Talk:Niger uranium forgeries/Archive 3

Butler report

Content #10 and #15 cover the same report. Which one should we delete? --smb1971 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the longer one as everything mentioned there seemed adequately summarized in the earlier one. csloat 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing full citations

This article requires "full citations" in proper citation format. Such citations need to provide authors' names, titles of articles and/or other sources, publication information (publications and places of publication if applicable if books), dates of publication, dates of access, and page references (if accessible and pertinent--printed sources); all its links need to be current, and they need recent verification (checking throughout). Currently, this article has inconsistent citations format, inconsistent ways of indicating block and other quotations, and its notes are not properly formatted at all. The article needs cleanup. I have made some minor typographical corrections, but I do not have time to do the major overhaul of the citations formatting. I am alerting others who may have time to this problem that needs correction throughout the article. Without full citations to reliable and verifiable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:Attribution, WP:CITE, this article is not credible, and it should not be used as a source by students and others. It needs considerable improvement. --NYScholar 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Facebook group about Niger Uranium Forgeries

Please consider joining the facebook group "Let's spread awareness about the Niger Uranium Forgeries scandal".
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's very encyclopedic. I can only counter this by asking people refer to MY facebook group, "Victims of Bush Hate Derangement Syndrome need to be institutionalized". Batvette (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam's confession

I am removing the section that Rettoper keeps adding called "Saddam's confession". Please do not add this again. It uses a blog to document an alleged confession (the blog itself only paraphrases what the author claims to have heard on TV) of Saddam and then links to a Hitchens piece to claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger all along. Neither of these claims is well supported and neither is relevant to this page, which is explicitly about the Niger uranium forgeries. The Discovery blog bit about how the author once watched 60 minutes has to go, and the bit from Hitchens is already dispensed with elsewhere in this article. There is certainly no need for this section and as such it has no chance to stay in this article. csloat (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source of additional information

Here's the URL of a thread on the political message board Democratic Underground on this subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5509750#5509758

Many of the comments have links to sources that might help us improve this article. (The pseudonymous posts on a message board don't themselves qualify as reliable sources, but some of the links may be useful.) I haven't had time to examine them to see if any provide information that's not already in the article and is worth adding. JamesMLane t c 19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have not had time to read these, but a quick pass yields the following

A lot of the AP links are dead but might be resurrected by archive.org Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the way to know if your version of a disputed story is true is not to glean your data from sites with agreeable viewpoints but to go to those with opposing views and see if your position stands up. In other words I could offer a Free Republic page on the matter, but I don't go there often, it's no fun if everyone agrees with you. A scan of the DU thread leads to plenty of links, all of which were surely culled only if they agreed with the agenda being promoted. As that administration was incredibly easy to dislike, it's not hard to find people who wish to select the facts used. Ask yourself if by offering that thread are you intent on improving the encyclopedic content and thus the balanced truth of the issue, or simply intend to prove someone lied to sell a war? Batvette (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the official story was the one given by the administration and the opposing views are those which investigative journalists have grabbed. You are looking for dissent to the dissent, which would either be found in the official story or simply censored for "national security".--68.248.155.2 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted OR

I deleted the section on "already existing yellowcake" as it has nothing to do with these forgeries. That material was known to the UN going back to the early 90s and it was under UN control. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to bring this up as some kind of "irony" when the reliable sources discussing the Niger forgeries never bother to mention it (because it's really not relevant at all). Cheers, csloat (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "aftermath"

I added a NPOV ending to the yellowcake that was removed in 2008, simply because it IS proper to address it here, since various internet e-mails keep circulating about the "secret" found yellowcake. By putting a simple one paragraph addition to the ending- and citing both an MSNBC news link and a snopes article, that should close out any question about whether it is appropriate to include this information in this article. Jim E85 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the point, but I think it is best to say directly that the material was declared rather than to go to such length to counter an argument that is no longer being made. NPguy (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikispan

Wikispan, you have questioned my addition of the "Niger uranium forgeries" article to the list of "Verified conspiracies" on the "Conspiracy theories" template. Forgery is a crime and I have assumed that more than one person was involved in the creation and dissemination of the "Niger uranium forgeries". However, if you or any other editor wants to remove this article from the list of verified conspiracies on the grounds that it has not been established that more than one person was involved in the crime then I will not revert nor contest your decision. Cheers. DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Disputes?

I expected the talk section of this Wikipedia to have been quite heated. That's quite a lot of arguments and counter-arguments, as well as "prove me wrong" and "prove yourself right" dares. Anyway, is the matter at rest now, i.e. no more disputes? The last significant tussle here appears to be circa 2010. It would help a lot if this article can finalized, because it can make for some contemporary case study fodder. (March, 2014)

the Lead Section still needs much work

In short, it's too dry & short...Looks lazy and "un-curious." See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) and MOSINTRO#Introductory_text

In particular, quoting; —the lead section should:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Without context the article seems like footnotes without an article, too dry and wonky and uninteresting and un-notable, in short: —does not meet Wiki standards.
The context was; charges that BushCo was lying America into the Iraq War, the context includes great excitement in America and big headlines involving, the Plame affair, Downing Street memo, Joseph C. Wilson, "Scooter" Libby indicted on five charges, Plame affair timeline, Fair Game (2010 film), Iraqi aluminum tubes, United States v. Libby, and so forth! Spies and deceit are material writers beg for, please don't make this as dry and boring to the newbie as Scooter's lawyers, and others at the Ministry of Truth would wish.
Should anybody be thinking that "encyclopedic" means dry and boring, take a look at the writing on the Nazis, Encyclopedia Britannica.
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Niger uranium forgeries. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]