Talk:Theodore Postol

Destroyed vs intercepted and the patriot

We need to add a definition for each of these terms in the context of the patriot. The article seems to use them interchangeably when they are not. YEEETER0 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Iron Dome in MIT Tech Review

I removed this sentence fragment explanation of cause for invitation for Postol to clarify his quoted remarks on ineffectiveness of Iron Dome in a later 2015 article:

The article received so many negative comments<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528916/israeli-rocket-defense-system-is-failing-at-crucial-task-expert-analysts-say/#comments|title=Israel's "Iron Dome" Anti-Rocket Technology|first=David|last=Talbot}}</ref>...

It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to link to comments and say in Wikivoice that that was why Postol wrote response to 2014 (2015?) original article. There are no comments on the article. MIT Tech Review seems to have removed comment ability and all past comments, so the cited source is useless. I could not find the comments page in any archive; regardless, Wikipedia can't assume that the large number of negative comments led to the invitation for Postol's later article. I couldn't find Postol's response article either. I left that link, as perhaps someone else can.--FeralOink (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the MIT Technology Review response from Postol is an editors note stating: "Readerly response to a recent news story, “Israeli Rocket Defense System Failing at a Crucial Task, Expert Analysts Say,” where Ted Postol was quoted to say that Iron Dome was not effectively detonating warheads, was so negative, and angered so many people, particularly Israelis, that we asked Professor Postol to explain how he came to his conclusions and to show his data. He gracefully agreed." This reference was already included in the previous version in the immediately following sentence -- the claim was not predicated on a link to the comments themselves, but on the explicit statement of reasoning from the Review. As such, I've reverted the removal. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This was the link to Postol's response article https://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/ in the version that I edited. It is 404 error not found. Apparently, you successfully found a different, valid URL: https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/07/15/172055/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system That's great! And indeed, it does have the editorial note as a preface just as you said. I presume that you replaced the former, incorrectly referenced source for his response with this valid one. This makes clear that reader comments were negative according to editor David Talbot not Wikivoice. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Too much Bellingcat

BLP has an over-reliance on Bellingcat. It isn't quite bad enough to be worthy of tagging (although I wouldn't object). This BLP would benefit if future edits and additions of sourced content would use other sources for a more balanced view and variety of perspective.-- --FeralOink (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BELLINGCAT -- Bellingcat is, by widespread and repeated consensus of editors for years now, a perennially reliable source. There is no such thing as an "over-reliance" on reliable sources. And at a cursory skim it looks like Bellingcat accounts for 2 out of the 68 references in use on this page (or 4 of 85 if we're counting repeats). Could you explain the basis for your opinion that this is an "over-reliance" or any degree of bad, let alone "bad enough"? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

A Balanced Biographical Lead for Theodore A. Postol

I have revised the lead to address WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. The previous version focused disproportionately on controversies from the last decade, while omitting Dr. Postol’s significant pre-2000 career at the Pentagon, Stanford, and his role in the Congressional investigation into the Patriot missile system, where his findings were eventually validated by the House Government Operations Committee.

I have also removed the quote from The Daily Telegraph (2023) regarding his 'motives' as a subjective characterization of intent, especially when contrasted with his record of government service and prestigious scientific awards. The new version provides a neutral, chronological summary of his entire career. Tamiliam (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Most of this was an improvement; however the controversies lost nuance in a way that significantly detracts from presenting an accurate picture of Dr. Postol -- a once respected academic who today is widely discredited for dishonesty and carelessness in the field he became famous for (even overstating the few things he was right about back in the 90's, none of which are true today due to the technology for missile defense significantly having advanced). It's important to indicate not just that his positions were "controversial", but that they were quite literally, objectively wrong -- often in a deceptive or falsified manner -- and that his peers have widely condemned him for this. NPOV does not mean we water down accurate criticism from reliable academic sources; it means we present all appropriate relevant viewpoints -- especially those widely held by reliable sources, even if critical. I've merged in some of the old lede with the current lede to reflect this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I changed "frequently" to "some". There was some criticism of this type in the sections "Syrian civil war chemical attacks" and "Iron Dome", to which Postol responded. There is also some in the "North Korea missile tests" section, to which Postol's response has not been provided. The criticism in the section "SM-3 interceptor" comes from the Missile Defense Agency so should not be considered as criticism "by colleagues". On further thought, I wonder if it is necessary to mention the criticism in the first paragraph of the lead. We go into this in the second paragraph, where we say " In recent years, however, Postol’s work has been the subject of significant debate". Also, do we need to give the Telegraph's opinion in the first paragraph of the lead? We have already said something similar above the opinion - "Postol is also a prominent critic of U.S. missile defense systems". Burrobert (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Really kind of depends if we want a "thick" lede vs. a "thin" lede. A "thin" lede would simply require us to move the second paragraph of the lede down to being a first paragraph of the Background section, with perhaps a bit of smoothing -- it would have room to grow if we expect Postol to have new relevance in the future; however it loses upfront presentation about what he's currently known for. A "thick" lede (which is what we currently have -- two paragraphs, that are still broad and high level summary but more than just cursory introduction) wouldn't need changing at all, but it's about as large as we can reasonably have for a lede, so if we expect new relevance in the future it will eventually require thinning. Personally, I do not -- Postol is 80, not as prolific as he used to be, and seems to more recently lend himself to partisan efforts that we wouldn't be using anyway. As such, I'd prefer the thicker lede as I think it's unlikely that the substantive content of the lede is going to change much -- he's still going to be famous and infamous for the same things, just perhaps new instances of similar conduct. But I don't have a super strong opinion and would be fine either way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

no mention of his 2026 interviews and speculation on Iran nuclear program

You'd think with all the news about him for months now there would some coverage of his thoughts on Iran's nuclear program ~2026-36700-19 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

There's been news about him? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)