Talk:WMD conjecture after the 2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

message: Please vote if Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_war should be merged into Post-Saddam WMD search, vote support or oppose.
*Strong support Post-Saddam WMD search and the large 44 kb section Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_war have become two seperate articles in many ways.  I have been involved in a lot of mergers recently For example, we merged four articles and several sections of other articles into one List of United States military history events.  I have found when wikipedians merge an article the creative talent on this article becomes more focused and stronger.  There are a lot of wonderful ideas here, which can be merged into one article, where everyone can focus on the subject of Post-Saddam WMD search in one place. Travb (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren Dew thanks for your comments. I agree that work by wikipedians is OR, and should be tagged as OR, and if no published, verifiable sources are provided within a short space of time, then definatly it should be removed.  Of course, as long as those theories are backed up by written published sources, it is not OR.  Thanks for your comments.  Albiet, it sounds like you support a partial merger. Happy editing and welcome to wikipedia. Travb (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have created this article mostly to remove this story from GRU article, where it should be only briefly mentioned.  The text was taken mostly from SourceWatch (it has the same copyright as Wikipedia), but I edited it slightly and checked that all claims are supported by references. This article still needs a lot of work.Biophys 00:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should like to express my appreciation of the dogged perseverance, hard work and patience of editors in trying to observe recognised Wikipedia principles of civil discussion and co-operation in improving and sourcing articles for the benefit of all. W. Frank 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should be merged as it just repeats what was published in Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy and John A. Shaw.
Previously Biophys used this claim to accuse Russia of helping Iraq to hide its WMD. He failed on hi sources in the article on GRU.Vlad fedorov 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should mark this article accordingy - for merging and wait for opinions of other editors. After discussion, we should find some consensus and act accordingly. It will take some time. This is proper procedure. Biophys 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of this article with others 

message: I believe that all the contributions Biophys has added are relevant not to the article with such broad name, but to respective articles on Al'Qa'aa incident and on Show.
Moreover, the name of the article is just a POV and false allegation which was denounced by Pentagon. Mr. Show who voiced these false allegations publicly admitted that he had done so in order to help candidate Bush to win the elections.Vlad fedorov 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This controversy is a part of the bigger Al'Qa'aa incident issue. So, I would suggest no merging, but to refer to this article in Al'Qa'aa article. As for Mr. Show biography, this is certainly a completely different topic. Please no merging. Biophys 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be deleted.  Anything here that can be considered "bigger" than the other pages is not coming from reliable sources.  Shaw has admitted that the allegations were lies politically motivated; the fact that questionable sources like frontpagemagazine, washington times, or newsmax repeated Shaw's lies does not make them more notable. csloat 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Could you then provide any reliable sources where Shaw admitted that his allegations were lies as you say? Then we must cite such sources.Biophys 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for sources in article about him. It says:
 
Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes. Among other unsubstantiated claims, Mr. Shaw accused Russian special forces of helping Saddam removed his WMD prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was asked to resign shortly after these accusations, prompting him to call the accusations by the Pentagon "spurious." Shaw said he made the accusations as a political move to help candidate George W. Bush, who he felt was being "crucified" by the revelations that over 350 tons of explosives had gone missing in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion.
There are no any sources here!. They must be provided. Biophys 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have provided all the sources including Washington Times and Financial Times.Vlad fedorov 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the proposal to merge, and Vlad fedorov is correct about the title of the article. This is what we call a POV fork - I have changed the title, so that if this page remains, it can be an NPOV article about a particular point of view. Quadpus 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; this should be deleted as a pov fork, especially given what vlad says above about the history of it being created.  Is there really any information here necessary to merge, or can we submit it for AfD? csloat 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge 

message: O'K, I have looked through a few sources. Shaw said:
"The Kerry media-driven October surprise attack on us and the president stopped within hours,"  "If I had not had the openly hostile environment in [Pentagon public affairs], I would have moved the story differently. Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process."
He also claimed later that he had been targeted by "senior members" in the secretary's office: "I cannot in good conscience resign at this time," Mr. Shaw stated. "I cannot submit my resignation to you until it is clear that this well-orchestrated campaign to obstruct justice and suppress the findings of my office has been properly addressed and stopped." 
:This is very far far from "admitting that his allegations were lies", to say the least! To the contrary, he insists he is telling the truth. So, I am waiting for your sources.Biophys 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ther is no such text in the article "admitting that his allegations were lies". Vlad fedorov 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He admitted he distorted the story to help the Bush campaign.  But that's really not the issue here; the issue is that this "article" is at best a subset of the other two articles.  It should be deleted, whether or not Shaw believed his discredited story. csloat 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source checking

