Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 9

message: Below is RonCram's justification for a rewrite; I am sectioning it off like this so others can easily follow the arguments.  I realize both Ron and I type a lot here, and important things have a tendency to get buried, so hopefully this will help.--csloat 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not anti-Bush.  What sentence specifically appears anti-Bush?  Let us examine that sentence and rewrite it.  To assert that the article as a whole is anti-Bush is not helpful.  Your second claim here, that the article does not represent the debate in the intel community, is also incorrect.  The main conclusions of the intelligence community are cited in the main body of the article, and the details are discussed in the timeline, including the role of the OSP.  If you believe there is missing information I am not sure why such information cannot be added to the current version.  As for the POV in your rewrite, let's get the rewrite on a separate page (like this, for instance) and we shall deal with the POV issues there in the footnote manner -- frankly, the entire rewrite is extremely POV and factually incorrect on many issues.  But the burden is on you to dispute the POV of the current version; that is an essential first condition before even considering a massive rewrite.  The specific POV issues you name do not seem like things that cannot be addressed with minor changes.--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, what is poorly written specifically?  I don't doubt there are many sentences that could be better written, but that is not what we are discussing -- you are advocating an entire rewrite based on an assertion that there is poor writing.  The "argues with itself" claim is something I don't disagree with, but that is the nature of an article where there is significant dispute.  Shifting the POV of the article so that it definitively claims that Saddam either did or did not work with AQ would solve that problem, but then of course we have a massive POV and accuracy problem. The arguing in the article is essential when there are pieces of evidence that respond to the claims discussed.  Are you seriously suggesting that we should present only one side of the issue for readability's sake?  I leave aside the question of whether the rewrite is written well as we are discussing the current version here.--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue here is not the rewrite but whether there are flaws in the current article.  What exactly is inaccurate about the current article?  Why can it not be salvaged?  As for providing more information, why can we not add what is missing to the current version?--csloat 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JUSTIFICATION for Rewrite

message: Does anyone mind if I archive a lot of this page...probably into two archives? It's well over 300kb's at this point. If there are sections you prefer to not archive at this time, let me know. I'll wait at least 12 hours before I archive.--MONGO 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ongoing discussions of these nine arguments as well as this proposition, so I'd say don't archive that stuff at least.--csloat 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, please do not archive the rewrite.  That is the core of the discussion. RonCram 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: A former member of the Iraq Survey Group has analyzed documents gathered in Iraq after the invasion for FOX News exclusively (which has me being skeptical). Two documents, a training manual and a 1999 IIS notebook, have been translated and analyzed to show that an Arab army, possibly Iraqi, had a presence in Afghanistan before 9/11. I ask Wikipedia to examine these new allegations made by Fox News and this former ISG member. Below is the link to the Fox News article. -Amit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
:Color me skeptical too; Ray Robison has been shown to have lied about a number of things, so, as with the IIS notebook also mentioned in the article, I'll be waiting for independent verification of these documents before making any judgements.  It is interesting though that the article identifies an "Arab government" as "most likely Saddam's" but makes nothing clear about this -- is Iraq named or not?  If not, how do we know it is "most likely" Iraq?  It will definitely be interesting to see what we learn from this information.--csloat 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where has Ray Robinson been shown to have lied in the past.  you should always source claims like this.  i'd be curious to see any research you have on him. Anthonymendoza 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Birmingham did the work on this; the discussion is on the talk page for the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article.  There are links to the relevant blog entries there.--csloat 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i read the discussion and still don't see how he's lied in the past.  besides, robinson's team translated the fox documents, not robinson himself.  i don't see anything to suggest the translations are made up or wrong.  Anthonymendoza 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOX News uncovers documents

message: I have started the Atta in Prague document based on what is in the timeline here.  I think it's a good idea to break out the longer sections of the timeline into their own articles so that the information is more readable.--csloat 05:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atta in Prague

message: Anthony has made a large number of edits to the timeline that involve adding quotes from articles and putting those dates in the timeline.  I have stayed out of it up until now, but there is something extremely problematic and even deceptive about these edits.  First, the timeline dates should indicate dates something important is said to have occurred, regardless of the date of the article.  The problem with Anthony's approach is that we have the same information duplicated several times over (e.g. Hijazi meetings, Zarqawi's alleged treatment in Baghdad for a leg that turned out never to have been broken, etc.)  This is deceptive because many of these claims are answered in other parts of the timeline - Anthony's approach allows for the information to be re-asserted without the response, so a reader who glances only at parts of the timeline will not realize, for example, that Zarqawi's leg was never broken, that Abu Wa'el was most likely a spy rather than a "negotiator," etc.  It is not practical to have information repeated all over the timeline like this, and accuracy requires that if anthony wants to add another paragraph re-asserting the abu wael claim, that he also include the response to that claim (for example).  Second, the timeline could be expanded indefinitely in this approach -- I am a little concerned that it is becoming completely useless.  After all, hundreds of articles have come out indicating that there is no link between Saddam and al Qaeda -- should I add each one to the timeline independently with a date?  I'm going to ask that Anthony undo his recent edits and add the information that is necessary according to the dates when events occurred rather than articles were published.  Rather than rushing to add every vague quote in here -- and some of these quotes are pretty vague -- add the information where it is necessary.  Use the "find" function on your browser, you will find that many of the claims you are adding already exist on the timeline!  If the quote adds no new information, leave it out; if it adds something important, put that information in only and link the article.  Thanks!--csloat 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't know how closely you've been keeping track of this page, but the al-Libi story appears TEN times in the timeline.  i have deliberately tried not to be redundant in my edits.  if i have been redundant, please correct me, but don't say i'm cluttering the timeline when it was cluttered before i began editing.Anthonymendoza 01:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down.  My point is that we don't need this sort of redundance, no matter who is doing it.  The problem is that you are adding items to the timeline based on date of publication.  It is not a notable event that such and such magazine published this or that article.  In many cases -- e.g. Abu Wa'el, Zarqawi, Hijazi -- the item in the article is already mentioned elsewhere on the timeline.  This article will just grow and grow if that is the case, since we will then have to add to each magazine article the information that Abu Wa'el was a spy, that Zarqawi's leg was not broken, that meetings with Hijazi went nowhere, etc.  Ideally the timeline would just indicate dates of things occurring (e.g. 1994 - meeting with Hijazi) rather than dates of articles being published (e.g. 2001 - Time publishes article about 1994 meeting with Hijazi).  Does that make sense?--csloat 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think in some cases the date of publication takes precedence.  the intro states "The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated", and  adding new information about old events furthers the debate.  for example, the new fox news translations could be added to 1999, but adding them to 2006 shows the reader that this was recently disclosed, and thus shows how the debate is continuing.  that is my rationale.  if a consensus disagrees with this, i'll be happy to change it.  but a major problem with the page is redudancy and lack of organization.  i don't think i should be singled out for the cause of this.  feel free to discuss issues like this with me on my talk page too, rather than singling me out on the discussion page.  Anthonymendoza 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only mentioned you because you did this; didn't mean to single you out.  It's the issue I'm concerned with, not you, which is why this is here and not your talk page -- I think we should reach some consensus about what entries to the timeline should achieve.  I agree w/your rationale on the FOX documents, but not on the edits about Hijazi, Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, etc.  These edits duplicate information that is already on the timeline but add them to different dates based on the publication date.  I am tempted to go through and duplicate additional information on each of those edits to place the Hijazi, Zarqawi, etc. stories in context, but I think it would be better to just delete those entries and add any new info from those articles to the appropriate parts of the timeline.  I really don't mean for any of this to be personal.--csloat 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline