Talk:Oil for Food Allegations

message: I am against phantasizing about records to be set. What would be a fraud record? Who sets it at present? Enron? African leaders who stored ODA in their Swiss bank accounts? Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraud record?

message: This article is obviously partisan and extremely badly written. Who are the French and Russian firms and individuals? Who are the high ranking members of the Catholic church? The "friend of the pope" who once figured in the 2003 Iraq invasion article and could not even be found with google? This is just another attempt to abuse wikipedia for spreading propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 18:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the UN "Stalinazoids" you just go on making a fool of yourself just as with your lost vote that the Soviet Union was a fascist state. Rei changed your edits many times because of the lack of neutrality, and he agreed with me on the 2003 invasion of Iraq talk page that the whole thing was not appropriate for an encyclopedia as long as it is unconfirmed. Get-back-world-respect 17:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One does not usually cite one's political allies to bolster their arguments; at least not if they wish to be taken seriously. As to "appropriate for an encylopedia"— a great deal of the current events in Wikipedia are inappropriate for an encyclopedia by any modern standard, because we do not have the perspective of being able to see the outcome of current issues.  Cecropia 17:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "we do not have the perspective of being able to see the outcome of current issues" I demand to wait with the creation of articles until there is some clarity or if one cannot wait it should at least be written in a very cautios way rather than by abusive TDC Get-back-world-respect 18:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "wait with the creation of articles until there is some clarity"—I might agree with that in other contexts, but it is not always possible due to the nature of Wikipedia. Rei and I agreed to "tread lightly" on Clarke until some of the dust settled, but Wiki is nevertheless chock full of the latest speculation and innuendo on issues, so trying to isolate out a significant subject like the Food for Oil Allegations is not feasible. As to TDC, I am not TDC, I don't follow his work, and can't comment on how he edits. I read over the articles I edit, and edit or not accordingly. I've noticed but left untouched the great majority of your edits on subjects of interest, though we disagree politically. Cecropia 18:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with you that "Wiki is full of the latest speculation and innuendo on issues". I cannot agree with you that since this is so in other cases we must tolerate every rumour. That to me sounds like you are not allowed to judge a murderer because you cannot get all of them. I remember that the article about George W. Bush once contained a section about cocaine use allegations. Since it seemed to be completely unfounded it went to Nirvana where it belongs. Same should hold for rumours about bribery of Galloway who was acquitted several times. Get-back-world-respect 18:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan article

message: This article had been listed for deletion. The result of the discussion was a clear majority for redirecting to Oil for food, the information will be moved. Get-back-world-respect 12:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for deletion discussion