Talk:International sanctions against Iraq/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Casualty Estimates

Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London, is not mentioned in this article nor in this discussion though he published several (critical) papers on this topic, the last one in Significance, Volume 7, Number 3, September 2010 , pp. 116-120(an ungated version can be found at http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Truth%20and%20Death.pdf , found via http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/07/dispute_over_counts_of_child_d.html). hope someone updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.171.172 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the important reference. I added one citation to the article and plan to add more. I also put it on the short list of articles at the bottom of the article. DougHill (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Footnotes 45 and 46 of the article Iraq could be incorporated into this article and then be deleted in the Iraq article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.171.172 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't those sources already in this article? They should probably be replaced by better sources (such as the new Spagat article) in the Iraq article. DougHill (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a few small but significant changes to this article's handling of Iraqi deaths as a result of the sanctions. Presenting the 500,000 deaths as proven fact, and as facts entirely accepted by the U.N., is wrong. I included a link to the Web page that caused me to question these totals. The U.N. reports on this topic were clear that the sanctions alone were not to blame for the increases in child mortality in Iraq, and also did not support the 500,000 children/1 million dead numbers.

Here is that link again, in case anyone takes issues with its reasoning or my edits. Thanks. (preceding unsigned comment by Marley23 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2005)

This was a good and important improvement. But given that much of the article seems to take for granted both the large number of causalties, with the sanctions as the cause, I believe the NPOV tag is justified for now. There still needs to be more discussion of how controversial that is. DougHill (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those changes seem reasonable looking at the source, but in view of how widespread the 500,000 figure is, some more detail on how this figure came about (maybe in a footnote?) and perhaps another source to back it up would be useful. Rd232 ^talk 10:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the correct estimate is 1.7 m total deaths. I've provided one link that mentions that, but there are several others as well: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2001/0510ina.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/iraq/ffiraqtime.xml you can search google for "Iraq Sanctions 1.7 million dead" and find plenty of other links

why the hell was this link removed? until someone can provide a reasonable explantion, im putting it back in.

There's two or three links there that discuss these numbers, not 100% sure which one you are attached to. If I changed a link, it was because I thought I found a better. If I read correctly the 1.7 million figure is mistakenly high, even according to the researchers who originally came up with it. So for those who are justly concerned with deaths owing to the sanctions, it doesn't do any good to trumpet overly high numbers because then they lose credibility. The 1.7 million figure was also a number that I really never came across until I read this Wikipedia article. I think the correct way to refer to it is "hundreds of thousand of deaths," because that figure is pretty well accepted, and you don't get bogged down in some diversion over the exact numbers. DanielM 07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody reverted with a comment about "smarkectomy," but it doesn't really help the article. The reference (which is from some Iraqi cultural minister) refers to depleted uranium deaths and bombshell deaths as well as sanctions. Few agree with the 1.7 million figure. I am dismayed by the sanctions deaths as much as anyone but it doesn't help to overstate them, as said previously you lose credibility. If you just want to generate some oohs and ahs why not claim 10 million, you can surely Google up some person who said that number. DanielM 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

One reason the page is so badly written is that too many sentences squirm around the issue whether deaths were actually caused by sanctions "alone" or "at all". I'd be interested in an objective representation of the various studies and the overall excess deaths during the sanctions period, without attributing guilt or credibility levels and without throwing in arbitrary comparisons with whatever figures the author finds acceptable for the US invasion of Iraq.

Since Wikipedia is supposed to be of scholary value, the prime goal should be to find primary sources like UNICEF. The links and references rely too heavily on press coverage. I'd throw out the entire BBC section on infant mortality and either use the Lancet study directly or UNICEF material.

P.S. I've edited the section accordingly, reusing the original wording where appropriate. I also added some missing info on the economic situation inside Iraq during the sanctions, as a complement to the political evaluation done by others. I inserted it above the original content in the section "Effects of the sanctions".

To further increase quality, I would like somebody else to throw out sentences like "However, some alleged that the sanctions caused the death of between...". They are totally vague and uninformative (I doubt many will even take the trouble to scroll down to the footnotes). Just state objectively who says what and let the reader decide. They don't belong into the introduction, either.

I've found an interesting list of casualty clains here: Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century88.217.79.252 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cortright's regional argument

David Cortright's argument:

The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.

and a response to it (I posted one from Welch) clearly belong on the page. The "Casualty Estimates" section seems to be a logical place to put it now, but I'll grant that it may not be the only place this could go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHill (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that this argument is in a new section, I changed the section's name to "Regional Effects" for now. But I hope an editor will provide a better label.DougHill (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

References

The reasons Iraq gave for ending its cooperation with UNSCOM.

1) Iraq claimed UNSCOM had been infiltrated by American and British spies, who were more interested in Iraq's legally allowed conventional weapon systems.

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

2) Iraq claimed that the US and UK would veto any attempt to lift or reduce sanctions

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-07.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/mythoflifting.html

Then of course, there's the problem of proving a negative. How exactly does Iraq prove it does not possess WMDs? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Iraq could no more prove they aren't hiding WMDs than they could prove they aren't hiding aliens or bigfoot. Not finding anything proves nothing. It could mean they don't exist, or they do exist and haven't been found...yet.

There is a lot of BS surrounding this issue. I think its important because the US justified its invasion of Iraq in part by Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspections. Since the invasion, its now fairly certain that Iraq hasn't possessed WMDs since 1994.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

So why wouldn't Iraq cooperate after everything had been found (1995 onward)??? I can't think of a good reason for Iraq not to cooperate if weapon inspections were fair and impartial. Therefore either the inspections weren't fair and impartial or Iraq had come to percieve the inspections as fair and impartial.

Therefore Iraq came to the conclusion that cooperation was pointless.

Earth as one 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A good reason not to cooperate is that Saddam found the status quo quite useful. The sanctions regime very substantially increased his hold over the Iraqi people (by giving him more control over food coming into the country etc). It was also in his interest strategically to maintain an ambiguity over whether he had WMD, both internally (prestige) and externally (remember the 1980-88 war against Iran) - as long as he didn't think that anybody would invade him in order to disarm him of WMD. I've also seen it suggested that Saddam's own people were lying to him over whether they still had viable WMD. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your points. That's not the direct subject of this article, but I do think it would be good if you could wrap it up into a tight paragraph with a choice link or two, this could be included and would benefit the article. The lead paragraph "sanctions imposed because of Saddam's failures" or whatever it says also needs improvement. DanielM 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

link???

I was researching the Iraq sanctions, and I wanted more information than was in the article. I looked at one of the links at the bottom, the one titled "John Pilger, Impact of Iraq sanctions", and I was disappointed by the results. Not only is it not objectively written, but it is just as much about the gulf war as it is about the sanctions. If someone could evaluate it to confirm my objection and then remove it, that would be great.TrogdorPolitiks 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lame Revert War

This refers to the evident disagreement over the section "Problems with the Inspection Process." The section was carefully cited and sourced by Earth as One. I don't find it to be POV and I don't think it's been shown that even the section is based around the "writings of ZMag and Pilger in general" much less the entire article, as was claimed by TJive. Also his justifying his reversions as "rv mass reversions" is a little awkward IMO because those mass reversions, if that is the way to describe them, came about because of his own mass deletions, which by the way occurred without discussion. My two cents: the article states up front that the sanctions were on account of Saddam's failures, but I think the causes are more complicated than that. The section currently in question tells more about the story, is not unduly tangential, and I think it should stay. DanielM 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I believe we have encountered each other before. My comment on "mass reversions" is in reference to this user (known to me through another forum) who follows my edits around because he dislikes my views. If I ever mark edits this way in any context, that is what is happening. Another user did so using sockpuppets rather than anons, but he had stopped months ago.

As for a justification, the simplest answer is it is a tangent, and a highly tendentious interpretation of the relevant history, particularly musings on the logical "impossibility" of proving a negative, which is a very absurd, minority viewpoint stated as fact and encyclopedic. --TJive 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on my user page to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. --TJive 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I observe that the section of criticism of the UNSCOM process is continuously being removed and reverted by two users. The section is in its current form not obviously relevant to the sanctions. However, as lifting sanction was made conditional on UNSCOM cooperation, understanding how the process was frustrated becomes relevant information. I will rewrite the section to that end later this week. Jens Nielsen 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the anonymous editor that reverts the text deleted routinely by TJive. I will also revert (and tweak) it because I think it is good and has some relevance. I think others revert it. Editor Earth as One did an okay job on it originally, though his sourcing needed some improvement IMO. DanielM 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Request Deletions of Critism of Sanctions Section Be Stopped

