Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis/Archive 1

message: Please refer to  and salvage any useful content. --Jiang 22:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I updated some of the sections in which were still written from prewar perspective. I replaced present tenses with past tenses where appropriate such as said for says, did for does, etc.
I also reword the possible explanations for why no WMD's were found. As it was written it was not clear the arguments made in favor of each scenario was that of the scenario's proponents and not Wickipedia itself, a POV violation. Also the scenario suggesting the possibility that Bush and Blair intentionally lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, did not conform to any scenario I have heard and so I rewrote it to match the more common version of the scenario. If someone feels it should be included in it's original form then may do so separately. Also, while most of the scenarios presented proponents arguments for them, this one only presented arguments against it. Thus removed the arguments against and put in arguments it made by it's proponents to match the others. If anyone feels arguments against these scenarios should also be included, the please do so but for all and not in place of the pro arguments. -Cab88 07:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Rewording and NPOVing

message: This quote in the current version:
"A warehouse with over 50 tons of yellowcake was discovered."
Can someone provide a citation? A quick search on Google turns up nothing to support this claim.
It is now March 15, a full week since your request for clarification. Having recieved none, and finding no information substantiating that claim myself, I am going to pull the statement on the grounds that it appears to be false. If at some point someone can back the statement, it should be included. --Uncle Bungle 16:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellocake discovered? 

message: The subsection following WMD is Oil for food scandal. It neither fits in the flow - only the first paragraph following the title relates - nor is relevant to the disarmament crisis leading up to March 2003. Daniel Collins 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil-for-food scandal

message: "UN Resolutions requiring UN inspectors unfettered access to areas those inspectors thought might have weapons production facilities."
Is unfettered the best word to use?  Taken literally, it would imply that the Iraqis were chaining up the UN weapons inspectors on their visits to suspected weapons facilities ;)  Ojw 19:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phraseology

message: The following is "orginal research":
: Because no large stockpiles of WMD were found by the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion of Iraq, this article could also refer to the Iraq Disarmament Pseudo-crisis.
Removed. JDR 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is clearly not NPOV.  It assumes that there was a "crisis", although it is now well-known that the source of the supposed crisis was based on faulty data.  If we were to call this a "pseudo-crisis" before the Iraq Survey Group finished its work there might be a claim of original research.  It can't be considered original reserach, however, if it is simply applying a NPOV to content that is already manifest in the article. I am going to restore the sentence unless I get a substantive objection. Linkspro 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq Disarmament Pseudo-crisis

message: There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here:  -- Mr. Tibbs 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq War]] Poll