Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 7

message: I think the list of sources should be cleaned up at some point.  One option is to list only sources cited in the article.  That is unnecessary since we have works cited in the footnotes as well.  Another option is a "further reading" section.  Such a section should be subdivided -- works from official sources, books, articles, and major news stories.  Opinion pieces should be sparing at best -- a couple on each "side" of the issue perhaps.  There is no need to cite every article on the issue, and I certainly don't want to start a tit-for-tat with Ron -- he keeps piling every article he finds in support of the theory that Saddam ran al-Qaeda, and I am resisting the urge to pile on articles that conclude the opposite every time.  Some of the sources he adds are useful to researchers, e.g. the Baer opinion; others are simply rehashes of the arguments that he includes only to make the case for the conspiracy theory.  I don't want to turn that section into another battleground, but I'd like to hear what others think about it.--csloat 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask you not to delete any of the sources I list as I plan to use these sources in an upcoming rewrite. The article is badly non-compliant with wikipedia policy and I am looking forward to making it much better. Specifically, the Baer decision in U.S. District Court that Saddam and al-Qaeda did cooperate in the 9/11 attacks is an interesting historical event that readers deserve to know about, even if I am not totally convinced myself. One of the main uses of an encyclopedia is the list of sources so researchers can learn more.  Researchers deserve access to Baer's reasoning in the case.RonCram 11:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not indicate what you think is noncompliant about this article rather than teasing us with promises of an upcoming rewrite?  I have been making suggestions for several months about ways of reorganizing this article; the only thing you have seemed interested in doing, however, is turning the article into a forum for various conspiracy theories.  Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, some of that is perhaps inevitable, but I have been trying to steer the discussion away from a right-wing/left-wing debate and towards producing a more concise and useful encyclopedia entry.  I think the timeline should be a separate page and the major points should be dealt with here thematically.  There are really only a few "connections" to discuss -- the Zarqawi link, the Atta meeting, the meetings in 1994, the alleged meetings in 1998, Salman Pak, and perhaps a couple other things; a lot of the stuff from the timeline could be broken up and put into those sections.  Then there are the various investigations to detail -- the CIA, NSA, FBI, State Department, DIA, 9/11 Commission, SSCI, British intel, Spanish intel, Czech intel; probably a couple others I can't think of offhand.  Then a section for major statements -- Bush Admin statements, Clinton Admin statements, comments from experts (including the comments from Mr. Scheuer that you are so fond of, Ron).  It would still be pretty long but the timeline itself would have a separate article for people who want to do more in-depth research.  As for Baer, please re-read my comment above - I agree the Baer decision is useful to researchers.  I don't see the use of your other additions. Again, I'd like to stop all the left-wing/right-wing debate games, since they are leading us nowhere, and I am tiring of them.--csloat 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry.  I misread your comment on Baer.  Each of the other articles I linked to add something useful to the article and to researchers.  This is not a case of "piling on." RonCram 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're continuing to "pile on" biased articles in the sources section.  Why not initiate a discussion about what you're trying to prove with all of these excessively biased articles?  Thomas Joscelyn, of course, is another known prevaricator like Mr. Hayes.  Again I am resisting the urge not to balance each of your sources with sources from the other side.  There are plenty of articles from the Nation, from antiwar.com, from Mother Jones, from the World Socialist Web Site, and other left-leaning opinion sources that I could add to balance off the stuff you are adding.  I think all of it should be deleted and we should just include mainstream objective news sources.  So, once again, can you please explain what you're trying to do with this information rather than continue nickle-and-diming the source list until it loses all credibility?  Thanks.--csloat 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources 

message: Several people have complained about the article being too long and too POV.  One proposed solution was to move the timeline portion to its own article.  I have done so.
The article was also strongly POV and needed balancing.  I have made a strong effort to maintain all of the main points favoring the official view that no operational relationship exists.  But I have also attempted to present a fair amount of evidence to explain why some experts, such as 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey, has changed his mind and now sees an operational relationship.  
I have also addressed briefly information about the possibility Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11.  This is done not because I am convinced Iraq was involved in 9/11, but because it provides researchers the original sources about this debate.  These sources include the “Opinion and Order” by Judge Baer that concluded Saddam and bin Laden conspired on the 9/11 attacks. 
The final goal was to make the article more readable.RonCram 01:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's problem was organization, not POV.  Please, Ron, to avoid an edit war, make a list of the major changes you have made with your justifications.  When an article is contentious, a host of massive POV-shifting changes without explanation is extremely destructive to discourse here.  I have asked you several times what was wrong with the article and you chose not to answer; waiting to drop all of your changes at once in order to avoid discussion of them.  Just looking over your changes at a glance, I see a number of horrific POV shifts.  The inclusion of an entire section about the utterly discredited conspiracy theories of Mylroie, for example, is beyond ludicrous.  I realize also you put a lot of stake in Bob Kerrey's opinion, but he is not an expert, and he is the only known member of the 9/11 Commision to have changed his opinion, and he never explained precisely what evidence from the OIF documents led him to do so (esp. since most of those documents suggest that the 9/11 Commission's conclusions were justified).  I also see a number of organizational changes that make your version far less readable than the previous one (such as the inclusion of the SSCI conclusions in the wrong section, for example).  Please list all of your changes with explanations so they can be discussed point by point, or let's revert the whole thing and make the changes one by one.  Thanks!--csloat 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just one more point -- I also see some outright misinformation in this new version, such as the claim that Czech intelligence now believes that Atta was in prague.  I'll be reverting your changes within the next couple of hours without a thorough explanation of them.  Thanks.--csloat 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a note on CSTAR's Talk page.  I mentioned that the biggest problem I had with you in the past is that you revert  my edits before other editors get a chance to read them and evaluate them on their own.  There is no way to achieve concensus if other editors do not get a chance to read the new version.  This version dramatically improves readability.  I would appreciate it if you would allow other editors a few days to read the new version before you make changes.  The conclusions of the SSCI are in the right section because they represent the official view regarding the link.  If you read the timeline, you will see it also says that Czech officials still believe Atta was in Prague. Please do not make changes until you have read the underlying source I cite.  Give it a few days.  No great harm will come to the nation if you leave the article alone for within the next 72 hours. RonCram 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron. Wikipedia software allows you to take a look at previous versions, so your complaint is not really an issue.  There is no way to achieve consensus if you make changes without justifying them.  This version actually subverts readability as I noted above.  Since you refuse to justify your changes I will be reverting them; other editors can use page history to take a look at your changes if they like.  I don't see why we should leave an inferior and extremely misleading version of the page for even 72 hours when the person making the changes is unwilling to list the changes and justify them.  I did read the timeline and I am well aware of what the Czechs believe; we have been over that one a number of times.--csloat 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is an issue.  Wikipedia allows you to see older versions, but in practice people rarely go back to a version two or three days old to read it.  They usually act on the belief the most recent version is the concensus version.  Please allow other editors a chance to read this version before you make changes. RonCram 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, the consensus version is the one that has been here for months, hammered out through many painstaking discussions about every single change.  You have made multiple changes all at once, and you refuse to even discuss those changes.  All I asked for is a list of your changes and justifications; yet you can't even be bothered to offer that?--csloat 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, the concensus, for a long time, has been that this article needs a rewrite.  Several editors have talked about it here.  I have provided one.  I did not make a list of changes as I rewrote the article. I tried to make certain that all of the main points for the official version were included in this version. I added the section on "Why this subject is controversial." I added some background on Laurie Mylroie because her books played an important historical role in persuading certain members of the Bush Administration that Saddam was a threat. I provided more detail on the foreign news reports about the working relationship.  I believe you were familiar with all of this information from our past discussions.  The rewrite mainly improves the organization and readability.  Much of the information will be new to people who were not involved in our discussions over the last year.RonCram 02:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, a list of changes would help people see what you have changed and would help in the process of building consensus.  Surely you understand that your word alone that you haven't made any major changes -- especially when it is obvious you have -- is not enough of an explanation of this massive rewrite.  A simple list of changes -- 1, 2, 3, etc. -- would allow discussion of each change.  Or, if you prefer, make one change at a time.  The consensus version had been argued over for a long time and there was general satisfaction with it; the NPOV tag had been taken off a while ago, and additional changes had been discussed one by one.  Making massive contentious changes all at once like this and shifting the POV significantly is unacceptable in terms of consensus.  Your claim that there was consensus for a rewrite is inaccurate; I believe there were many who believed it was too long, and I had long suggested changes, and tried to start a debate on such changes.  The goal is to actually reach consensus about specific changes.  I am not aware of a consensus that a massive POV shift is necessary here.--csloat 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of the article

message: I'd like to put Ron's version of the page to a vote.  Please indicate below whether you prefer the RonCram version or the consensus version of the page.  Thanks!
It seems to me that the vote is a little premature.  I suggest we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both versions above for a few days before we call for a vote. RonCram 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it interesting that you think it is too soon for others to evaluate your work and express their opinions in a vote but it is not too soon to insist on totally replacing the consensus version with a radically POV version.--csloat 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition

message: csloat, has asked for evidence to support the news report that a pact was sealed between Saddam and al-Qaeda in 1998.  Of course, the evidence was in the rewrite I made for this page and he keeps reverting.  But here is the evidence again - multiple news reports by media around the world:
:In December 1998, President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing attack on targets inside Iraq.  Shortly after Operation Desert Fox, a number of news reports came out around the world giving details of the new working relationship between Saddam and Osama:
:•	"Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin have sealed a pact." - Corriere Della Sera (Milan) - December 28, 1998.
:•	"…several western diplomatic and security sources which have good relations with Sudan, warned in secret reports they sent at the end of [1998] that Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in field of chemical weapons" at several facilities. - Al-Watan Al-Arabi (Paris) – January 1, 1999
:•	"President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four-day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama bin Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world." - Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London) 
:The ‘’Weekly Standard’’ reported:
::’’The London-based Al-Majallah added even more details. According to the Saudi-backed publication, "scores of Iraqi military intelligence men . . . arrived in Afghan territory in December." Also in December, "the Iraqi Embassy in Islamabad held a series of meetings between an Iraqi security official and the leaders of a number of Pakistani fundamentalist movements and elements from the Taleban, with the knowledge of Pakistani military intelligence." The purpose of such meetings was to whip up support for Saddam in his confrontation with the U.S. and Britain.’’
These news reports are corroborating evidence.  RonCram 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no evidence of a "pact" other than the word being used once by the Milan paper, and of course we know that the 1998 meetings "ended in disaster" for the Iraqis (see the timeline for that information).  Nice work, Ron, but no cigar.--csloat 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence the pact was sealed