Talk:Hans Blix

message: I re-added this.
"In his report to the UN Security Council on Feb. 14, 2003, then-UNMOVIC head Hans Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." []
This contradicts stated U.S. policy throughout the 1990s, which was to maintain stanctions whatever the Iraqi regime did, see: Autopsy of a Disaster: The U.S. Sanctions Policy on Iraq [] ."
And I want to know why anyone would want to take it out (again).
I removed:
* claim Iraq has, with Blix as the chief weapons inspector. Although Iraq claims it got rid of all its weapons of mass destruction, Blix's team reported in early December 2002 that they found mustard gas in a shed whose door was blocked by heavy equipment.
Where is the source for that?   Pizza Puzzle
=== My objection to "False Statements" ===
I took the "False Statements section out and I think it should be removed again.  
1.  What is classified as a false statement strikes me as an assertion of opinion.  Of course no one knows what the future may hold exactly, so any statement about the future is just a prediction or opinion, not a factual statement.  Moreover, while I don't dispute that the US gov't would have been opposed to lifting sanctions, and may even have exercised a UNSC veto given the opportunity, it is not certain that sanctions would have remained had Blix's antecedents occurred.  Blix's view as expressed here may well coincide with the views of many other nations.  Accordingly, the notion that this is a false statement appears to me to be the author's opinion rather than a clear objectively verifiable fact, and Blix seems to be guilty of neither ignorance nor misleading intent.
2.  This whole section just does not belong in here.  How many other bios have such a section at all, let alone so prominently displayed? (when I removed it it was the first section of the article!).  This strikes me as something not of central importance to the bio and not meriting inclusion.
User:67.172.157.77/Steve (Unsigned)67.172.157.77 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding False Statements 

message: I took the "False Statements section out and I think it should be removed again.  
1.  What is classified as a false statement strikes me as an assertion of opinion.  Of course no one knows what the future may hold exactly, so any statement about the future is just a prediction or opinion, not a factual statement.  Moreover, while I don't dispute that the US gov't would have been opposed to lifting sanctions, and may even have exercised a UNSC veto given the opportunity, it is not certain that sanctions would have remained had Blix's antecedents occurred.  Blix's view as expressed here may well coincide with the views of many other nations.  Accordingly, the notion that this is a false statement appears to me to be the author's opinion rather than a clear objectively verifiable fact, and Blix seems to be guilty of neither ignorance nor misleading intent.
2.  This whole section just does not belong in here.  How many other bios have such a section at all, let alone so prominently displayed? (when I removed it it was the first section of the article!).  This strikes me as something not of central importance to the bio and not meriting inclusion.
User:67.172.157.77/Steve (Unsigned)67.172.157.77 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My objection to "False Statements" 

message: I have reverted the edit
:: Hans Blix and The Weapons Inspectors, a newly formed band from sydney Australia. Key to the band is its eathos of loving music and never selling out. The Band a trio are known for there zeppelinesque riffs Doors inspired organ solos and hard rocking style. Such songs as 'seedy sailor' and "Potent Tonic" have givin the band a high profile in the Sydny area. Currently writting and recording there first album The band has some great ideas translated from there insane live performances and a lot of riffing out in the living room. The Blix currently has a fan club of over 100 (official-some estimates put the numbers at thousands) people all eagerly awaiting the forth-comming album. The Band welcomes all those who love to rock out / air guitar etc (look out for the album)
on the policy that Wikipedia should not include material on particular people who are not ("not yet", I wish for them) of notable importance for an international project. See Wikipedia:Vanity page.  The material might be welcome later on if the carreer of the group is succesful.
In any case, this information does not belong here, but in something like Hans Blix and The Weapons Inspectors (rock band). You are of course welcome to crate the page, but there are high chances that it would be swiftly voted for deletion, at this stage of the carreer of the band.
Sorry about this, and wishing them the best (any chance that they'd make some of their records available as Free music ?). Rama 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock band 

message: For what purpose is this piece of information in an article about Hans Blix? I don't see references to Team America in articles about Kim Jong-Il, Mount Rushmore or the War on Terror. --80.217.225.208 15:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team America 

message: That Blix personally praised the Iraqi government is something that TDC repeatedly claimed he had sources for. Note this TalkPage contribution by TDC:
"For the section quoting (although I did not include the quote to avoid POV) Blix praising Iraq compliance on the eve of the Invasion of Kuwait and during the beginning of Iraq's crash bomb program: NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990"
Upon researching NuclearFuel I found this:
"In August 1990, only weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, IAEA safeguards director Jon Jennekens praised Iraqi cooperation with the IAEA as "exemplary," and said Iraq's nuclear experts "have made every effort to demonstrate that Iraq is a solid citizen" under the nonproliferation treaty." Source
Jon Jennekens was quoted in Mark Hibbs & Ann MacLachlan, “No Bomb-Quantity of HEU in Iraq, IAEA Safeguards Report Indicates,” NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990, p. 8.
I suggest that the sentence "Blix personally praised the cooperation of the Iraqi government in August 1990." needs to be greatly altered or other references need to surface.
--Tsaddik Dervish 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blix personally praised Iraq? 