message: The biography of Shaw is certainly a completely different topic. The article about "Al Qa Qaa controversy" includes only the following text about Russians:
"On October 28, 2004, the DoD released imagery dated March 17, 2003, showing two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers at Al Qa Qaa. However, the bunker nearest where the trucks were parked are not any of the nine bunkers identified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.[15] On the same day, the London Financial Times reported that the French and Russians may have been involved in the removal of the explosives from Al Qa'qaa before the war began, quoting Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John A. Shaw, who said "various Russian units on the eve of hostilities [helped] to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria". He also told the Washington Times "the organized effort was done in advance of the conflict". The Washington Times also reported that defense officials believed the Russians could also explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Russian Government has denounced this theory as "nonsense", saying that there were no Russian military in the country at the time. Shaw's theory has attracted little public support from elsewhere in the Administration."
The question is: do we need a separate article about this? Maybe not (I made it  after arguments about GRU article). I need a few days to research this question. Please let me do it and then reply. Biophys 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: See what has happened. Vlad deleted some pieces of text (including even "See also") and pasted large segments of text from other existing articles. Then, you can claim that such article does not make any sense. Right, it does not! I can also agree to call this "hypothesis", "allegations", etc. No hard proof anywhere  in my opinion. But after looking through a few sources I found the following. First, people are talking about chemical and biological weapons (allegedly transported or hidden with help of GRU), not only these Al Qa Qaa explosives that can be used for fusion in nuclear weapons (the same explosive is also known as "hexogen"). Second, a lot more people are involved here in addition to Mr. Shaw. One source says:  
But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's  people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.
In the end, here is what Shaw learned:
# In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
# Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."
# Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.
# In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.
# The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."
# Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.
# Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.
# The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."
# The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."
# Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.
The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."
The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."
Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.
"Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," Shaw said. "He whispered sotto voce [quietly] to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind."
Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.
"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."
McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD. 
And so on and so on. Note that Smeshko was high-ranking member of Ukranian GRU. Biophys 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This controversy seems to be interesting

message: Could you post here links in support of your allegations me deleting "see also" links?
I could post here diffs according to which I have inserted these links diff, diff. And a link by which Biophys at first tried to disguise them diff and afterwards do delete them diff. Vlad fedorov 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False accusation of Vlad Fedorov by Biophys

message: So, I do agree this is a kind of "theory". But this is not a "POV fork" of other aricles if to include enough material beyond Mr. Shaw and Al Qa'qaa. I also agree that article must be NPOV.  To achieve this, we can simply make "pro" and "contra" sections, as in many other articles about "controversies". So, I would like to try this. If this does not work well, we can always delete the article. No rush.Biophys 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disguise facts as criticism. Shaw was unable to present any evidence in support of his Russian claims. Pentagon has distanced himself from Shaw accusations. This is not critisism - these are facts confirmed not by conspiracy web-sites, but by reliable sources.Vlad fedorov 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My suggestion

message: This violation of WP:POINT and WP:FRINGE. Vlad fedorov 05:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be preferable to discuss large scale deletions on the article's talk page first. (I am guilty of moving stuff without obtaining prior consensus too - thank you for not reverting it).W. Frank 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Do you mean this article or GRU article? Certainly I am not going to revert you. If I did anything wrong, you are welcome to correct me.Biophys 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biophys do not remove actual circumstance into criticism section 

message: Biophys, please do not violate WP:3RR rules. You may be blocked over this. Vlad fedorov 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: I have a few things to say. First, you deleted a lot of references that satisfy WP:SOURCE. Second, you deleted a lot of well referenced text. Finally, you deleted sections "Neutral" and "Criticism". These sections are necessary to have NPOV article. I think that kind of editing is inconsistent with WP policies. Biophys 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOURCE does not say anything about what types of sources are acceptable. WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." OP-ED columns do not have editorial oversight, they are dubious sources. I didn't mean to remove any other references, but if I did, feel free to replace them for now, but know that every other source you are citing would also be considered a dubious source. Quadpus 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but I would like to emphasize the following. The claims were made about chemical and biological weapons, not only about high explosives, as clear in the present text. There was a text saying like that "WMD in fact were high explosives". I deleted it because it was not supported by ANY references.Biophys 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edits

message: Someone (I guess that was Vlad) created the following text about Mr. Shaw:
"Shaw became the subject of an FBI investigation when he conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts, allegedly using the results of these unauthorized probes to direct multimillion dollar government contracts to his friends and associates.  In one instance he impersonated a Halliburton employee in order to conduct the investigation.  Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes.  " And so on. 
This information was supported by the following reference: http://198.62.75.5/www1/news/lat-7-7-04a.html. It says in the title 
"By T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, July 7, 2004." I did not found it in Los Angeles Times web site. However, this source can be found elsewhere: . So, yes, indeed, such allegations were made by the correspondent of LA Times. However, these allegations have been denied in official DoD statement. See this:  
DoD Statement on Jack Shaw and the Iraq Telecommunications Contract, August 10, 2004; archived on Global Security website. Moreover, they were denied by FBI: see Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Shaw vindicated," Inside the Ring, August 13, 2004. There was no any investigations and any wrongdoing according to official statements! I do not know which source is right but they are obviously contradictory and therefore must be all cited in the article.Biophys 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Wrongdoings" of Mr. Shaw

message: Although I have ended the discussion with keep, this article may be merged into multiple articles if necessary. Sr13 (T|C) 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd closed 