This is to ask that the deletions of the "criticism of the sanctions" section be stopped. We have at least three editors who find it to be relevant. Earth as One, DanielM, and and Jensbn. Only user TJive has spoken against this text. DanielM 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the section is a good one. TJive is in a minority position. --Ben Houston 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's so good we need two of them. Good eyes. --TJive 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Albright statement

I don't think mentioning that she regretted the statement adds much information. Anyone getting such an amount of bad press as she did from it would of course regret it on those grounds alone. She describes that she thought it 'stupid' to say, which does in no way exclude that she actually meant it. Jens Nielsen 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If she says it was stupid thing to say, I think that means she regrets it and doesn't feel that way. I guess you are suggesting that she is using weasel words, that she really thinks it was worth all those dead people, but she regrets only having admitted it bluntly. But I don't think there's enough evidence to assume that she is being weaselly like that. If I remember correctly they actually pinged her with this question "was it worth it" when she was walking down a hall surrounded by bunches of people, and I think it was an off-the-cuff response. So IMO it is not justified to vilify her on that comment and not provide a little more information. DanielM 22:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

She said it calmly on 60 Minutes. It wasn't just stupid to say it, is was - mildly put - stupid to deliberately kill several hundred thousand of innocent human beings. // Anom.

I hope her actual quote from her autobiography, that she regrets answering a loaded question, that by answering, does not represent her view and proves nothing, clarifies this. This is more relevant that mere regret over her statement.DougHill (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Banner?

I want to take down the NPOV banner, because nobody seems to be discussing anything and I think banners like that shouldn't just be left up there indefinitely until people get around to discussing it. I'm not saying the page adheres completely to WP:NPOV but those who think the flag ought to be there ought to get around to talking or fixing the problems they see with the article. Any comment? DanielM (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mike Rosen article at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20020315/ai_n9999150 presents an argument that should be considered, and should be available on this page, despite the fact that he begins with an unnecessary ad hominem. (BTW, this article is by Mike Rosen, not Mike Royko who was dead in 2002.) In restoring this, I am taking to heart DanielM's request that we fix problems rather than posting NPOV banners. Also, Cortright also offers some qualifications, so he should be cited with the qualifications. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article from Cortright you added as a reference in addition to Rosen doesn't support what you typed that I can see. Cortright doesn't "question the extent to which this can be blamed on the sanctions." Cortright says that the numbers are less than a million and a half but still "horrifying." Cortright says blame the sanctions on Saddam, he doesn't say don't blame the sanctions. Cortright has written books on stuff like this and looks at first glance like a reasonably reliable source. Rosen is a different case. He is a radio talk-show host with a business degree. His article, which is rather short, basically praises the column of Matt Welch and doesn't seem to much break off into its own territory from Welch's assertions, but with respect to tone he goes quite further, criticizing a "cabal of America-hating lefties" he says are pumping up sanctions deaths. So there are problems with the way you have done this, with WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and text not supported by references. And to reiterate, we shouldn't be caveating a body of scientific research with "but others disagree" text referencing political talk-show hosts and the like, though there may be some other place in the article to put the political back-and-forth. DanielM (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Caveating work of study groups, medical journals, international organizations, with political columnists?

I don't think we should add "but others disagree" caveats to text in the article referring to a body of research done by scientists, study groups, medical journals and others, and sourcing it to Matt Welch, who appears to be a political columnist and blogger. If we're going to add that kind of caveat, we should source it to appropriate sources for that kind of research. I'm not opposed to identifying Welch and talking about his column elsewhere in the article, but if we do I'd like to see *him* caveated by any of the many political columnists, bloggers etc. who found the results of the sanctions to be a terrible tragedy. See WP:WEIGHT DanielM (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Welch's work is important since he debunked a lot of the bad arguments, and still concluded that there was a terrible tragedy. DougHill (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It also seems perfectly legitimate to caveat the work of journalists (and probably politicians) with the work of other journalists. The work of researchers should be presented with their own caveats (which any good research will provide) and those of other researchers. DougHill (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Intended effects

That tragedy was of course not the intent of the sanctions, so the article should have some discussion of how successful the sanctions actually were in their intended effects. I just quoted from:

and 

[1] which argues that they were. We should also mention that the breakdown of the sanctions was cited by Dick Cheney as part of the justification for the Iraq war. I'll leave it to the other good editors here to figure out if they should fit elsewhere in the article. DougHill (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lopez and Cortright give a lot of credit to the sanctions, but that is just one perspective. Hence my reference to WP:WEIGHT. A section on intended effects should probably draw from the text of the resolutions themselves. I am certainly not against such a section. The arguments "sanctions worked" and "sanctions broke down" seem to me to be at odds with each other. Perhaps this could be put under a subsection called "Debate." DanielM (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of those sections would be a good idea for the page. But for now, it didn't seem to make much sense to have a section on intended effects with just the Lopez and Cortright arguments. So figuring that the introduction to the article should come BEFORE the titled sections (i.e. at the very beginning), I merged what had been called "Introduction" with the Lopez and Cortright section. I'll leave it to the other editors to edit or undo this. I also put in more of the Lewis quote to make its context a bit clearer. And the arguments "sanctions worked" and "sanctions broke down" may be at odds but may not; i.e. they "worked" for a while, and then didn't work any more. (BTW, good recent edits!) DougHill (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Casualty estimates again

Some of the recent edits to the casualty estimates section are harming the article IMO. Where previously we had short statements identify who says what concisely, now the reader must follow the citation and probably the URL off elsewhere to find out who says what: "probably ... 170,000 children"[36] 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates"[37]." Fine, but who said it? Why'd that get taken out. I am also uncertain about some of the set up text that suggests that a causal relationship between deaths and sanctions cannot be established because you can't specifically link each and every individual death back to a particular sanction effect. This flies in the face of consensus among researchers on the subject I believe, and against the science of statistics as well. As said previously as well, I am against "caveating" the findings of scientists with the disagreement of opinion editorialists and political bloggers.DanielM (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the scientists will always caveat their own estimates (typically pointing out that they've found a correlation but not a causation), but these caveats are often lost when the popular press reports on them. (Do you know if there is a name for this?) We can see this when the UNICEF document, which carefully caveats its number as coming from multiple causes, is reported as all due to sanctions. Here's our quote from the document, on the current page:

UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said that

if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."

But on an older version of the page, this was reported as:

UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths have occurred as a result of the sanctions.

To be fair here, CASI seems to have it right; but the caveat was lost when this was added to the page.

Anyway, I'm all for only including the estimates of the scientific researchers, with their caveats, in that section. We could move the other estimates into another section on the misreporting on this topic. DougHill (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple estimates section, it's entirely inappropriate to bloat and bog it down with set-up text and caveats and various fine print and what not. The article can't do that. It has to summarize. The numbers summarized however should be a fair, reasonable statement of what the sources actually said. In the case of the UNICEF reference, it looks like it should have said "as a result of the sanctions and war," other than that it looks okay to me. Some of the other estimates did this correctly and succintly. I am in favor of keeping the estimates section together, as it is (or was). It's a useful and clear scorecard and there is little chance of journalists or former Attorneys General or scientists being confused with each other. DanielM (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Scorecard"? We're not writing about a sporting event. But too often there seems to have been a contest with these numbers. "The Truth is Bad Enough." So let's present the best data we have.

Without caveats, these numbers are misleading. So we must include them in the interest of accuracy. But I'm all for keeping the caveats brief.

About the Unicef reference, it specifically mentioned bottle-feeding as another cause. Leaving this out, as well as "and war", is an example of the sloppy work that has plagued this topic. (It's a bit like the child's game of telephone.) That's why we need to cite Unicef directly. And if you can find a direct link to a different part of the U.N. that doubles their estimate, then you should put it back on the page.

Finally, I still think that a better long-term improvement would be to have a section with just the estimates from researchers (with their brief caveats), separate from the work of journalists and politicians. DougHill (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that by use of the expression "scorecard" I meant a neat table that conveys the information in a reader-friendly way, and wasn't at all likening the sanctions to a sporting event. The bottle-feeding problems I take to be not separable from the unsanitary water used in the mix, I don't read it at all that a little kid dies merely because a bottle was used to feed him or her. It's another sanctions effect. That's why it's in the "Sanctions" section of the Unicef document. It's not any "caveat." Readers can easily see who the politicians, researchers, and bloggers are in the table, and the information should not be separated. The figures can be summarized succinctly and accurately without tying up each entry up with "caveats," and blogger commentary attempting to undermine them. DanielM (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottle-feeding is a problem throughout the third world, a problem that was surely made worse in Iraq by the sanctions and the Iraqi government's response to them. Unicef and Garfield both mention this problem, so there should be something about this somewhere on the page.

