Talk:John A. Shaw

message: I know it is difficult because Shaw has said publicly that Russia helped Iraq move its WMD to Syria and Lebanon.  The Bush Administration did not appreciate this statement even though Shaw was backed up by satellite photos and British intelligence.  Shaw was later accused of wrongdoing in response to Shaw's charges of wrongdoing against others in the Bush Administration. With this controversy, charges and countercharges flying, it is difficult to be NPOV.  But please try. Make certain your entries are factual and well-documented. Remember that Shaw has not been convicted of anything and neither has Doug Feith.  And let's try to find some factual information about Shaw prior to his statements about Russia that got him in trouble. RonCram 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, look at the articles, Ron.  The page pretty accurately reports the story as in the articles.  The charges about Russia suddenly disappeared after the election, and Mr. Shaw was unable to produce the supposed evidence.  Meanwhile, as explained on the al-Qa'qaa page, it was confirmed through satellite photos that the weapons were removed after the US invasion.  I guess it doesn't matter, though, now that you've simply taken to deleting my arguments instead of responding to them.  I'm sure you'll find a way to delete the accurate information from this page and then accuse me of "censorship."--csloat 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, when I respond to your arguments, you claim my remarks are not relevant. When I tire of talking to you and choose not to respond, you claim I have conceded the point.  On my own User Talk page, the one thing I can do is delete you.  I will do it again.  Stay off of my User Talk. If you wish to talk about articles, do it in the appropriate Talk pages.RonCram 14:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your talk page, Ron, I was only responding to your false claims.  I have not restored my words there but only registered my point - your deletion is pure censorship, like your deletion of the NYT quote below.-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try to keep the page NPOV

message: Contrary to csloat's belief, John Shaw is not under investigation for his investigations into corruption in contracts for Iraqi telecommunications.  Instead, those who attempted to discredit Shaw are under investigation by the FBI. RonCram 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of full disclosure, I attempted to track down the DoD news release and found this.RonCram 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a report by Bill Gertz, John Shaw was provided certain investigative powers by DoD Inspector General.  Gertz writes: "The program is led by John Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who also is a Pentagon inspector general for international armament and trade through a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon inspector general."  This disclosure makes one wonder why the DoD News Release was pulled since Shaw was given the power to investigate certain matters internationally. RonCram 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you're saying now is that the DoD is part of the conspiracy?  Is this the same conspiracy as the one involving the CIA and John Negroponte?-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  That is not at all what I'm saying. BTW, you know full well that I do not put Negroponte in the same category as Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer and Valerie Plame (all of whom have skirted or violated the law).  Here's the issue: A News Release that cleared Shaw was posted on August 10 and then removed sometime later.  To say that is odd is a huge understatement.  It probably represents a power struggle inside the DoD between the pro-Shaw forces and the pro-Feith forces.  Or, it could be that the pro-Shaw people who got the News Release posted originally simply overstepped when they claimed the people who tried to discredit Shaw were under investigation by the FBI.  In other words, the portion that said Shaw was not under investigation may be true and the part about the FBI investigation of those who tried to discredit Shaw may have been false. Some type of review of the situation occurred, but no announcement of the outcome. The fact Shaw is out making public appearances kind of leads me to think that he believes he is out of all legal danger.  I know my comments here are full of speculation and do not belong in an encyclopedia.  On the other hand, we certainly cannot write about Shaw like he is a suspected criminal.  We have to lay out the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. RonCram 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, none of the people you have named have even been accused of violating the law, and none of them are under investigation for doing so.  Shaw is.  Probably the article was removed because it was an error; not everything is a sign of a power struggle.  I doubt there are many "pro-Shaw people" -- that not even Feith will take him seriously is indicative of how far gone he must be.  Shaw has been suspected of crimes as delineated in the LATimes article, so "suspected criminal" is not inaccurate -- though I would agree it is pretty POV and I hope I didn't insert it into the encyclopedia.  What I say on the talk page is not audited for POV like what goes in the encyclopedia.  You and I agree Ron as far as laying out the facts goes; it's just your selectiveness regarding the facts that is sometimes deceptive.--csloat 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaw is not under investigation - or is he?

message: :It's also because of incompetent Pentagon planning that other troops may now be victims of weapons looted from Saddam's munitions depots after the fall of Baghdad. Yet when The New York Times reported one such looting incident, in Al Qaqaa, before the election, the administration and many in the blogosphere reflexively branded the story fraudulent. But the story was true. It was later corroborated not only by United States Army reservists and national guardsmen who spoke to The Los Angeles Times but also by Iraq's own deputy minister of industry, who told The New York Times two months ago that Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America's undermanned post-invasion watch.
Note the gratuitous attack against the Bush Administration.  Note also the failure to provide any citations to support the entry.  This is a good example of the type of writing wikipedia is trying to avoid. RonCram 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your removal of this quote is pure vandalism, as I explained below.  I have restored it.-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread this as your writing.  You have my apology below. RonCram 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The following is an example of a POV entry to be avoided

message: ABC News reports:
:But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.  The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.   
In essence, the claims by the Iraqis that 380 tons of weapons were looted from the weapons dump after the invasion is simply not true.  It appears that possibly 3 tons are missing, instead of 380 tons.  The rest of it was taken out of the dump prior to the invasion, as the satellite photos showed.RonCram 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron look at the dates of those articles.  Right before the election.  It turns out a lot of the claims being thrown around by Bush supporters before the election about al Qaqaa were false.  The satellite images you refer to show two trucks - hardly enough to move 380 tons of explosives - parked outside a different part of the facility than where the weapons were kept!  This is all on the al-qa'qaa page Ron, you should read it some time.  There was videotape from April 2003 that clearly showed the weapons still there.  This was reported in the NYT the same day as your Washington Times piece came out.  Then in March 2005 the NYT published more evidence that the weapons were removed by insurgents after the fall of Saddam.  The LATimes also published statements of US national guardsmen backing up the point that the weapons were removed after the fall of Saddam.  There were eyewitnesses who saw the insurgents loading up many trucks and systematically taking the weapons.  Meanwhile the Bush Admin promised an investigation in late 2004 but that investigation never materialized - suggesting that the Bush claims were mere electioneering to try to prevent an October Surprise on this issue.  Bush supporters -- except you, apparently -- dropped the issue completely after the election, but the evidence revealed since then supports the claim that they were removed after the fall of Saddam.  Of course, we know where they are now -- they are being used to kill Americans in Iraq.  Most ominously, the deputy minister of industry in Iraq (our guy, not Saddam's) has since told the NYT that "Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America's undermanned post-invasion watch." (NYT May 15, 2005).  I realize you won't believe any of this until you read it in the Weakly Standard, but I post it here for anyone else reading who may actually care about the truth.--csloat 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, csloat.  First of all, the picture in the Washington Times showed two trucks, but there are many more pictures of many more trucks.  Second, Gen. Sada says much of the WMD was also flown from Iraq into Syria.  Third, Nizar Najoef, the award-winning Syrian journalist, wrote an article identifying where the WMD were hidden in Syria.  One article even includes the notes the journalist received from his informant.   You might also want to see the satellite photos of the Syrian locations including the surface-to-air missiles that protect the locations.  David Kay also admitted part of Saddam's WMD program was transported to Syria.  Kay is not convinced huge stockpiles went there, but he wanted the issue resolved.   You might also want to read the news reports that Syria moved some of the WMD to Sudan.  Unfortunately, this is hot international issue.  According to John Shaw, Russia was involved as well as Syria. The Bush Administration evidently feels it would be wrong to make a huge deal out of this.  Not all the weapons were removed from the facility prior to the war, mostly contraband weapons were removed.  Some conventional weapons were removed after the fall of Baghdad, but not nearly as many as the Iraqis claimed.  Did you bother to read the article I linked to above?  Only 3 tons were taken after the invasion, not 380 tons.  I do not deny other weapons caches were raided, but the amount lost is not nearly what was claimed by "our guy."  By the way, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that Iraqi government officials are "our guys" when you understand that being viewed that way in Iraq would be political suicide.  Iraqi politicians are constantly looking for ways to distance themselves from U.S. government. RonCram 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues around the al-Qaqaa weapons dump

message: Ron I just noticed your latest edit was sheer vandalism.  You deleted a valid quote and did so in such a way that the sentence before it makes no sense.  I'm going to assume this was an accident, even though you have done this before when you were losing an argument on your talk page, simply deleting my points completely.  I didn't put them back there because it is your talk page, and if you want to show your friends how you got the last word in, more power to you.  But I did fix your deletion here because it is valid information in the article; please do not vandalize articles to censor valid points.  Also, please do not accuse me of censorship anymore (as you have numerous times) when it is obvious you are the one who prefers to simply delete valid information they find uncomfortable or annoying.--csloat 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I truly apologize.  I have to blame my eyes.  I truly thought that was your writing and not a quote as my comments above attest. You know it is not like me to just delete quotes. However, I reserve the right to delete anything on my User Talk page.  Regarding your request, I will be happy to stop talking about your censorship as long as you refrain from censoring. By the way, you have improved in that area. RonCram 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron I am not looking for your approval.  You have never backed up your assertion that I censor material that is relevant and you will not be able to because it is not true.--csloat 19:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And let me add, thanks for the apology, and I will try harder to assume good faith when dealing with you, and I ask that you do the same.  I apologize for jumping on your talk page about this article.  I had never heard of Shaw before but after looking at the article and then at the sources cited, it seemed to me you had gone out of your way to cover up the man's reported crimes and framed his allegations of conspiracy as pure fact.  I feel that the issue has been addressed.--csloat 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron don't vandalize this page anymore

message: Hello, I have looked through the source (just inserted by Vlad Fedorov) claiming that "Shaw admitted his falsifications". But Shaw actually said according to the source:
"The Kerry media-driven October surprise attack on us and the president stopped within hours,"  "If I had not had the openly hostile environment in [Pentagon public affairs], I would have moved the story differently. Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process."
He also claimed later that he had been targeted by "senior members" in the secretary's office: "I cannot in good conscience resign at this time," Mr. Shaw stated. "I cannot submit my resignation to you until it is clear that this well-orchestrated campaign to obstruct justice and suppress the findings of my office has been properly addressed and stopped." 
:This is very far far from "admitting that his allegations were lies", to say the least! To the contrary, he insists he is telling the truth. So, I am waiting for your sources.Biophys 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He admitted he distorted the story to help the Bush campaign.  But that's really not the issue here; the issue is that this "article" is at best a subset of the other two articles.  It should be deleted, whether or not Shaw believed his discredited story. csloat 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite where "he admitted he distorted the story"? And how exactly did he distorted the story? As about another article, let's discuss it there.Biophys 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Biophys! Where in this article you have found such text "he admitted he distorted the story", "Shaw admitted his falsifications"? There is no such text there, so we have nothing to search for. Vlad fedorov 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Present version of this article includes the following: "Shaw said he made the accusations as a political move to help candidate George W. Bush, who he felt was being "crucified" by the revelations that over 350 tons of explosives had gone missing in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion" This make false impression that he admitted his lies But in reality he insists he is telling the truth but he revealed this truth sooner rather than later for political reasons. This must be properly formulated, unless there are some additional references. Note that WP:BLP rules must be observed.Biophys 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you always prejudge what was in reality? You prejudged that Stomakhin is innocent dissident. Now you prejudge that Shaw told truth. Why you eliminate opinions of others? Why not to present all points of view? What you dispute is a direct of "Mr. Shaw went public to counter a political "October surprise" campaign designed to "crucify the president" over the missing explosives, he wrote to Mr. Rumsfeld". Nothing here is false. I agree with csloat. Vlad fedorov 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know and do not care if he is telling the truth. I only care that his words (as they appear in sources) must be properly reflected in the article. If he says "I am a lier" (honestly, I have never seen a politician who would said that!) - let's write that. If he claims "I am telling the truth" - we should write that, but also cite other sources that criticize him and claim (perhaps) that he is wrong.Biophys 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source checking