message: Please do not revert war, biophys.  I explained all my changes in the edit summaries and in the comments above.  If you have a specific change you would like to undo, explain it here and do so.  But simply reverting wholesale the numerous changes is disruptive editing. csloat 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: I made these changes in reply to critique by other editors during the AfD discussion. First, there is no need to talk about Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy, because this controversy is about conventional explosives, not WMD. Hence, no content forking. Second, this is article about an operational procedure described primarily by Pacepa. Mr. Shaw is only one of many persons who make statements about this subject. Finally, we are not making any our own or anonymous assumptions if these allegations are true. We only cite notable people with names. Hence, we try to achieve NPOV version. Biophys 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another POV fork.  All you're doing is opening this up for another AfD.  And you've deleted relevant and sourced information refuting your little conspiracy theory, while soapboxing with a lot of information that is only tangentially related.  This is disruptive editing, Biophys. csloat 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fork with which article are you talking about? To the contrary, I removed the fork with article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy. Could you explain what exactly is disputed? I am trying to find some consensus here, and I did my best to reflect all critical comments made by other editors during AfD discussion.Biophys 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All information and statements related to the subject of this article WAS included. If you think this is "conspiracy theory" (which is not), then this is not my conspiracy theory. I described carefully statements of all involved.Biophys 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not trying to find consensus; you are unilaterally making significant changes in order to avoid the POV issues that I tried to correct in my changes that you reverted.  The article that survived AfD was about Russia and Saddam and WMDs; it was not about Operation Sarinder.  Sarinder was a subset of the former, and it was the one with the least amount of support.  The consensus that seemed to develop on the AfD was to merge this article with a larger article, not to fork off a POV conspiracy theory article.  Now this article focuses almost entirely on the fantasies of a former official of a soviet bloc nation who has been out of power and contact with that power for three decades.  The rest is unsupported statements mostly portrayed as truth.  This is a conspiracy theory, and it is one with NO evidence to back it up; it is a conspiracy theory that was explicitly rejected by the Pentagon, by the ISG, by the Russians, and has absolutely no currency among journalists except the ones writing for Newsmax.  Portraying it here as a legitimate theory -- and giving a soapbox to the rambling conspiracies of Shaw -- is simply not encyclopedic.  Taking off the NPOV tag is particularly disruptive under the circumstances. csloat 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My last changes

message: I've restored some of the material that was deleted by biophys.  This still has a ways to go to be NPOV and verifiable.  The claims of a defector who has been out of power 30 years (and who would have no occasion to have the conversations he reports with Andropov, etc) are the main basis of this article, and it should be clear that is the case.  Shaw's fantasies have not been supported by any evidence; the pentagon says that, the ISG says that, and the Russians say that; we should not pretend otherwise.  Bodansky has no supporting information whatsoever to his comments, which do not seem to address Sarindar at all; if they do, is he just regurgitating Shaw there?  In all, this is still a very POV conspiracy theory that gives a soapbox to voices that have simply had no credibility in the mainstream media.  We should not elevate every wild hare that a website like Newsmax gives credence to in an encyclopedia. csloat 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: recent changes

message: I deleted the following, and biophys keeps reverting it:
:Iraq possessed a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons and biological weapons in 1990s (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction)Charles R. Smith, "Russia Moved Iraqi WMD. Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon," NewsMax, March 3, 2005. . However Iraq Survey Group did not find these weapons (see Post-Saddam WMD search). ¶
The problems:  (1)  It is not known at all whether Iraq possessed a "substantial arsenal" of CBW in the 90s, and, in fact, that claim is very much in dispute.  (2) This claim is sourced to Newsmax and Frontpagemag, neither of which is a WP:RS for such a claim as this.  (3) The fact that the ISG did not find these weapons suggests that they may never have existed, as most people currently believe.  I am deleting the claim again; please do not revert.  Thanks. csloat 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: Please note that I did not delete any of your recent changes, but only reinserted back a small portion of my previous text supported by references that satisfy WP:SOURCE (I made no reverts, it was you who started reverts). If you think these references are insufficient, please mark it  and let me time to find better references (there are plenty of them in this case) or let me justify that the existing references are good. I suggest that we do not delete referenced texts of each other without consensus from that moment Doing so is violation of WP policies. If you will continue doing so, I have no other choice but to start reverting your edits. This is not good for us both. So, the choice is yours.Biophys 02:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you did delete many changes.  Second, you reverted four times in 24 hours, a violation of the WP:3RR.  Please revert your revert.  Thanks. csloat 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, that is your reply to start collaboration rather than reverts. No, I did not violate WP:3RR. Also note that I restored sourced texts, and you know that deletion of sourced text without discussion is violation of WP policies. Biophys 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Csloat, this guy also works on Active measures article where he publishes the same fantastic allegations. Could you help there? Vlad fedorov 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We must agree about certain rules

