Talk:Project HOPE

Project HOPE and CIA

Good faith edits about Project HOPE and CIA were removed. This should have been done by consensus after a talk page discussion. I will add 2 further references to this debate.

"worked hand in hand with the CIA" https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.968.4701&rep=rep1&type=pdf

and, https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/world-outlook/v05n11-feb-17-1967-wo.pdf Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I do think this is an important topic that should be mentioned in the article if it can be properly sourced. The two previously used sourced, in the original edit, cannot be used for the reasons explained in the edits. Similarly the first source you mention here is a master thesis that should not be used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP . That second source from the 'World Outlook' looks more promising though as it does not appear to be self-published. I'd suggest we rely on that second source for the claim of CIA involvement.

Perhaps later an additional controversy section is warranted? SapphireSwirl (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I would caution however that even that second source might be biased, but I am not familiar with it. Do you think it meets the usual requirements "for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."? SapphireSwirl (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If not, perhaps an in-text attribution might be warranted as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES . SapphireSwirl (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources?

Related to the above: an awful lot of the article is sourced either from the organization itself or from its spokespeople writing in other publications. I have no reason to doubt any of it, but it is weak sourcing. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)