Also, about the estimates, both the Slate and Reason estimates seem to be working from the Unicef and Garfield studies. This may mean that they should not be listed separately. DougHill (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed separately if they looked at different studies and made a conclusion from them, or even if they looked at a single study and said "this is how we analyze it," putting their imprimatur on a figure. I really don't understand your antipathy to these figures at all and why you seem determined to snip and snipe at them from this angle and that. Assuming some level of credibility on the matter, a public person who or news organization that provides an estimate ought to be okay to put in there. The table (I know you quarrel with the expression "scorecard") is perfectly encyclopedic IMO and is a ***very useful reference*** to Wikipedia readers. Today you typed up above that you want to see Matt Welch and others critiquing the other studies, "caveating" them. I say no, Matt Welch has his own estimate listed there, it is inappropriate to attach him or anyone else saying "and so and so is wrong because..." for the other entries. I think that is silly. Matt Welch has his figure, let the others have theirs without him kibitzing. It's a simple estimates section. You and I really seem to be going back and forth here, Doug. I would be happy to hear from someone else about this matter. DanielM (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The way these numbers are presented now seem to conflate two issues: 1) the number of casualties during the sanctions regime, and 2) the extent to which the sanctions, and the Iraqi government's response to them, are responsible. I think that the 2 best sources on this listed here are Garfield and Unicef, and they do not seem to attempt to quantify the second. I think I see a brief edit to make this clear. DougHill (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gardner's research

There is more detail on his conclusions at: Richard Garfield (nursing professor). Other editors of this page may wish to see that his work is adequately caveated there. DougHill (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Arguing for war to end sanctions

The page cites a version of this argument from Walter Russell Mead, but Mead was not the first to make such an argument. The Washington Post published his piece on March 12, 2003. Two earlier versions of this argument were both published on November 7, 2002, from Norah Vincent and Mark LeVine. Do any editors know of any earlier versions? Mead's argument was influential and belongs on the page, but the page should also credit the first to make such an argument. DougHill (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References

See also section?

A rubin: do you have a concern with adding a See Also section? --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Arthur, but I think that "Motivations of the September 11 attacks" should be wikilinked in the body of the article (not as a "see also"), so that its relevance is clear. DougHill (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be okay. Alternatively, the WP:See also policy says the "see also" line can contain an explanation of the relevance as in:

• Motivations of the September 11 attacks - Osama Bin Laden cited retribution for the sanctions as one of the reasons for the September 11 attacks.

In any case, since there is a very direct, and important, relation between the two articles, it is wrong to delete the link from the "See also" section. --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an improvement, tho it still needs a citation (which I requested) if it is to stay. However, I do not like this as the only entry in a "see also" section. I think this should be addressed in a separate sub-section. DougHill (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several sources that could be used as a citation. But could you clarify a style issue: I'm pretty sure that articles in the "See also" section don't have citations at that location; instead the citations are found in the linked-to article itself (that is, the user clicks on the "Motivation" article, and that article includes the sources). Can you identify some WP policy on citations/sources for "see also" links? or, alternatively, some examples of "See also" sections that include citations for the links? --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's going to be on the page, it must cite a reference. If there are several, just pick the best one. Readers can go to the other page to see the other references. However, this really belongs in the body of the article, in a subsection or perhaps even the lead. DougHill (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at several hundred "See also" links, and none of them have citations. Why do you say this one needs a citation? --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most "see also" sections that I've seen just give lists. This one makes a claim, and it's a basic rule here that claims need to be supported. If you prefer, you can put the claim in the body of the article, and then have the "see also" with wikilinks only. If there are several references, finding one should be easy. DougHill (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What claim is the "see also" link making? The one about "Bin Laden" in the comment following the link? Would it help to remove that comment? --Noleander (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be in the text; the relationship seems too complex for a See also section. And it does make a claim, that it was a motive (or motivation) for the attack. That being said, I don't recall any See also links with an explanation. Although allowed by WP:SEEALSO, it is unusual. I would add other UN sanctions in the See also section; there must be some, although I can't immediately find any articles. That relationship seems obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently "see also" sections often just offer lists with neither claims nor citations. But they are often used in shorter, less developed articles. I'm not sure that we need a "see also" here. DougHill (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Culpability polemics throughout the article

The recent edits to the lede inserted more "culpability" material. It made me realize how permeated the article is with it. Persistently, if the article points out where the sanctions did harm, a comment is inserted that says how bad Saddam was and that he is to blame. Thinking about it, I don't think it is appropriate at all. I think it's playing to a vilification of Saddam Hussein to excuse anything negative that happened, but this article is supposed to inform about the sanctions. There's an whole Saddam Hussein article to inform Wikipedia readers what sort of person he was. Beyond the scattered, repeated instances of blaming we even have an an entire extensive "culpability" section. I don't think this stuff is germane to the article, and perhaps it is time to clean the house of it. Any comments? DanielM (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The regional disparity is a such a big part of the story that it belongs in the lead. (But I've removed anything "blame" from the lead for now.) And since it is such a big part of the story, researchers are bound to try to draw some conclusions from it. (Readers may read on from the lead to see what conclusions different researchers have drawn.) This belongs on the page too. BTW Daniel, weren't you the one who renamed that section "culpability"? I think I'd earlier named it something like "regional effects". That being said, I don't know what could be more germane than culpability for such a tragedy. DougHill (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the blame game with which the article is riddled is based more on political polemic than scholarship. The Spagat article recently linked as a reference is a case in point. It's way more polemic than scholarship. It makes heavy use of speculation and surmise and repeatedly makes psychological plays to readers' suspicions. If I entitled the section "Culpability," it's because that's what it was. It didn't become that because I gave it the title. As I said above I am concerned about the effect of these persistent tones and undertones and believe they are undermining the accuracy and usefulness of this article in informing Wikipedia readers about the sanctions. I hope that others comment in this discussion. Maybe it is time for an Rfc WP:rfc. DanielM (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• So then we agree that "culpability" is a legitimate concern of the page?
• The article has long has a polemic against the sanctions, when in fact the sanctions did not exist apart from the regime's response to them. This was only started to be clarified in the article.
• Michael Spagat is a scholar with impressive academic credentials who published an important article. The page must change in response to it, just as it must change again when criticism to his article is published.
• The regional disparity is a big brute fact. It it the "who" and "where" that belongs in the lead. I'm OK with keeping the interpretations of this fact later in the article. DougHill (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer briefly, we know who is culpable for the sanctions: the U.N. Security Council. The culpability for harm wrought by the sanctions is a secondary issue that should be covered secondarily and to the extent non-fringe viewpoints are found. To say that the sanctions did harm to Iraqis, what you above appear to characterize as "polemic against the sanctions," is not polemic but consensus. Finally and briefly, the article has structural problems and needs overhaul, and we could use the input of more editors as to how to go about this. DanielM (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Even that culpability is not so clear cut: we must consider the U.N. Security Council's alternatives before blaming them.
• The culpability I was discussing that for that harm that occurred during the sanctions, as discussed in the article's "Culpability" section.
• Cortright, Rubin, and Spagat (in The Nation, The New Republic, and Significance (journal) respectively) are hardly fringe viewpoints. They are WP:RS that need to be considered in the article. So there is no consensus (that the sanctions, and not the government response to them, were to blame).
• I am in complete agreement in desiring the input of more editors. DougHill (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Culpability is a legal and moral concept, not a factual concept. Under certain types of laws and schemes of morality, everyone is culpable and under others, no-one is culpable. In an encyclopedia, the focus should be on facts. It may usefully be stated once that Saddam was the dictator of Iraq and therefore a major factor in the imposition of sanctions, but it does not otherwise help understanding the impact of sanctions to keep repeating that it was his "fault". Take the case of a child dead of cholera because of restrictions on the import of chlorine. The immediate cause of death was probably dehydration; the cause of that diarrhea; the cause of that, a micro-organism in the drinking water; the cause of that ... ultimately the regression encounters a person who knowingly made the last clear choice, and that person is classically considered more responsible than any other. In the case of the water-purification chemical sanctions (assuming the truckers and desk clerks were "merely following orders") the last clear choice was (on the evidence) with the American officials who interpreted the UN Resolution to bar dual-use materials. They may have felt impelled to do so because Saddam was such a very bad man that "it was worth it" to risk hundreds of thousands of lives, but that is an affirmative defense to the legal or moral culpability; it does not abjure it. Far better for this article to pass over such philosophical issues in favor of plain facts, clearly stated; let readers make their own moral judgments. rewinn (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

References