message: I'll be submitting this page for AfD unless a compelling reason not to do so is put forth.  As explained above, this is mostly one guy's fantasy, with support from suspected criminal John Shaw.  Neither has any evidence to back their statements up, and the ISG, Pentagon, and Russian government have said so.  "Operation Sarindar" gets exactly 17 google hits, not one of them a WP:RS.  Fourth hit is wikipedia; most of the rest are blogs like "fuckfrance.com."  Hardly notable.  I did a lexis/nexis search and a search of proquest newspapers and got exactly zero hits.  Not one in major newspapers, magazines, or journals owned by either database.  This topic is far less notable than the conspiracy theory that narrowly survived AfD a few days ago.  This page is a POV fork of that page and should be deleted. csloat 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is the same as it was during the AfD discussion. Only two important changes were made. First, the title was changed as suggested by one of the discussion participants (hence the smaller number of Google hits). Second, we removed some content forking with  Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy. That was easy because this article is about weapons of mass destruction but Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is about conventional weapons, although these topics are related.  Two days ago you claimed that no changes were made at all (your claims that I reverted old version). Now you are telling this is different article.Biophys 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make that claim.  It is in poor form to misrepresent what I have written; don't ever do it again.  This article is now about a less notable issue, hence the small number of google hits.  This topic is just not encyclopedic, as I have demonstrated. csloat 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about this edit   Biophys 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in that edit do I make the claim that no changes were made at all?  AfD is not exactly DR; I'm not sure why you're asking that.  Anyway, can you offer any compelling reason to keep the article?  I'm still not sure I have heard any. csloat 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you. This article just passed AfD discussion and the decision was "keep".Biophys 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Csloat, just in case, you have the right to request Deletion Review, which means we could start voting again. But before request for Review I suggest you to thought out meticulously grounds for deletion. I think that prior to that we should create the article on the US sale of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during Iran-Iraq war (see my sources higher), and afterwards we could come up for deletion review with strengthened arguments of WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. Moreover, I just learned that you are an author of "Informed Comment" blog. Thank you for such a nice blog. Actually I read currently only two sources on Iraq matters - your blog and Robert Fisk of "The Independent". Thank you for your great job. Vlad fedorov 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the author of that blog.  My own blog is far less popular and far less frequently updated than Informed Comment.  As for the AfD, it seems pretty clear to me that we now have a POV fork of an article that was already a POV fork.  This particular one is far less notable -- only 17 google hits and not a single WP:RS for this fringe theory; there is no way this would survive an AfD vote.  Relying on the previous AfD vote is silly since this is now a tiny subset of the article that was voted on. csloat 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on this page 

message: I believe that recent edits of this article represent a clear vandalism, because they either (a) misrepresent the existing source (telling that article contains claims about WMD, while it is in fact about ordinary explosives) or delete  referenced material to article by famous journalist Judith Miller.Biophys 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think that is vandalism

message: Csloat, you just deleted the segment about Primakov. Indeed, this information is not related directly to Operation Sarindar, but this explains that Primakov was allegedly bribed by Saddam Hussein. Therefore, his "denials" described in this article cost nothing. You have included information that try to discredit Shaw as a character witness. This is fine, but then we can and should provide similar information about other people (i.e. Primakov) to have NPOV article. Of course, we might also move such information about everyone to footnotes (I think that would be best solution) or delete it. Then it would be also balanced (NPOV). So, what do you think?Biophys 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well clearly, this is defamation of Primakov. How he learned that Primakov was taking moneys? He was handing them to Primakov himself or Saddam invited the press fro that occasion? Vlad fedorov 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is not related to Sarindar, it should not be here.  The bodansky stuff should go too, as a matter of fact. csloat 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no any reason for Bodansky stuff to go because he is talking about Saddam's WMD and Primakov, who is a major figure of this controversy. As about Primakov info, it can go only with similar "discrediting" info about Shaw (to keep the balance). But I would prefer to have all such information in the article (perhaps as footnote), so a reader can decide for himself whom to believe.  Biophys 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What information about shaw is similar?  The bodansaky stuff is not talking about Operation Sarindar.  It must go. csloat 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you insist, Shaw's activity and Primakov's credibility can go (I would prefer them go to footnotes), but Bodansky allegations should stay for a very simple reason: they are much more credible than any other allegations here, based WP:SOURCE (verifiability) criteria. They derive from a reliable secondary source, I would even say scholarly source - the book by a recognized Middle East expert. Biophys 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I respectfully disagree about his unsubstantiated allegations, but that is immaterial.  What matters is that these allegations, no matter how credible you believe them to be, do not have anything to do with Operation Sarindar, which is the topic of this article. csloat 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How come? You are obviously mistaken. I just cited this segment a few sentences above. It says: not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops,.... This is relevant. It does not matter that source did not tell "Sarindar". It tells about WMD, which is the real subject of the conroversy. Biophys 12:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Operation Sarindar, not about every mention of artillery. csloat 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Sarindar is about chemical weapons. If an artillery round contains a compound classified as a chemical weapon, it belongs here. Source says WMD. This is it.Biophys 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.S. may be "about chemical weapons", but not everything to do with chemical weapons is about Operation Sarindar.  Again, if it's going to be included on this page, it must be relevant specifically to O.S. csloat 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but the source tells not just about "some WMD", but about WMD in connection to Saddam Hussein and Primakov, and Russian special forces. Therefore, it is relevant to Operation Sarindar. Again, nobody tells that any allegations are true. We simply describe all allegations whatever they are. Biophys 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SYN.  We cannot make leaps, even ones that we consider logical, without published sources backing them up.  If Bodansky does not refer to this specific operation, the information should not be included here. csloat 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYN say: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C". Could you tell please what is "A", what is "B", and what is "C" here? We are not advancing any positions in this articles, and we are not making any logical conclusins (such as A+B=>C). We only cite different sources. These sources make contradictory claims, so no any logical conclusions can be made. There is no any synthesis  here at all. We only reproduce what source (Bodansky) said about WMD. This article is about alledged disappearance of chemical weapons ("Operation Sarindar"), and Bodansky is telling exactly about THIS subject.Biophys 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A is the alleged disappearance of chemical weapons.  B is Operation Sarindar, a specific conspiracy from the 1970s or earlier.  The connection between the two is original research; Bodansky is not talking about Operation Sarindar. csloat 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim by Pacepa and Shaw was that Operation Sarindar (destruction and/or evacuation of WMD) was applied in Iraq. Bodansky is talking about the same. Biophys 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that bodansky is talking about the same is your WP:OR, and it is probably false anyway, since his book does not mention this operation. csloat 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about Primakov

