operations after its official end?
In the Global Terrorism Database, I see there's a group called "Black September II", which had several attacks, including 4 fatalities and dozens of injuries, and in one case, it targeted Jordanian diplomats (Azmi Al-Mufti, Bucharest, Romania, 1984). Should the operations of this organization be included in this article or make a new one? bogdan (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Black September (group) → Black September Organization – This was the group's official name. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

why not terrorist
why is Black September not called a terrorist organization, they clearly fit all criteria, kidnapping and killing a group of civilians is clearly terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.21 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

why not terrorist
Why is Mossad not called a terrorist organization, they clearly fit all criteria, kidnapping and killing civilians is clearly terrorism?

In fact, let's go out on a limb: why are any groups, armies, politicians, etc. etc. who support killing of other groups not called terrorist organisations?

The uncivilised practices of egoists who feed their fragile egos in their lust for power never cease to amaze.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black September Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429154347/http://www.trophort.com/001/159/001159176.html to http://trophort.com/001/159/001159176.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Black September"
The usage and primary topic of Black September is under discussion, see talk:Black September in Jordan -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Black September Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626080910/http://www.sonypictures.com:80/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/ to http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
There were a lot of Wikiprojects - I removed some that were only relevant to Munich like Germany and Olympics. The main attack makes sense for those Wikiprojects, but this article doesn't seem like a good fit. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Munich massacre
This section is badly written. It now links to an actual article about the attacks but then covers topics in the aftermath. This should be rewritten 119.18.0.229 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Black September Organization


text:
Talk:Emic

Ok. This page, and etic mean nothing to me. It reads like a dictionary entry in a technical manual. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but if it sounds like greek to me, it probably sounds like greek to most people except those who already know the term to begin with. Can someone expand to make it understandable to the general reader? Rgamble.

I agree. I did not write the original entry -- but I looked at it and sw that it was wrong, and corrected it (I wasn't interested in writing a great entry, just in correcting basic misinformation). But Rgamble is right. I did try to explain things a bit more, although I am not sure if this is adequate. I also think the emic and etic articles should be merged, as the two terms are themselves only meaningful as members of the pair. Slrubenstein

 * I've redirected etic to here - it could go the other way round, of course, or there could be emic and etic or something similar, but in any case, I don't see the point of a separate page on each - it is not really possible to talk about one without reference to the other, as far as I can make out. --Camembert

title: Talk:Emic