Talk:Timeline of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 1

message: this article is mentioned in the timeline.  The main source of information is identified as a "Kurdish prisoner" who worked for both Iraqi intelligence and al-Zawahiri.  I cannot find his name anywhere in the article, but I believe him to be the same Kurdish prisoner that Jason Burke exposes here as a liar.  The details and dates certainly match up, and it would help explain this far-fetched story.  Comments?--csloat 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldberg article 

message: The footnotes (using the "ref" tags) are missing from this page.  You can see them in the edit box but there is nothing at the bottom of the page and clicking on a footnote does nothing (except when it's a direct link).  Anyone know why?  Thanks.--csloat 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think you fixed the problem. there was no reference section when the page was created.Anthonymendoza 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes?

message: I've left such edits alone for now, but I really wonder how much we should put in this about al Qaeda entering into Iraq to confront the US invasion.  There is little dispute that the US invasion brought al Qaeda members and other terrorists into Iraq to confront it.  This is distinct from any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq that was used to justify the invasion -- that is something that used to be made clear on the original page, before splitting off the timeline, but I think it is confused now.  This is a confusion promoted by right-wing blogs, as a simple google search for Hudayfa Azzam will show -- numerous right-wing blogs claim this constitutes a link between Saddam and AQ justifying the invasion, yet all this tells us about are things that were caused by the invasion (or the knowledge that an invasion was forthcoming).  It's an obviously circular argument, and I think something should be done here to clear up the confusion.  Any suggestions?--csloat 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hudayfa Azzam and similar edits 

message: Unfortunately we have people adding every possible bit of information that has anything to do with this whether relevant or not.  It's a little tedious to have to re-research each one of these and often discover that the main source is "insane" (Zubaydah), a "liar" (Shahab), spreading disinformation as an agent of Iran (Chalabi, Khodada, Qurairy, etc.), that the relevant documents are known forgeries (Atta in Prague), or that a quoted expert concludes the exact opposite of what the wikipedia editor added (Gunaratna).  Those are just the examples that come to mind offhand.  I feel like it's a big game to some people; they come across a right-wing blog and shout "ah-ha!" and add the information here as if it is conclusive proof that there was a conspiracy all this time, and then it is up to me to google or lexis/nexis for half an hour to track down the information that I remembered reading a year or two ago that clarifies the information (or, in many cases, disinformation) that had been inserted.  In the end it does make the article more comprehensive, I suppose, but I would feel less annoyed by all this if people inserting such things would spend a little more time researching them more thoroughly before putting them in here.  The fact is that there is a lot of disinformation out there, so some of this is inevitable, but if people are wary about the disinformation to begin with we might have less trouble.  Remember, there might be a good reason that all intelligence agencies and all experts who have looked at this have concluded that there is no evidence of Saddam-alQaeda cooperation.--csloat 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind the disinformation please