message: Could you please copy and paste here a segment of text from reference 2 (claims by unnamed Pentagon officials) that would tell ANYTHING about chemical weapons rather than ordinary explosives?Biophys 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference 2

message: This is disputed segment (currently excluded by csloat from the article):
Allegations by Yossef Bodansky 
    	
Historian Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War  Yossef Bodansky The Secret History of the Iraq War. Regan Books, 2005,   described the visit of Yevgeniy Primakov to Baghdad on February 22 2003 as a special representative of President Vladimir Putin. The Primakov initiative, endorsed by Putin, suggested that Saddam must hand over all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, among other things . Next time, Putin dispatched Primakov on March 17 to meet with Saddam and urge him to step down, without much success. "Saddam tapped me on the shoulder and went out of the room", Primakov recalled.. 	 
According to Bodansky, "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over."  Bodansky stated that "the apparent absence of WMD munitions in Iraq demonstrates only one aspect of a comprehensive intelligence blinder, namely, the inability to account for the full extent of Saddam's arsenal, which was hidden both before and after the war". 
-------------------------
I've submitted this page to RfC.  Much of this is WP:NOR and should be deleted.  Operation Sarindar was allegedly a program of the old Soviet Union, according to Mr. Pacepa.  Pacepa appears to be the only source with any information that such an operation existed at all, and he defected to the West in 1978, so he has no knowledge of anything that happened since then.  (All other sources cited here quote Pacepa; there is not a single book or scholarly source that confirms that such an operation ever existed).  I believe the article should only deal with the historical allegations of Mr. Pacepa about this operation.  One user -  - insists on turning this article into a theory about where Saddam Hussein hid WMDs in 2003.  I don't have a problem including a short section indicating Mr. Pacepa has made this allegation and that the allegation was denied by the Pentagon and by the Russians.  But I object to the inclusion of extraneous information about Saddam and WMDs that simply does not belong here.  Quotes from Yossef Bodansky in particular, alleging that Saddam stashed WMDs in Russia for some bizarre reason, do not mention Operation Sarindar and are simply not relevant here.  I have Bodansky's book and the index lists no less than eight entries beginning with the word "Operation," and "Operation Sarindar" is simply not one of them.  Biophys's assertion that Bodansky is talking about Operation Sarindar is simply not supported.  After we remove that section, the entire article should be changed to make clear that this is a historical allegation, not a current political topic.  We should not be using an article like this to intervene in current political debates about the war in Iraq, which is what Biophys is trying to do. csloat 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As clear from Bodansky book, he does not tell words "Operation Sarindar" and he does not refer at all to Pacepa (I never claimed that he did!). What Bodansky claims in the book is this: Saddam did had WMD, and Russians did helped him in evacuation or destruction of these weapons. This article is about disappearance of Saddam's chemical weapons. "Operation Sarindar" is only a title that can be changed if a better title proposed. Therefore comments by Bodansky are not only relevant but also very important. This is so obvious!Biophys 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Operation Sarindar, not about everything to do with Russia and WMDs.  You should not just change the title to suit your political agenda. csloat 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not just about old Soviet program "Operation sarindar". It is about alleged implementation of this old program by GRU in 2002 and 2003 to help Saddam Hussein, as obvious from text of this article.Biophys 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with csloat; this article should be about the alleged Operation Sarindar plan, not fringe theories about Iraq's alleged WMDs. The article as it stands gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory propagated by only a few individuals, some of whom, as csloat has argued, are/were not in a position to know things they claim to (i.e., Pacepa, who had defected by '78). Parsecboy 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one section of this article, "Description of the operational procedure" is about Sarindar plan. The remainder (90%) of the aricle is about alledged implementation of this plan. It is about Iraq's alleged WMDs, as a few other WP articles. Biophys 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and that's giving undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. Therein lies the problem. Parsecboy 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is: the entire article is about something that you call "fringe theory". Therefore, it was on AfD review twice (both times submitted by cslot), and the decision was "keep". You may read the AfD discussions at the top of this talk page.Biophys 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about "Operation Sarindar"; the fringe theory that the alleged operation continues in 2003 with Iraq should not be given undue weight.  And other fringe theories that seem vaguely related thanks to WP:SYN (e.g. bodansky) should be excluded entirely.csloat 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The segement on Yossef Bodansky looks perfectly OK to me:  it is well sourced, and in fits in the theme of the article. From what I gather, Bodansky details the visit of Yevgeniy Primakov to Baghdad in February 2003, and goes on to say: "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over." This is very much in the spirit of the Operation Sarindar plans that Ion Mihai Pacepa details elsewhere. So what's the problem?  Turgidson 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it is WP:OR and violates wikipedia policies.  In addition, not every unsubstantiated allegation in every book that exists is notable enough for an encyclopedia. csloat 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is OR in all this--based on what logical chain can one arrive at such a conclusion?  