message: (re?)inserted a small section regarding Hans Blix in Team America: World Police.  I feel this is important because it highlights Blix's high international profile, something that very very few people in the field of non-proliferation have managed to achieve.  For a UN employee to be included and recognized in a movie targeted at American teens is high praise indeed.  It also illustrates popular American opinion regarding the non-proliferation regime (Blix threatening to write an angry letter if he is not allowed to carry out inspections), and also regarding the North Korean regime (Blix instantly being put to death).
Re the above comment regarding the same, at the moment there are indeed references to Team America in the articles on Kim Jong-Il and Mount Rushmore (not added by me).
Burtonpe 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather doubt that Team America: World Police is aimed at Drew Marthaler. Furthermore, I very much doubt that Blix threatening to write an angry letter if he is not allowed to carry out inspections is indicative of a "popular American opinion regarding the non-proliferation regime"; it is very clearly a satire. Rama 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have shortened the mention. I am not opposed to mentioning this film, but telling the story is not appropriate. Rama 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team America

message: Dr Blix said that even if the cooperation from the Iraqies left much to ask for they haven't found any solid evidence of nuclear weapons or related systems,
And after two Gulf Wars we still haven't seen one single piece of solid evidence that he was wrong.
The US lead alliance started the second war to rid the world from this serious threat.
And then slowly reverted to 'we are obliged to do this to rid the poor Iraqies from this dictator'.
But so far, several years later, we haven't seen any evidence that Dr Blix and UN successors was wrong.
Hdw 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core question? 

message: "leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country"
this is clearly not NPOV, and the citation given is particularly heinous, one of the first sentences it says is "He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had." i.e. it accuses the intelligence community and not president bush. While President Bush has certainly been accused of misleading people, i just dont think it is relevant in this article. I am going to keep the final mention that no weapons were found, but i think the mention that Mr. Blix's views ran counter to the bush administration cover all pertinent information. --Cptbuck 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV in last sentence of iraq disarmament crisis

message: Hello. I have a query. In the past, I have posted a link to an exclusive video interview with Dr Hans Blix and it has now been removed because, according to the person who removed it, it was considered spam. In fact, the link was posted to enrich and enhance the quality of the article as a whole by providing new information with a new media platform. Never was my posting of this link done with the intention to create spam or any other malignant activity. It is a pity that readers of wikipedia can no longer take advantage of this video interview, which, I think (and you may judge for yourself by clicking here: http://www.thetalent.org/Video/frm-main.php?show=12&quality=stop) is an important source of knowledge for those interested in his work; it is, moreover, the only thorough video interview (it comprises three parts) available at this time. Would the readers of this talkpage and whoever who has the authority to remove links please let me know whether they agree to add this link or whether they consider it of no interest to the article in question?
Taleinfo 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:External links. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Video Interview with Hans Blix 

message: The paragraph on Mr. Blix's suspicion that his office had been bugged by the United States seemed particularly unencyclopedic.  Judging from the editing user's history, it would appear that this tangential addition was politically motivated.
I thoroughly read over the source and, while I can appreciate that Mr. Blix was a paranoid man, and even that such paranoia may have been justified, I fail to see why this bit of detail is any more important than Mr. Blix's favorite color.  This is only further compounded by the fact that Mr. Blix's claim was never substantiated in any form.  I have reverted the paragraph in question, but welcome further discussion of the matter. -anon 71.238.54.14 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bugged" Paragraph 

message: I'm gonna go ahead and MOVE "Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.  " into the paragraph regarding "Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration". 
Since Mr.Blix's statements were indeed reaffirmed in fact, while the U.S claims were not it seems very relevant to the paragraph.
Also, while perhaps being relevant to the entire section, having the statement stand in it's own paragraph just seems excessively random, including the paragraphs placement in the section. This is not my primary argument for the move though.
Annoying username (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq disarmament crisis (2002-2003)

message: The article notes his Ph.D., but not what the subject was. Does anyone know, and shouldn't that be included in the article?
: Yes, it should be included. Swedish Wikipedia notes the subject to be "Public international law" and the published work to carry the name "Treaty-making power" which checks out fine. I'll add it to the page. -- Dront (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I almost may have made a mistake there. I am not certain if that publication is from Cambridge or The University of Stockholm. I can't place it properly and the Swedish Wikipedia page is not explicit, mentioning it as his "Doktorsavhandling" which does mean Ph.D. thesis, but since he is also mentioned to have to be a "doctor of law" I am not sure which one of them it refers to. -- Dront (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ph.D in What? 

message: Why should my changing of Saddam to Hussein be reverted?
Beingsshepherd (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article's on first name terms with Saddam Hussein? 

message: Substituted at 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hans Blix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808104822/http://www.soldiersofpeacemovie.com/about/the-cast/16/dr-hans-blix/ to http://www.soldiersofpeacemovie.com/about/the-cast/16/dr-hans-blix/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208140617/http://www.wmdcommission.org/sida.asp?ID=33 to http://www.wmdcommission.org/sida.asp?ID=33
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I may have missed something, but I didn't see any mention of his involvement in North Korea's story of nuclear ascension.  For example. 2600:8806:A50D:3E00:151B:A01A:EA7B:C42C (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing on NK?