message: LOL.  You're killing me here, Anthony.  Yes, the 9/11 Commission was wrong about Zubaydah, whether or not an anonymous official said something different to the Moonie newspaper.  Dan Coleman, the FBI's main al Qaeda expert, who actually put his name and reputation behind this claim, was pretty clear on this, and if you read the Ottawa Citizen article (rather than simply playing "gotcha"), you would come to the same conclusion yourself -- read the comments in his diary for example.  (And, as has been typical, you don't even quote the part of the moonie paper that rebut the claim of this anyonymous official; did you stop reading after you found your money quote, or did you want to make me do it for you once again?)  What's really ridiculous about this is we now have 617 words about Zubaydah in here - a man who (whether or not he was insane) told the CIA only that he knew of no Saddam/AQ cooperation, but that if there was some, he would not be privy to it.  In sum, over 600 words about what the guy does not know.  Oddly enough, you are now claiming that he was "a senior planner" inside al-Qaeda -- something Zubaydah denied in the passage that you quote from the Senate committee.  So we have a lot of strange logical contortions here -- if the guy was the "senior planner," then he would have information about Saddam ties, which according to his knowledge did not exist.  Again, all I'm asking is that you put a little more thinking and reading into your edits; I'm sure you mean well, and I am sure you think my edits are one-sided too.--csloat 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i really hate your "LOL" remarks.  based on one book you now believe Zubaydah is insane. ok. the newspaper article you cite simply repeats what the book says.  i did a search and the only people who believe the book are left wing bloggers.  the washington times article also states He told us in an interview that Zubaydah did provide the United States with key pieces of information, such as identifying an al Qaeda code name as that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who planned the September 11 attacks. The information led to Mohammed's capture. so he is insane yet provided valuable information like this.  you are killing me and i'm growing tired of debating you as you always attempt to put me down and ridicule my edits.  from now we should just edit as we see fit, add to each other's edits, and not engage in discussion's as i'm tired of feeling insulted by you.  Anthonymendoza 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I found your changes amusing.  I believe Dan Coleman + Suskind's other sources, not "one book."  I realize that the Ottawa Citizen quoted the book, and the evidence in the Citizen is convincing.  I have not yet read the book, but the moonie paper you cite is not convincing.  Your claim that only "left wing bloggers" believe the book is totally false; do a lexis nexis search or go to the library and look up articles in mainstream newspapers.  Zubaydah was a "taxi driver" for al Qaeda, which makes it credible that he was able to identify KSM.  He wasn't important; he drove important people around; and I never disputed that getting KSM was valuable.  It really doesn't matter for the other reasons I mentioned above - I'm not trying to ridicule you; just point out that it is pointless to play "gotcha" with this information, since the Zubaydah stuff in the article - now almost 800 words - adds precisely zero substantive information to it, since we are talking about what Zubaydah didn't know (whether he was "insane" or not).  Anyway I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just hoping for less one-sided participation here.  You seem to be going out of your way to find things that make it sound like there was a Saddam/AQ conspiracy, even when you have to ignore other parts of the articles or basic facts in order to do it.  You don't think I should find that problematic?--csloat 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zubaydah

message: This is a huge article with a huge amount of information to sort through in the clean-up. Let's discuss how to most effectively and most quickly accomplish that task. First, some questions and series of questions that I think should be answered:
1) Should the article be broken down into smaller sections for certain editors to tackle? If so, how many sections/editors? Who will the editors be? Should each section be done by multiple editors?
2) What should the goal be for the finished, cleaned-up article? Format, content, etc.
Add your own ideas (and questions).
Jinxmchue 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reorganizing might be too large a task to take on at this point - I'd say to start with, we should focus on removing the information that is duplicative or not significant.  There should not be a timeline entry for an article published in a magazine unless that particular article has major news (e.g. the NYT publication of information about al-Libi lying, or the publication of Nasiri's book).  There should also be some attempt to weed out stuff that does not meet WP:RS.csloat 05:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... Cleaning up the article...  Discuss. 

message: This article includes numerous claims that have been disputed, refuted and/or disproven by the US Gov, and various commisions. It presents them as 'facts'. This is an outrageous misuse of Wiki and violation of WP, and is the equivalent  of if the '9/11 attacks' article incorporated the various conspiracy theories regarding 'controlled demolition' and other hypothesies into the body of the article. I deleted two claims by conspiracy theorist Stephen F. Hayes. His claims reagrding Saddam/Iraq and Al Qaeda were specfically denied by the DOD, and most of his other conspiracy theories have been thoroughly rejected by the US Gov, and other experts, as well. He can not be considered a reliable source. Someone reverted my edits. 
As an admin opined:
:"Misuse of Wikipedia as a platform to espouse "hypothesises" and "theories" with no basis in fact is not to be tolerated.--MONGO 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What pieces are hoaxes?  Bring anything you think is a hoax to the talk page to discuss.  --Tbeatty 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said 'hoax'? I said 'Conspiracy Theory'. A major source for the Conspiracy Theories was a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith. The so-called Feith Memo was based on leaked intelligence, which the Defense Department subsequently rejected as "inaccurate," noting that the information leaked "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."DOD refutes allegations and condemns Conspiracy Theorists - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of them are hoaxes, but the problem is that if they are removed, someone who believes them will put them back in a month from now and we will have to re-research the information exposing it as a hoax.  Better to have all the info in here now, but it can certainly be described differently; in fact, there was some discussion a while ago about renaming this to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda conspiracy theory, which would be more accurate, since this is all about the conspiracy theory and mostly consists of information debunking the generally bogus "links" that have been raised by conspiracy theorists.  I'd say that too many notable people believe this conspiracy theory right now to simply remove reference to their various "points"; but I agree they should not be stated as fact.  If all we have is Stephen Hayes alleging something, that should be clear.  If all we have is info from the Feith report, that too should be clear, with reference (perhaps on a new separate page) to the fact that the Feith report was rejected by the pentagon and consisted of unanalyzed "intelligence" that was mostly rumor and speculation rather than actual fact. csloat 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, ill do the rename. --Striver 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please seek consensus before such a contentious page move.  I changed it back -- this is a timeline, and it is linked to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  If there is to be a move, both pages should be moved, and this one would become Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda conspiracy theory timeline.  Some review of the previous discussion about moving this page would be helpful; such a move was rejected about a year and a half ago.  I wouldn't necessarily oppose such a move but I would want to hear some discussion about it first. csloat 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute - accuracy and RS 

