Talk:Arkansas Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

While the malevolent intentions and existence of the "Arkansas Project" are proven and established, they are still a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Clinton-haters (and there are many). Granted that, the langugage in this article (unrestrained use of the word "attack") compromises the integrity of the information presented. As is, I don't think it's in line with NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dawsong (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}. (19 December 2005)

Excuse me for asking what might seem like an impertenent question, but if the use of the word "attack" is accurate in describing the Arkansas Project, how is that NPOV? Just because the facts happen to match one side of an argument does not mean that the facts are NPOV... it just means the other side of the argument is out of step with the facts. See Evolution for more examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anonymous Sources are a poor reference[edit]

If there was an actual "Arkansas Project" there should be better evidence than a Washignton Post article based on anonymous sources like, "well-placed sources have told The Post that..." and "[s]everal sources at the Spectator, all of whom asked for anonymity, said..." Even the silly title sounds like a government operation. Isn't there any better evidence of this project than the establishment Post's anonymous sources?

I added in the book citation of David Brock who references the meetings, funding, and key players. C56C 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Washington it is not uncommon for the power structure to give the appearance of "adversarial" and "deeply divided" government, usually during election cycles. While at the same time the "opponents" are always in 100% agreement on important issues like invading Iraq or Sen. John Ashcroft-R losing his re-election to a dead man. When the Senate held confirmaton hearings for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, all of his supporters and opponents refrained from mentioning the Official Report on the investigation of Vincent Foster's death that Kavanaugh conducted. The anonymous sourced "Arkansas Project" is approved for discussion but other topics are like a big stinking fish in the living room of a Washington cocktail party. Thomist 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a direct source by someone there (Blinded by the Right page 219) that says everything the Washington Post article does. Your POV campaign is tiresome, your misrepresented the "Several sources at the Spectator, all of whom asked for anonymity" and ignored the people who were named and quoted in the article. C56C 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blinded by the Right" by the self-discredited David Brock is not a WP:RS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomist (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

Prove it. C56C 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be cleaned up or removed[edit]

This article concerns living persons and is substandard for Wikipedia. David Brock is a primary source for this "Arkansas Project" yet he has disavowed his own writings. He has been called "a liar" by both the left and the right from Slate to Front Page.

Right and left? Those are both conservative sources, which obvious will be defensive about this claims. Funny, the slate page that links to the "lies" is a dead link. None of them question any of the elements cited in this article. C56C 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to disparage people using anonymous sources and David Brock. David Brock's rumors and conspiracy theories about an "Arkansas Project" are still rumors even if his rumors are repeated by others, including the NY Times or American Spectator. David Brock has attacked everyone from Anita Hill to Richard Scaife.

As I wrote above, you are misrepresenting the few anonymous sources used by the Washington Post. Anyway I removed them and cited them with better sources any way so you complaints on that are hollow. Pleas see this CNN article about Scaife's foundations admitting this.[1] (they call it an "very open conspiracy" with the funding posted at scaife.org) C56C 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better independent and unbiased sources are needed for this article to have any merit. David Brock is not a WP:RS even if he is quoted in the NY Times. Thomist 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. 1) Brock's writings are WP:RS for what he witnessed and 2) the NY Times, Washington Post, and all the other sources back those. Also don't write a paragraph piece attacking Brock on this article criticism of brock and his biography/background goes on his article. C56C 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brock is not a WP:RS. Please provide a unbiased source for the Arkansas Project conspiracy theory. Was Brock telling the truth about Anita Hill or Richard Scaife? Conservatives believed Brock when he attacked the left now liberals believe him when he attacks the right. Please explain how anyone can know when Brock is being truthful? Brook is a very poor source. Thomist 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke the slate article contains Brock's rebuttal at the bottom, and the Front Page article is written by the operator of Front page, David Horowitz, who has a questionable past and questionable motivations.[2] According to the wikipedia article Horowitz is a writer for NewsMax, the conservative website ran by Christopher Ruddy. You have not justified removing a citation by someone who worked at the Spectator who discusses the Spectators' role in this. C56C 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must provide a WP:RS for the Washington Post and not an article quoting anonymous sources. Brock has rejected his own writings he is not a WP:RS References to the self-discredited Brock should all be removed. Thomist 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post is a WP:RS, and Brock is a WP:RS for what Brock witnessed. Funny, Brock's work (Blinded by the Right) is the source you use to say he is "self-discrediting." So its okay to cite the work against Brock, but not about that he saw ragrding the project backed up by mainstream media articles? C56C 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories removed[edit]

There are no WP:RS provided to link Vincent Foster reports and Christopher Ruddy to the "Arkansas Project" conspiracy theory. What is the WP:RS source that Mr. Ruddy was part of the "Arkansas Project?" Disparaging remarks about living persons should have a high quality source as evidence or they must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomist (talk • contribs)

Are you kidding? Read the sources:

The first public indication of a falling-out between Scaife and the Spectator followed the 1997 publication of "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation." This book, by Christopher Ruddy, a reporter Scaife had hired to write for his Pennsylvania newspaper, sought to poke holes in the official investigations of Foster's death.

The Spectator's review of the book, by John Corry, a former New York Times reporter, described Ruddy as "a very heavy breather" whose book contained "very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations."

Soon after Corry's review was published in late November 1997, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media – a conservative critic who has received about $2 million from Scaife since 1977 – reported in his newsletter that Scaife had called Tyrrell to say he was cutting him off.[3]

Another article about Ruddy and the project.[4][5] One from Media Matters[6] One from CNN [7] One from Salon.[8] C56C 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to call the Washington Post owned Slate (magazine) a conservative publication. The Slate Wikipedia article states, "Slate's focus and editorial slant is politically liberal, as seen in choice of columnists, choice of and position on topics, and featured cartoon: Doonesbury. During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, a significant majority of staff and contributors supported Democratic challenger John Kerry." Therefore both liberals and conservatives have called David Brock "a liar." Brock is not a WP:RS.

You have failed to produce a single WP:RS that Ruddy was specifically involved in the "Arkansas Project" conspiracy. Lots of people worked for Mr. Scaife and the Pittsburgh Tribune published many articles critical of President Clinton but that does not mean everyone at the newspaper was in on the "Arkansas Project" conspiracy. You have not proven that Ruddy was on the boat with Mr. Larry and Emmett Tyrrell. David Brock's, biased Media Matters is not a WP:RS. Brock is a self-discredited source and well-known for not telling the truth. I don't think everyone would agree that Anita Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit slutty," just because David Brock famously wrote that in The American Spectator.

Better sources than David Brock are required to make disparaging comments about living persons like Anita Hill and Christopher Ruddy. This article needs to be cleaned up and references to David Brock should be removed. Thomist 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory[edit]

User:Thomist is bent on including Christopher Ruddy's (funded by Scaife to go after Clinton) work as fact on the Talk:Brett Kavanaugh page. He claims it is not a "conspiracy theory," but refers to the Arkansas Project as an "unproven conspiracy theory" about Scaife. According to CNN, "If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups."[9] Ignoring all the news articles from the mainstream press, two seconds at google turned up the Grants From Scaife Foundations, 1994-1996, which are located at many other places not to mention Scaife.org. They show that be gave 2 million to the Spectator. Clearly, with all of Thomist research into the Foster he case he did not pay attention to the money and reasons Ruddy doubted three official reports.C56C 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C56C:

You are just plain wrong to suggest I am a defender of "Christopher Ruddy's work as fact." There are a number of serious errors in his reporting and I know what they are better than you. I am more a critic than a supporter of Mr. Ruddy's reporting on Vincent Foster. At the same time, Mr. Ruddy did not get everything wrong and much of what he reported is supported by the official record. We agree that he was employed by Mr. Scaife who owned the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. But it is a huge leap to claim that just by being employed by Mr. Scaife, Mr. Ruddy was automatically involved in your conspiracy theory. Even the Washington Post's anonymous sources and the questionable David Brock do not say that Ruddy was part of the alleged "Arkansas Project."

Lots of people worked for Mr. Scaife and many people still do. How do you know which people were involved in this conspiracy? Is the Arkansas Project still ongoing? If not, when did it end? You have not provided a single WP:RS to show Mr. Ruddy was part of the "Arkansas Project" Conspiracy Theory.

As the sources demonstrate above, a critique of Ruddy's conspiracy book caused the end of funding to the Spectator

Scaife ended his support for the magazine last year after it ran a scathing review of a book by journalist Christopher Ruddy, a Scaife favorite who has worked for the Pittsburgh newspaper owned by the billionaire. Ruddy has written conspiracy-laden articles suggesting White House aide Vincent W. Foster and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown were murdered.[10]

C56C 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have unjustly linked anyone who received funds from Mr. Scaife to this "Arkansas Project" article, including Reed Irvine and anyone else that you choose without providing any WP:RS other than people had some association with Mr. Scaife. It is unfair to use such a broad brush to unfairly disparage so many people. You simply must provide a better WP:RS than David Brock and anonymous sources said so. Thomist 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, as you have shown on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh to many editors you are nearly impossible to engage. Reed Irvine is mentioned because, for instance:

Soon after Corry's review was published in late November 1997, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media – a conservative critic who has received about $2 million from Scaife since 1977 – reported in his newsletter that Scaife had called Tyrrell to say he was cutting him off.

Tyrrell confirmed in an interview that the call occurred but said he couldn't remember details of the conversation that ended all support from the man who had been his principal benefactor for nearly 30 years.[11]

This is like talking to a child who wants his way, and doesn't care about evidence. C56C 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C56C:

Please stick to the facts. Name calling and personal attacks are impolite. Insinuations are not WP:RS evidence.

You have failed to provide a WP:RS that shows Joseph Farah, Reed Irvine, Christopher Ruddy, James Dale Davidson and others were part of this "Arkansas Project" Conspiracy Theory. You have implied people were guilty of a conspiracy because they either worked for Mr. Scaife or for organizations that received some funding. Many people worked for Mr. Scaife and many organizations were funded by Mr. Scaife. What evidence is there that people indirectly associated with Scaife were all part of the Arkansas Project conspiracy? That people and organizations were linked to Mr. Scaife is not the issue here. This article lacks WP:RS evidence that Mr. Ruddy, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Irvine, Mr. Farah, and others were all part of the "Arkansas Project" Conspiracy Theory.

Provide some official record, document, or cancelled check for the "Arkansas Project," any WP:RS, besides innuendo, anonymous sources, and David Brock.

Please understand that it is unkind to vilify people with insinuations. Thomist 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that material is sourced. Your POV campaign ends at this article. As for your claim this is a conspiracy theory, according to CNN, "If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups."[12] C56C 02:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times article of April 15, 1998 and the CNN article of April 1998 both state that the American Spectator had an "Arkansas Project" and that Richard Scaife gave the Spectator a couple of million dollars. These articles limit the project to the Spectator and they do not claim that Ruddy, Irvine, Davidson, Farah or others were part of the "Arkansas Project."

Wikipedia standards for articles about living persons demand more evidence than the insinuation that all people opposed to President Clinton that also had any association with Richard Scaife were therefore part of the "Arkansas Project" conspiracy.

Without some WP:RS evidence that everyone associated with Mr. Scaife was part of the "Arkansas Project" the article needs to be changed. David Brock claimed the puppet master Scaife was so powerful he influenced Jay Leno's monologues and Saturday Night Live skits. David Brock is not WP:RS evidence that everyone from Reed Irvine to Jay Leno was part of Richard Scaife's vast right wing conspiracy. Thomist 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are denying something that isn't in there. The article doesn't claim Ruddy was part of it. The articles mentions that Scaife paid Ruddy for investigating the Foster conspiracy theory, and when the Spectator had the nerve to critique it, Scaife pulled funding. C56C 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & "Arkansas Project" are the same thing[edit]

The Wikipedia article, Vast right-wing conspiracy states that this was called the "Arkansas project" and the conspiracy theorist David Brock is the source. David Brock has been called "a liar' by both liberal and conservative publications from Slate to Front Page.

Brock wrote that Anita Hill was "a little nutty and a little slutty." Mr. Brock has repudiated his own writings so much that it is difficult to know when he is telling the truth. Mr. Brock is not a WP:RS. Thomist 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your POV off the page. You need a source. The two separate articles deal with different topics. They are under "see also." C56C 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not get personal. The POV is David Brock's and can be found in the "Background" section of the article Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy which states: "David Brock, a conservative turned liberal pundit, has said that there was, in fact, an effort to dredge up scandals against Clinton, which he had been party to. He documented this in his mea culpa, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative it was called the Arkansas Project. He commented in an interview on The Daily Show that Hillary Clinton was essentially correct but wrong in the idea that it was "vast," saying it was actually a relatively small group." David Brock said the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was called the Arkansas Project. The source is David Brock at Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Thomist 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, provide a source that proves, "The Arkansas Project is another name for the vast right-wing conspiracy."[13]. I've read some Brock and he has never made such a claim as you worded it. What work and what page? The quote you included (from wikipedia) does not mention the Arkansas project as you've tried to spin it. C56C 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with C56C. The article on Vast right-wing conspiracy only says that Brock considered the Arklansas Project to be a right wing conspiracy, not that Clinton, who coined the term, meant the two terms were synonymous. -Will Beback 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's funny is above he's claiming Brock "is not a WP:RS" to quote[14], and now he's trying to put POV in by citing Brock. C56C 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will, in that Mrs. Clinton did not intend the two to be synonymous. I do not recall her using Brock's term for the conspiracy, "Arkansas Project." No one is spinning anything. Please READ CAREFULLY the Wikipedia article Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that states Brock documented this [Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy] and "it was called the Arkansas Project."

Compare the two article Arkansas Project and Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at Wikipedia which both link internally to each other. Compare excerpts from each article:

The Arkansas Project is the general name of a series of investigations (mostly funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and Bradley Foundation) that were designed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton…Some reports and "investigations" connected to this "project" were… the Clintons' investment in Whitewater, and Troopergate.
AND
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" was a phrase used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 …to characterize the perceived collaboration of her husband's political enemies in a conspiracy theory…Clinton's claims came after years of a coordinated conservative effort to discredit Clinton with the Arkansas Project, Troopergate, and Whitewater (controversy).
  • Please explain how the Arkansas Project Conspiracy and Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are different?
  • Were Richard Scaife, Emmett Tyrrell, Reed Irvine, Joe Farah, Chris Ruddy, and James Dale Davidson part of one and not the other or was it all the same? Please explain.

As for Brock being the source that the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy "was called the Arkansas Project." I have already pointed out that as a source Brock is problematic. Never-the-less Brock is a source at both articles which is troublesome. Thomist 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked for a source. Conjecture won't get this included. C56C 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast right-wing conspiracy wiki article IS the source that states, "it was called the Arkansas Project." It is a distraction to argue there is "conjecture" when none exists. Thomist 21:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. The article reads:

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was a phrase used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 during an interview on NBC's The Today Show to characterize the perceived collaboration of her husband's political enemies in a conspiracy theory, more recently penned by DOC Party Chairperson Howard Dean to describe critics of his foreign policy. Clinton's claims came after years of a coordinated conservative effort to discredit Clinton with the Arkansas Project, Troopergate, and Whitewater.

As you noted above Ruddy was not directly part of the Arkansas Project, but he was paid by Scaife to "investigate" the Clintons. Thus, one can be part of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspi." and not part of one facet of it (the Arkansas Project). C56C 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false, "It [the vast right-wing conspiracy article] does not say that." Please read the entire article, all of it, to the bottom.

At least we agree that Ruddy was not part of the Arkansas Project. No WP:RS has shown Ruddy was part of a Arkansas Project conspiracy. We agree sources only show Ruddy worked for Mr. Scaife like lots of other people. All references to Ruddy being part of this "Arkansas Project" with no WP:RS must be removed from the article. I'll do it now. Thomist 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C56C:

Please answer my questions. How are the two conspiracies different? Was Irvine involved in one or both? Thomist 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You took my words out of context. Read the sources:

The first public indication of a falling-out between Scaife and the Spectator followed the 1997 publication of "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation." This book, by Christopher Ruddy, a reporter Scaife had hired to write for his Pennsylvania newspaper, sought to poke holes in the official investigations of Foster's death.

The Spectator's review of the book, by John Corry, a former New York Times reporter, described Ruddy as "a very heavy breather" whose book contained "very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations."

Soon after Corry's review was published in late November 1997, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media – a conservative critic who has received about $2 million from Scaife since 1977 – reported in his newsletter that Scaife had called Tyrrell to say he was cutting him off.[15]

Another article about Ruddy and the project.[16][17] One from Media Matters[18] One from CNN [19] One from Salon.[20] C56C 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But NONE of those articles actually state that Ruddy was part of the Arkansas project. One states that Ruddy was working for Scaife BEFORE the Arkansas Project, which begs the question, at what point did Ruddy join the Arkansas Project? There is still no WP:RS that Ruddy was part of the Arkansas Project. Thomist 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomist, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources for this article. If Brock said simething we need to source his original utterance, not the interpretation of it made by other WP editors. -Will Beback 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the article vast right-wing conspiracy the source given is Brock's, Blinded by the Right. Thomist 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomist: 1) Arkansas Project paid for by Scaife, and publicly known players 2) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy an utterance by Hillary Clinton about a whole barrage of events. The Arkansas Project might be part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (Clinton never described it as such), but not the other way around. C56C 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are correct that the Arkansas Project was part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and not the other way around do you have a source so wee can we add that to the article? Brock was the source that the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy WAS the Arkansas Project. Do you have a source to counter Brock? Thomist 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above I wrote: "The Arkansas Project might be part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (Clinton never described it as such), but not the other way around." Brock never said it was. Do you have a full quote and a source to prove otherwise? C56C 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does Brock say about it in the book, and on what page? Simply pointing to a Wikipedia article isn't sufficient. Of course even if Brock did say it flat out, that still doens't make it gospel, just another viewpoint. -Will Beback 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC

Mark A Smith[edit]

The Mark A Smith that the link goes to seems to be a different individual, so I am removing the link unless someone wants to make a page for this billionaire. -- User:RWest 14:07 3 August 2007

The original name that was in that position was Richard Scaife, which would match not only the sources but the context of the rest of the article as well. If you look at the rest of the history within August someone has changed the names multiple times. I'm gonna change it back to scaife, or just press undo back to the 29th May article as it looks like the other guys were just vandalizing the page.--Evud 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arkansas Project. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arkansas Project. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arkansas_Project&oldid=1205331703"