And what WP policies are being "violated"?  Just asserting such things without making a solid case simply does not cut the mustard.  As for the second sentence -- perhaps so, but what exactly in Bodansky's book is an "unsubstantiated allegation"?  That Primakov went to Baghdad in 2003?  That he discussed with Saddam Hussein the evacuation of Iraqi chemical weapons?  I am at a loss.  Finally, who gets to decide which book can be included, and which not?  I see no reason to ban quotes from Bodansky's books: is there a WP guideline or policy that would preclude quoting his books?  Turgidson 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy against original research and synthesis is violated here.  Bodansky's argument is not about Operation Sarindar.  He never mentions it.  That he mentions something that appears similar to a conspiracy theory dreamed up by someone who may have had knowledge about Operation Sarindar 30 years ago does not mean that he is writing about Operation Sarindar, and it is original research to make that link.  As for which of Bodansky's allegations are unsubstantiated, you tell me where Bodansky provides proof of what Primakov has spoken to Saddam about, or of what Russia did to help Saddam stash the alleged WMDs. csloat 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who said Bodansky mentions Operation Sarindar?  But what he mentions -- as quoted in the paragraphs written by Biophys -- is something that can be used in a WP article without problem, I think.  Now, I don't know what "proof" Bodannsky provides or not -- I didn't read the book -- all I can say is that, reading what Biophys wrote, it all looks well referenced and very much usable.  If there is a specific problem with a quote, let's hear it. Otherwise, let the article proceed.  At least, that's my opinion, and I will leave it at that for now, I do not see the point of going on and on about this matter, unless there is something new brought to the table.  Turgidson 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is quoted cannot be used in this wikipedia article without problem; the connection between it and Operation Sarindar is original research.  If you do not understand this, please read WP:NOR. csloat 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Csloat, you said: "As for which of Bodansky's allegations are unsubstantiated, you tell me where Bodansky provides proof of what Primakov has spoken to Saddam about...". Remember: "verifiability, not truth.", see WP:SOURCE. I do not have to prove anything, and I do not have to care how Bodansky proved anything. Since this source satisfy very well WP:SOURCE (note - this is reliable "secondary" source, which is the best type of source for WP!), we are using it.Biophys 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked which of his allegations were unsubstantiated and I responded.  That does cut against its notability, but that's not the argument I've been making here; the argument here is that this material violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. csloat 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree. Why not rename it back?Biophys 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That still does not solve the problem that a lot of the article violates WP:SYN and should be deleted. Parsecboy 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then if others agree (let's wait for a couple more opinions), we might proceed as follows. 1. We rename the article back (so it is clear that aricle is about alleged involvement of GRU/Russians in disappearance of Saddam's WMD). 2. I will remove/modify whatever I think should be removed. 3. You and others would comment what remaining pieces violate WP:SYN, we discuss this, and change whatever necessary.Biophys 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a rational way forward. What do the rest of the editors involved here think? Although I don't like the implication that you own this article. Parsecboy 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like Biophys owning this article either.  Frankly, his proposal is more of the same thing he's been doing -- when a controversy arises, he changes the name of the article to try to subsume the controversy.  This article is and should be about operation sarindar only.  If you want another article about the fringe conspiracy theory that Saddam and some aging former KGB agents packed up nukes on mules or whatever, then start a separate page and put your information there.  That page will then go through the AfD process, as is appropriate, and the community will decide how fringe it is. Everything on this article except the few statements that specifically refer to Sarindar should be deleted, and it should be made clear that this entire fantasy is all the allegation of one man who has not been part of the Communist Party apparatus anywhere since 1978 and would thus have no way of knowing any of this.  Again, if you want to start a separate page for your bodansky theory, go for it, but it's not likely to survive AfD. csloat 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parsecboy, if you do not like me, we can ask Turgidson to edit this article after renaming, simply because he is the only neutral person who worked on this article too. Why he is neutral? Simply because his block log file is clean, unlike mine, cslot's, or Vlad's.  So, no problems with own. Key issue here is different: cslot does not want to rename this article and erroneously (I believe) claims WP:SYN problems with Bodansky citation.Biophys 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about whether anyone likes you or about how many blocks anyone has; it is about having a problem with anyone - you, me, parsecboy, or turgidson - owning any wikipedia page.  Turgidson is certainly not "neutral"; he has been vehemently advocating the same WP:SYN violations that you have, and neither of you has shown any indication of even having understood the policy in this regards at all.  WP:SYN is relatively objective concerning this issue. csloat 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I have no problem with anyone here. What I have a problem with is that Biophys seems to think that he/she owns this article because he/she created it. That and violations of Wikipedia policy, which clearly prohibits original research and synthesizing material. Block logs are irrelevant. Parsecboy 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on this page

message: Biophys please do not change the title of this page every time there is dispute about your POV-pushing and insertion of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories here.  Let the RfC process continue before making any such changes, and always seek consensus before making the change.  Thanks. csloat 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, the purpose of your AfC was to improve this article. Right? That is exactly what I am doing. In reply to your AfC request, User:Parsecboy made a critical comment. Basically, it was not clear for him what is the article about. So, I slightly changed the title to make it more specific. I only added words "in Iraq" to refine the place of action. I would like to note that you edited this article previously during AfD discussion. You just started an RR war with regard to a minor change of title of this article. Please do not do it Biophys 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for the RfC process to proceed -- nobody has recommended the unilateral change you made to the title.  It makes this article even less relevant or notable and opens it up to yet another AfD.  I am changing it back; do not revert without seeking consensus.  Also do not stalk me to other articles to revert me.  That is considered harassment on wikipedia and is very likely to get you blocked if I report it to WP:AN/I.  You have been warned. csloat 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I notice that we both live in the US and watch FOX channel. And this article about O'Reilly is not fair. Of course, I will stop editing it for now - just because you ask. No problem. Let's be mutually forthcoming. But I would like to ask you stop reverting me. It was you who started reverting the title of this article. O'K?Biophys 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As about alleged wikistalking, you may take a look here  and here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov.  This is not pretty. So, no one is doing wikistalking here. O'K?Biophys 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Biophys is a known revert warrior and POV pusher, csloat. See here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, I agree stop editing this article and leave it as it is right now if you and other sides (I mean Vlad) will do the same.Biophys 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent seen any evidence of Vlad wikistalking and I'm not sure why it is relevant here.  I will lay off reverting the Bodansky stuff for now but please be on notice that it is original research and against wikipedia policy, as is most of this article. csloat 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please add then a comment on my RfC page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov. Thanks. Vlad fedorov 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I told this already several times and can repeat again. This article is about alleged evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces in Iraq.  ~90% of the text of this article is about that (including claims and denials), and it has always been about that.Biophys 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Biophys you have named this article after Pacepa allegations. All other allegations are different from Pacepa's. We have to delete all other allegations, unless they mention 'Operation Sarindar'. Otherwise you violate WP:OR. Vlad fedorov 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly join Csloat. Because I belive Biophys' behavior is of disruptive character. Vlad fedorov 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you did not provide any valid explanation why the words "in Iraq" can not be added to the title.Biophys 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Pacepa said that Sarindar referred to Lybia, and similar program existed for Iraq. Vlad fedorov 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  And Biophys has not sought consensus on the name change.  There is no "Operation Sarindar in Iraq"; all we have is the bizarre suggestion that something similar to what allegedly existed in the 70s regarding libya may also have existed for iraq (which makes no sense at all, since Iraq was a US ally at that time).  In any case, the burden of proof for any name change is on you biophys.  This is WP:DE and should stop immediately. csloat 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very simple. There is only one mentioning of Lybia in this article, but the remainder (at least 90% of the text) is about alleged operation by Russian special forces in Iraq. Therefore, such change of the title is appropriate. No one claims that such operation took place in Lybia or anywhere else in the world except Iraq. Biophys 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Who cares? Pacepa claimed that such operation took place in Lybia. Pacepa is your most important source for the article. Otherwise, if you rename the article we should delete most of Pacepa's allegations, because most of them are about Operation Sarindar in Lybia. Vlad fedorov 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I have made several improvements to the article but it still needs a lot of work.  If this Operation really existed, someone should find evidence and information about its historical significance (whether it dealt with Libya or some other country).  Over 95% of the article is about the bizarre speculation that this program from the 1970s was reinvented in 2003 for Iraq.  While that speculation may be worth mentioning, there is next to nothing here about the operation that supposedly existed in the 1970s (the only thing, by the way, that Mr. Pacepa would reasonably have any actual knowledge about, since he has been gone from there for 30 years).  So if this really existed, surely some books have recorded information about the historical existence of this operation.  I ask Biophys to please come back with some information about the history of this rather than more about the Iraq allegations (which are more than thoroughly covered here).  I will note that I searched print sources of information for this Operation and it isn't covered by anyone.  Not a single newspaper or magazine in Lexis/Nexis database has ever mentioned the phrase "Operation Sarindar."  Nor has a single journal in the EBSCOHost database (over 3,000 journals) or the Infotrac database (over 9,700 periodicals) ever mentioned the phrase "Operation Sarindar."  So it looks like all we have are Mr. Pacepa's claims. csloat 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Operation Sarindar 

message: I just fixed this part - a quote from Pacepa: "All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction.  Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third World countries, which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retain lethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway."  That's pretty funny - so apparently Shaw and Pacepa are ultimately accusing Russia and Iraq of doing exactly what the US wanted Iraq to do from the beginning -- destroying their WMDs.  Why is this alleged operation being used as a political punching bag against Bush opponents?  It really makes very little sense. csloat 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above rhetorical question, "Why is this alleged operation being used as a political punching bag against Bush opponents?", is quite revealing of a certain mindset, more in the MoveOn–Daily Kos–The Huffington Post vein, than WP.  Why view everything through the prism of whether one agrees or disagrees with President George W. Bush (I take that's what Bush refers to, yes?)  I say, let's keep the discussion focussed on sources, and how to interpret them (as in the objections in the previous paragraph), and leave the politics surrounding the 43rd President of the United States aside.  Fair enough?  Turgidson 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not my comment that reveals that mindset; it is the material in this article that does so!  Jack Shaw admits that he pushed this story solely to help Bush in the election.  So don't shoot the messenger. csloat 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So  John A. Shaw is supposed to have admitted to such a dastardly deed: push for the re-election of the President during the United States presidential election, 2004—picture that!  By the way, the source for this assertion is The Washington Times, which I remember being called by csloat a "questionable source" somewhere on this very same talk page—is that (highly subjective) qualificative still operative?  And, according to Bill Gertz, what Jack Shaw said was, "Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process."  How does that translate into "pushed this story solely to help Bush in the election"? — Turgidson 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't understand my point about the Washington Times, the time to ask about it was then.  As for Shaw, if you don't understand what he said, you might read the entire quote: "The Kerry media-driven October surprise attack on us and the president stopped within hours," Mr. Shaw wrote. "If I had not had the openly hostile environment in [Pentagon public affairs], I would have moved the story differently. Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process." csloat 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Turgidson, you probably noted that csloat not only deleted everything about Bodansky, but also deleted a lot of other things. It seems that article should be renamed back as "Russia and Saddam WMD" and content restored...Biophys 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't understand these mass deletes -- how can they be justified?  One should argue first on the talk page, before engaging in such drastic changes.  And, if it means deleting sourced material, based on reputable sources, then it's downright against WP policies.  I haven't followed each and every twist of this saga lately -- there are many other things going on -- but, if that's the case, it's not good. Could you please summarize what those deletes entailed, and how they affect the article?  As about the title -- I'm a bit leery of using just "Saddam WMD", sounds a bit too colloquial (and, at any rate, it should be "Saddam's WMD"). How about something a bit more formal, such as "Russia and Saddam Hussein's WMD"?  Or, to keep things more symmetrical, at the level of states, why not "Russia and Iraq's WMD"?  After all, though Saddam was a dictator, almost (but not quite) in absolute control of Iraq, he didn't technically own those WMD's, they were the property of the Iraqi state, right? On the other hand, perhaps it's better to emphasize this episode happended during Saddam Hussein's tenure.  How can one best reconcile these considerations, while keeping the title short and to the point?   Turgidson 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no "mass deletes."  I was very careful to explain each edit on the edit summary, and I will be happy to discuss any single one of them.  If you have a question about any edit let me know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) 
Another thing about the name of the article - it is and should remain "Operation Sarindar."  That is the title that survived an AfD, and that is what the article is ostensibly about - a historical operation (an alleged operation actually, one that apparently never existed) that was allegedly revived in 2003.  You cannot keep changing the name of the article just because you want to include tangential information or exclude information that you disagree with.  We should stick to notable and, as Turgidson mentions, reputable sources.  In fact the two main sources for this article - Shaw and Pacepa - do not qualify, but they are at least mentioned by some notable sources.  But self-published blogs and questionable sources like newsmax should not be used for soapboxing here (see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX for details).  Please see the above section of this talk page, where I pressed Biophys to please help us with the historical background of Operation Sarindar.  That sort of information would be especially useful in order to avoid precisely the problem that Turgidson points out -- the use of this article as some sort of political football.  This should be an encyclopedia article that explains (in a neutral manner) an alleged historical event. csloat 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect. This article was kept after first AfD discusssion under name "Russia and Saddam Hussein WMD". Name "Russia and Iraq's WMD" is even better. But such topic is  much wider and partly different; it should describe the history of Russian-Iraqi military/WMD cooperation (which I do not mind). Main problem with this article is very simple: scloat deletes all sources (including scholarly book by Bodansky) to promote his POV. After all, I strongly agree with Piotrus and Turgidson that either a name of this article should be changed, or a different article (such as "Russia and Iraq's WMD") must be written from scratch.Biophys 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start another article if you think there is a different topic worth talking about here; this article is about Operation Sarindar.  Repeatedly changing the title whenever you have a conflict with someone is a sure sign of WP:DE and WP:OWN violations.  I am not promoting any POV here; I am trying to make this an encyclopedic article.  Bodansky stuff was deleted for violating WP:NOR as you are well aware. csloat 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To the contrary, we are changing title back, and this is already supported by two people besides me. There are no WP:NOR violations here as you are well aware.Biophys 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start a new article if you want.  I don't see any vote about changing a title; your assertion appears false.  You are being disruptive; start an RfC on this article if you want to make such a major change.  Also it would help if you at least attempt to make an argument in favor of why you would make such a change in this article - rendering more of a political football than it currently is - rather than attempting to improve the article as it is. csloat 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  much ado about nothing