message: This page is currently number 29 on Special:Long pages. The recent Afd discussion called for the article to be cleaned-up. I don't see the need for quoting verbatim from referenced sources when they can just be summarised. I think the article should be trimmed to make it less verbose and improve its readability. Catchpole 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general, but I object to the specific material you cut out of the 1994 section. I think at the least the Bergen quote should stay as it accurately and succinctly summarizes the consensus of official investigations on the issue. In truth it's going to be hard to pare this page down too much because the conspiracy theorists will insist that every reported meeting or phone call is notable.  I think we can get rid of the long Atta in Prague paragraph and just point to Atta in Prague. I think we can make a similar page for Zarqawi and the conspiracy theory related to him (Saddam, al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi?) and get rid of another long section.  Possibly we could do the same with the 1993 conspiracy theory.csloat 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming

message: My suggestion is first to work through all the citations, and templatize them so that they display in the references section as something more than just a URL link. As each one is templatized, it can be verified for still being "alive", and if dead, or otherwise inappropriate, removed. That should winnow down the references and statements at least a little bit. Once each cite is verified and formatted, then another pass through for "debunking". This process is a bit more research-intensive. I suggest that something that is "debunked" remain in the article, and be identified as such, with a second reference to the reliable debunking source. This will prevent editors in the future from reinserting bad info that has already been debunked. Sound reasonable? Crockspot 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for cleanup

message: This sentence is lifted verbatim from the source article, yet there are no quotation marks or anything else to indicate it is not an original sentence. Jinxmchue 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence before content box 

message: Not everything in this article can be considered a "hoax", and the article is being actively worked on by several editors to identify such items that could be classified as such. Also considering that the hoax tag should be used with an AfD, and the AfD was rejected, I respectfully request that the hoax tag please stop being added back in. Some people may be quite surprised at how much of this article is NOT a hoax. - Crockspot 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To those who keep adding the  tag to this article -- I understand your objection to the alleged connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. But the  tag is not the Wikipedia way to indicate that a notable subject is the product of misinformation. Please read Wikipedia:Hoaxes#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. This subject, however mendacious, has received "sustained media attention" and "been believed by thousands of people including academics". Even if it is a fraud, it's not only notable -- it's historic. -- Shunpiker 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, yeah, and also, please stop using weasel words. Jinxmchue 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, assume good faith. I don't make revenge edits, Ben. I actually follow Wiki policies and guidelines. Jinxmchue 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ben, the hoax categorization requires that the article be tagged as a hoax (see :Category:Suspected hoax articles). Your attempt to do that was shot down in flames and now you're simply trying to get around that. Additionally, you're edit regarding the CIA report is NPOV via the use of weasel wording (see WP:WEASEL and pay particular attention to the examples). None of your edits stand because they fly directly in the face of Wiki guidelines and policies. You are misusing them and you know it. Jinxmchue 03:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Actually, the guidelines for using (or not using) the  tag do not apply to "hoax" categories. The  tag is for flagging non-notable hoaxes (usually those perpetrated entirely or primarily on wikipedia). They tend to get deleted pretty quickly. The "hoax" categories, on the other hand, are for permanent articles on notable hoaxes, keeping in mind that the designation of "hoax" should conform to the policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. In the case of this article, it seems too broad (IMHO) to be entirely categorized as a "hoax". But it's worth noting that at least one element that belongs to the timeline (but oddly isn't there) is classified under a sub-category of :Category:Hoaxes: the Niger uranium documents are categorized (aptly) as a political forgery. -- Shunpiker 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax tag 

message: This article is way too long and too specific to merge with Saddam Hussein.  The material in this article was extracted from Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, which is the "main" article on this topic. csloat 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested merge