message: Sorry for intervening here, but this biography seems to be POV. Right now, the article begins from summary that is  extremely agressive. The life of the person should probably be described in chronological order starting from this:  
"Mr. Shaw received a B.A. from Williams College, where he was a member of St. Anthony Hall, as well as a bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. from Cambridge University, where he was a Fellow of Magdalene College. He has taught international security studies at Cambridge University, Williams College, Georgetown University, and the Institut Politicque in Paris." And so on.
The story with explosives and other controversies are certainly important and must be described in separate chapter(s). But this should be written in more neutral tone and be more consistent with sources. Can I try to do something like that (and you would correct me later), or you think the article is perfect now?  Biophys 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead.  You're right, WP:BLP suggests this should be a biography, not a scandal sheet.  All the same, however, this person is only notable because of his disputed claims and because of his criminal activities.  So it isn't a problem that those things take up most of the page, since that is what he is primarily known for.  Nevertheless, basic facts about his life, education, and personal history should be included here. csloat 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this biography has some problems

message: I made a paragraph called "Corruption charges". I doubt that it is actually consistent with WP:BLP rules. Such charges are "exceptional" and therefore must be "supported by multiple reliable sources" according to WP:BLP. LA Times is a reliable source, but the sources are not "multiple", since all claims come from a single person, although a notable journalist. Biophys 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corruption charges?

message: The following text about Mr. Shaw has bee previously created:
"Shaw became the subject of an FBI investigation when he conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts, allegedly using the results of these unauthorized probes to direct multimillion dollar government contracts to his friends and associates.  In one instance he impersonated a Halliburton employee in order to conduct the investigation.  Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes.  " And so on. 
This information was supported by the following reference: http://198.62.75.5/www1/news/lat-7-7-04a.html. It says in the title 
"By T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, July 7, 2004." I did not found it in Los Angeles Times web site. However, this source can be found elsewhere: . So, yes, indeed, such allegations were made by the correspondent of LA Times. However, these allegations have been denied in official DoD statement. See this:  
DoD Statement on Jack Shaw and the Iraq Telecommunications Contract, August 10, 2004; archived on Global Security website. Moreover, they were denied by FBI: see Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Shaw vindicated," Inside the Ring, August 13, 2004. There was no any investigations and any wrongdoing according to official statements! I do not know which source is right but they are obviously contradictory and therefore must be all cited in the article. Biophys 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous text

message: We have one sentence about Shaw's office, which doesn't even give the dates; we have four paragraphs about his speech. This is imbalance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The lead section of the article describes him in past tense, which gives the unfortunate impression that he is no longer living. In short, "was" should become "is". The same sentence describes him as a "politician" but this is misleading, because he has never stood for elective office. I'd suggest "political figure" would be more accurate. As a consultant to Mr. Shaw, I think it best I avoid direct edits to this article, and hope another editor will be willing to implement changes, should they agree with my points. Frankly, there is a lot wrong with this article, so I'm continuing to evaluate what I think should be done with it. Other editors' views welcome. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These changes seem unlikely to be controversial. For the record, appointed officials can also be politicians, but it seemed unnecessarily verbose to include the word. Rhoark (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much appreciated! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic article, request for lead section 

message: Hello, I'm back today not to make a specific proposed change, but rather to call attention to a problematic section and solicit feedback on how best to address it. (And if this is your first time on the page, please scroll up slightly for my COI disclosure.) To wit: Russia and Iraq WMD is the article's longest single section, much of it being the back-and-forth of a dispute over statements by Mr. Shaw that Russia was involved in moving WMDs out of Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Regardless of what one makes of the claim, this section is basically a WP:COATRACK re-litigating details more appropriate to the article Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. 
The options I see would be to simply scale back the details, or perhaps rewrite the section to be more concise, covering the basics of the dispute but focused more on his career without trying to adjudicate the matter. Meanwhile, there are other details not now included (including criticism of Mr. Shaw by the DoD) that would be more relevant for the purposes of a biographical article. In case there is support to make a change of this sort, I'm working on a suggested revision. Meantime, I'd be very interested to hear what others think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The sourcing on this section right now is pretty bad. Some of the links are dead. Washington Times is not a reliable source. I've started a discussion at Talk:Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Alleged_movement_of_WMDs_to_Syria presenting acceptably reliable sources on the matter. Rhoark (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone over there pointed out there's a dedicated article at WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. I've reduced the section in this article and given it a main article hat. Rhoark (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rhoark—definitely an improvement, and sorry for the delayed response. I'll have some other points to make about the page soon, so if you're willing to have another look then, that would be great. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Russia and Iraq WMD'' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John A. Shaw. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407214913/http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=653271 to http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=653271
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) 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified