Jump to content

Talk:WMD conjecture after the 2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

Please vote if Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_war should be merged into Post-Saddam WMD search, vote support or oppose.

Warren Dew thanks for your comments. I agree that work by wikipedians is OR, and should be tagged as OR, and if no published, verifiable sources are provided within a short space of time, then definatly it should be removed. Of course, as long as those theories are backed up by written published sources, it is not OR. Thanks for your comments. Albiet, it sounds like you support a partial merger. Happy editing and welcome to wikipedia. Travb (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I created this article to help this topic become more refined and distinct from Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. As that article is about the whole history of WMD's in Iraq, and over half the article was on the WMD search, I created this article. I will attempt to vastly trim down the WMD search info on the Iraq page, but this page should definitely be kept. Judgesurreal777 20:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I have created this article mostly to remove this story from GRU article, where it should be only briefly mentioned. The text was taken mostly from SourceWatch (it has the same copyright as Wikipedia), but I edited it slightly and checked that all claims are supported by references. This article still needs a lot of work.Biophys 00:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I should like to express my appreciation of the dogged perseverance, hard work and patience of editors in trying to observe recognised Wikipedia principles of civil discussion and co-operation in improving and sourcing articles for the benefit of all. W. Frank 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging of this article with others

This article should be merged as it just repeats what was published in Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy and John A. Shaw.

Previously Biophys used this claim to accuse Russia of helping Iraq to hide its WMD. He failed on hi sources in the article on GRU.Vlad fedorov 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should mark this article accordingy - for merging and wait for opinions of other editors. After discussion, we should find some consensus and act accordingly. It will take some time. This is proper procedure. Biophys 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge

I believe that all the contributions Biophys has added are relevant not to the article with such broad name, but to respective articles on Al'Qa'aa incident and on Show.

Moreover, the name of the article is just a POV and false allegation which was denounced by Pentagon. Mr. Show who voiced these false allegations publicly admitted that he had done so in order to help candidate Bush to win the elections.Vlad fedorov 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This controversy is a part of the bigger Al'Qa'aa incident issue. So, I would suggest no merging, but to refer to this article in Al'Qa'aa article. As for Mr. Show biography, this is certainly a completely different topic. Please no merging. Biophys 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This page should be deleted. Anything here that can be considered "bigger" than the other pages is not coming from reliable sources. Shaw has admitted that the allegations were lies politically motivated; the fact that questionable sources like frontpagemagazine, washington times, or newsmax repeated Shaw's lies does not make them more notable. csloat 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Could you then provide any reliable sources where Shaw admitted that his allegations were lies as you say? Then we must cite such sources.Biophys 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for sources in article about him. It says:

Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes. Among other unsubstantiated claims, Mr. Shaw accused Russian special forces of helping Saddam removed his WMD prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was asked to resign shortly after these accusations, prompting him to call the accusations by the Pentagon "spurious." 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.

There are no any sources here!. They must be provided. Biophys 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided all the sources including Washington Times and Financial Times.Vlad fedorov 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal to merge, and Vlad fedorov is correct about the title of the article. This is what we call a POV fork - I have changed the title, so that if this page remains, it can be an NPOV article about a particular point of view. Quadpus 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree; this should be deleted as a pov fork, especially given what vlad says above about the history of it being created. Is there really any information here necessary to merge, or can we submit it for AfD? csloat 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source checking

O'K, I have looked through a few sources. Shaw said: "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)
Ther is no such text in the article "admitting that his allegations were lies". Vlad fedorov 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

Proposed deletion

The biography of Shaw is certainly a completely different topic. The article about "Al Qa Qaa controversy" includes only the following text about Russians:

"On October 28, 2004, the DoD released imagery dated March 17, 2003, showing two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers at Al Qa Qaa. However, the bunker nearest where the trucks were parked are not any of the nine bunkers identified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.[15] On the same day, the London Financial Times reported that the French and Russians may have been involved in the removal of the explosives from Al Qa'qaa before the war began, quoting Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John A. Shaw, who said "various Russian units on the eve of hostilities [helped] to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria". He also told the Washington Times "the organized effort was done in advance of the conflict". The Washington Times also reported that defense officials believed the Russians could also explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Russian Government has denounced this theory as "nonsense", saying that there were no Russian military in the country at the time. Shaw's theory has attracted little public support from elsewhere in the Administration."

The question is: do we need a separate article about this? Maybe not (I made it after arguments about GRU article). I need a few days to research this question. Please let me do it and then reply. Biophys 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well contribute to Al Qa'Qaa controversy article.Vlad fedorov 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This controversy seems to be interesting

See what has happened. Vlad deleted some pieces of text (including even "See also") and pasted large segments of text from other existing articles. Then, you can claim that such article does not make any sense. Right, it does not! I can also agree to call this "hypothesis", "allegations", etc. No hard proof anywhere in my opinion. But after looking through a few sources I found the following. First, people are talking about chemical and biological weapons (allegedly transported or hidden with help of GRU), not only these Al Qa Qaa explosives that can be used for fusion in nuclear weapons (the same explosive is also known as "hexogen"). Second, a lot more people are involved here in addition to Mr. Shaw. One source says:

But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.

In the end, here is what Shaw learned:

  1. In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
  1. Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."
  1. Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.
  1. In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.
  1. The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."
  1. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.
  1. Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.
  1. The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."
  1. The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."
  1. Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.

The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."

The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."

Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.

"Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," Shaw said. "He whispered sotto voce [quietly] to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind."

Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.

"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."

McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD.

And so on and so on. Note that Smeshko was high-ranking member of Ukranian GRU. Biophys 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of Vlad Fedorov by Biophys

Could you post here links in support of your allegations me deleting "see also" links?

I could post here diffs according to which I have inserted these links diff, diff. And a link by which Biophys at first tried to disguise them diff and afterwards do delete them diff. Vlad fedorov 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

So, I do agree this is a kind of "theory". But this is not a "POV fork" of other aricles if to include enough material beyond Mr. Shaw and Al Qa'qaa. I also agree that article must be NPOV. To achieve this, we can simply make "pro" and "contra" sections, as in many other articles about "controversies". So, I would like to try this. If this does not work well, we can always delete the article. No rush.Biophys 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disguise facts as criticism. Shaw was unable to present any evidence in support of his Russian claims. Pentagon has distanced himself from Shaw accusations. This is not critisism - these are facts confirmed not by conspiracy web-sites, but by reliable sources.Vlad fedorov 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys do not remove actual circumstance into criticism section

This violation of WP:POINT and WP:FRINGE. Vlad fedorov 05:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making trash of this article by inserting improperly cited text in wrong place.Biophys 05:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to discuss large scale deletions on the article's talk page first. (I am guilty of moving stuff without obtaining prior consensus too - thank you for not reverting it).W. Frank 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Do you mean this article or GRU article? Certainly I am not going to revert you. If I did anything wrong, you are welcome to correct me.Biophys 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's make small changes gradually and discuss every change first

Vlad, you not only included a large segment of irrelevant text in the introductory section that suppose to be short, but you also deleted some references and portions of referenced text. Making a lot of changes at once is non-stater if there are significant disagreements. Let's discuss every small change first here, and them include it in the text after an exchange of opinions. Biophys 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The text I included in the intro - is relevant straight to the topic of this article. This article is based on accusations of Mr. Shaw. Readers show know what Pentagon thought about Shaw allegations and why Mr. Shaw voiced these false allegations. Pretty understandable thing.Vlad fedorov 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to ask you to step aside from all my edits. You are forcing me to start working seriously with Russia and weapons of mass destruction topics. I am especially familiar with Russian program of biological weapons. How about academician A.S. from Puschino and his program "Biological Shield of Russia" submitted to Vladimir Putin? Was "chicken farm" in Zagorsk ever closed? How about smallpox manufacturing in Siberia? This is serious. Hundreds of millions will die if this is ever used. This is not anthrax. So, let's not go there. Biophys 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (of course I also have a lot of other ideas, such as List of journalists who support Vladimir Putin, etc.)Biophys 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by working "seriously"? Could you clarify? I don't understand you.Vlad fedorov
I mean that existing WP articles on this subject must be seriously extended and improved. Biophys 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you continue reverting. Then, it is entirely possible that I will start some article about Russian program of biological weapons, Russia-Iran affair, transfer of rocket technology to North Korea, and other things like that, sometimes in the remote future. Biophys 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I could start working on support of terrorist group by the US in Iran, trabsfer of nuclear technology to Israel and Pakistan by the US, selling of chemical weapons to Iraq by US, AIDS as a result of US biological weapons research. Do not delete relevant texts.Vlad fedorov 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There are already good WP articles about all these subjects. But you are very welcome to improve them! I am not a supporter of George W. Bush, and I am strongly against creation and use of any WMD, no matter if they are Russian or American.Biophys 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Biophys, please do not violate WP:3RR rules. You may be blocked over this. Vlad fedorov 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edits

I have a few things to say. First, you deleted a lot of references that satisfy WP:SOURCE. Second, you deleted a lot of well referenced text. Finally, you deleted sections "Neutral" and "Criticism". These sections are necessary to have NPOV article. I think that kind of editing is inconsistent with WP policies. Biophys 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE does not say anything about what types of sources are acceptable. WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." OP-ED columns do not have editorial oversight, they are dubious sources. I didn't mean to remove any other references, but if I did, feel free to replace them for now, but know that every other source you are citing would also be considered a dubious source. Quadpus 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I would like to emphasize the following. The claims were made about chemical and biological weapons, not only about high explosives, as clear in the present text. There was a text saying like that "WMD in fact were high explosives". I deleted it because it was not supported by ANY references.Biophys 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


"Wrongdoings" of Mr. Shaw

Someone (I guess that was Vlad) created the following text about Mr. Shaw:

"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.[1] Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes. [2]" 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: [3]. 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 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Organization of this article

I must agree with User:Quadpus that the initial information about Shaw, including claims by DiRito must be in the beginning of the article (not in separate criticism section. I also agree with User:csloat that all these people are not saying the same. So, it is important to show very clearly who said what. Therefore, I will make some changes in the article, and you can comment.Biophys 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is probably more logical to tell in more detail what Shaw claimed first, and then provide the criticism/reaction, staring from DiRito.Biophys 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged this article and added material from some WP:RS. Washington Times and CBN and Newsmax are not reliable sources. I've left the sources in because I don't care to debate their reliability, and one of those sources (WT) is at least a notable source even if it is not reliable. But I have removed chunks of material from newsmax that amounts to soapboxing (see WP:NOT#SOAP). I have also removed unsourced material and a couple of paragraphs that were tangentially related at best. I also fixed some editorializing and some incorrect representations of what some of the articles said (e.g. McInerney's comments). I tried to document each change in the edit summaries; my apologies if I missed anything. It looks like this article will survive AfD; if it does, it should be tightened up a lot. Conspiracy theories should not be reported as credible, especially when no respectable journalists believe them. Shaw's allegations have been discredited, despite his preaching to the choir at the "Intelligence Summit." And Pacepa has nothing to go on except stories he remembered from Romania in the 1970s. He defected in 1978; the idea that he has any inside information about Saddam's relations to Russia in the 1990s or early 21st century is laughable. The fact that he had death sentences on his head from Romania, Russia, Libya, and the PLO (not to mention Carlos the Jackal) for the better part of 2 decades also makes his stories somewhat questionable. I'm not saying any of my doubts should be put into the article, of course; only that we shouldn't inflate the guy's credibility or turn this page into some sort of soapbox for his vague and unsubstantiated theories. By the way, I also shortened Bodansky's comments; he says nothing new and the two paragraphs I deleted said nothing about Russia's involvement at all. He doesn't offer any theory here and it seems that his comments are based entirely on Shaw's allegations (as are McInerney's). csloat 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe that your editing is completely unacceptable. I have no time to refute all your claims and changes right now. First of all, you are making assertions that are not supported by any sources. For example, "The Iraq Survey Group, the Pentagon, and investigative journalists have concluded that the allegations are false." Which journalists? Miller did not even disputed anything from Shaw story, he only attacked Shaw as a character witness. And so on. Biophys 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) As about Iraq Survey Group - yes, they did not find any WMD, and I said about that in the Introduction. But they did NOT write anywhere that specific claims by Shaw, Pacepa and other are wrong, as you wrote in the article. As can see from article Post-Saddam WMD search, this question is very far from certain.Biophys 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You also wrote: "No evidence has emerged to support these allegations" in the introduction. Sorry, but this is your OR and POV. An NPOV version must simply cite allegations and arguments of all sides (as I did), so the reader can decide if there is any evidence or not.Biophys 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing that you did was deleting arguments of certain sides in such way to discredit their theories. Each of them is telling certain story, and these stories must be described and explained, rather than arbitrary censored as you did to prove your point.Biophys 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The claims may be right or wrong. But we must explain what the claims are, and what arguments have been provided by the sides to support their claims. That is what I did, and that is what you have deleted.Biophys 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Yes, you simply deleted the stories told by Shaw and Pacepa which is the topic of this article. Biophys 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Biophys. The statements "The Iraq Survey Group, the Pentagon, and investigative journalists have concluded that the allegations are false" and "No evidence has emerged to support these allegations" are unsupported, and I very much doubt a citation can be found to back up either of these assertions. I think these two statements should be removed from the lead paragraph. Turgidson 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since there are many contentious issues here, I suggest to discuss every change one by one. I agreed with first change made by Commodore Sloat ("well poisoning"). His second move was deletion of a source. Please let me check if this source is consistent with WP:SOURCE and if not - find something else. Since I am busy at work right now, I will do it this evening.Biophys 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those claims are supported by evidence that Biophys removed. I'll revert and you can look in the section "Responses" for the evidence. Please do not start a revert war here. I explained every single change in my edit summaries and then I summarized all the changes above. If you have a complaint about a particular change, state it and let us discuss. Thanks! csloat 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I explained my complaints above. Basically, you have deleted most important content supported by references from the article in such way to "prove" your point and claiming that my work is "soapboxing" (which I strongly disagree). But I would rather wait till the end of AfD discussion.Biophys 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Which specific material do you think should not have been deleted? I am not trying to "prove" any point. As I wrote above, we should not be turning this page into a soapbox for otherwise unknown claims. It may be notable that Shaw has made these allegations, but every little detail of the allegations is not notable. In some cases I deleted material that was only sourced to blogs. In other cases I deleted material that was not even related to russia and Saddam. If you have a particular quotation you think should not have been deleted, let us know why, or simply add it back in the new article organization and if I have a problem with it I will explain the problem more carefully. But a long list of soapboxing quotations from a source like Newsmax is extremely inappropriate here. csloat 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is very simple. You deleted the following:
  • Primakov supervised the execution of operation "Sarindar" ("emergency exit") that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian GRU service and Iraqi military to remove chemical weapons, and technical documentation from Iraq, so that country would be announced "WMD free."
Unnecessary detail that has no evidence to support it except the claim of someone who hasn't been to Russia in thirty years. Keeping his overall claim in there is fine, but this amount of detail is unnecessary and violates WP:UNDUE. csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to the trucks, which transported Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003, "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later found by U.S. military forces.
Again, this level of detail is not necessary; Shaw's allegations are stated, as are the responses to the allegations by the Pentagon and the ISG as cited in WP:RSs. Where is this citation from anyway, more newsmax?csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "clean-up" operation was conducted by GRU and Spetsnaz troops and other Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev", both posing as civilians (they were officially retired). Achatov and Maltsev received medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in early March 2003. When asked what for they received these medals, one of the generals replied: "We didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee" [10]
Not only is that not from a WP:RS; the source continues, explaining, "Thus, one can only conjecture what role the Soviet generals have played in preparing the Iraqi army for the war." I'm not sure an article in an encyclopedia is the proper place for non-notable conjecture. csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," according to Shaw. He claimed that U.S. intelligence knows "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad." This conference was chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu who "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."
More excessive detail from Newsmax. Look, it's enough that we're giving Shaw's allegations a soapbox at all. These various claims - which Shaw presents no evidence to support - are really not notable until they get picked up by real journalists and reporters (even the Washington Times hasn't seen fit to give this particular detail a forum). In the meantime, it is enough to state that Shaw made the allegations, and both the Pentagon and the ISG has found no evidence to back them up. csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Shaw said that Russian spetsnaz (special forces) operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," and therefore "the Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad."
  • The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgeniy Primakov."
Same for the above two points. It is particularly troubling to include a potentially libelous claim in the encyclopedia, even if we are just quoting Shaw. If the NYT quotes Shaw making these accusations, fine, but Newsmax is really not enough. And, frankly, it shows a little desparation when he piles on more assertions about people changing clothes in order to respond when he is called on his misinformation. csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All of that is relevant to Iraq and Russia. Well, if you insist on your present version, I would rather change the title (and partially meaning) of this article and rewrite completely its content.Biophys 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You also inserted the following:

"Senior Defense Department officials reportedly told the Washington Post that Shaw's claims regarding the Al Qa'qaa facility had "no basis in fact." [14]

The Iraq Survey Group investigated these and other allegations that the Russians had helped Saddam move weapons into Syria. Charles Duelfer, who headed the group, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place."[15] The general consensus is that the Iraqi munitions that went missing were looted by insurgents after the U.S. invasion began.[16]"

1.This is not story about high explosives in Al Qa'qaa facility (including "munitions" in last sentence). This is about transfer of chemical weapons. 2. Last article with references to Shaw does not tell that chemical weapons were finally transfered to Syria. 3. Your source tells about "official transfer". Sure, this was done unofficially. And so on.Biophys 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) As I understand it, Shaw was making these claims together; I don't think we can separate them out just to prove some kind of point. It's fine if you believe Shaw is therefore correct; we should include the DoD response and let the reader decide, rather than deleting it on the grounds that you don't think it responds to every claim Shaw made. It also speaks to Shaw's credibility. (2-3) So what? so you're saying you don't believe the ISG - that's fine; as long as we keep their response in there, it is again up to the reader to decide. I'm not going to debate about whether Shaw is correct or not - I have my view, but it's not relevant here. What is relevant is that the most notable statements about all of this have come from reliable sources like the Washington Post and from official sources like the Pentagon and the ISG. csloat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Afd closed

Although I have ended the discussion with keep, this article may be merged into multiple articles if necessary. Sr13 (T|C) 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

Please do not revert war, biophys. I explained all my changes in the edit summaries and in the comments above. If you have a specific change you would like to undo, explain it here and do so. But simply reverting wholesale the numerous changes is disruptive editing. csloat 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My last changes

I made these changes in reply to critique by other editors during the AfD discussion. First, there is no need to talk about Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy, because this controversy is about conventional explosives, not WMD. Hence, no content forking. Second, this is article about an operational procedure described primarily by Pacepa. Mr. Shaw is only one of many persons who make statements about this subject. Finally, we are not making any our own or anonymous assumptions if these allegations are true. We only cite notable people with names. Hence, we try to achieve NPOV version. Biophys 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Another POV fork. All you're doing is opening this up for another AfD. And you've deleted relevant and sourced information refuting your little conspiracy theory, while soapboxing with a lot of information that is only tangentially related. This is disruptive editing, Biophys. csloat 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fork with which article are you talking about? To the contrary, I removed the fork with article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy. Could you explain what exactly is disputed? I am trying to find some consensus here, and I did my best to reflect all critical comments made by other editors during AfD discussion.Biophys 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
All information and statements related to the subject of this article WAS included. If you think this is "conspiracy theory" (which is not), then this is not my conspiracy theory. I described carefully statements of all involved.Biophys 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You are not trying to find consensus; you are unilaterally making significant changes in order to avoid the POV issues that I tried to correct in my changes that you reverted. The article that survived AfD was about Russia and Saddam and WMDs; it was not about Operation Sarinder. Sarinder was a subset of the former, and it was the one with the least amount of support. The consensus that seemed to develop on the AfD was to merge this article with a larger article, not to fork off a POV conspiracy theory article. Now this article focuses almost entirely on the fantasies of a former official of a soviet bloc nation who has been out of power and contact with that power for three decades. The rest is unsupported statements mostly portrayed as truth. This is a conspiracy theory, and it is one with NO evidence to back it up; it is a conspiracy theory that was explicitly rejected by the Pentagon, by the ISG, by the Russians, and has absolutely no currency among journalists except the ones writing for Newsmax. Portraying it here as a legitimate theory -- and giving a soapbox to the rambling conspiracies of Shaw -- is simply not encyclopedic. Taking off the NPOV tag is particularly disruptive under the circumstances. csloat 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

recent changes

I've restored some of the material that was deleted by biophys. This still has a ways to go to be NPOV and verifiable. The claims of a defector who has been out of power 30 years (and who would have no occasion to have the conversations he reports with Andropov, etc) are the main basis of this article, and it should be clear that is the case. Shaw's fantasies have not been supported by any evidence; the pentagon says that, the ISG says that, and the Russians say that; we should not pretend otherwise. Bodansky has no supporting information whatsoever to his comments, which do not seem to address Sarindar at all; if they do, is he just regurgitating Shaw there? In all, this is still a very POV conspiracy theory that gives a soapbox to voices that have simply had no credibility in the mainstream media. We should not elevate every wild hare that a website like Newsmax gives credence to in an encyclopedia. csloat 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

intro

I deleted the following, and biophys keeps reverting it:

Iraq possessed a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons and biological weapons in 1990s (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction)[1] [4]. However Iraq Survey Group did not find these weapons (see Post-Saddam WMD search). ¶

The problems: (1) It is not known at all whether Iraq possessed a "substantial arsenal" of CBW in the 90s, and, in fact, that claim is very much in dispute. (2) This claim is sourced to Newsmax and Frontpagemag, neither of which is a WP:RS for such a claim as this. (3) The fact that the ISG did not find these weapons suggests that they may never have existed, as most people currently believe. I am deleting the claim again; please do not revert. Thanks. csloat 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We must agree about certain rules

Please note that I did not delete any of your recent changes, but only reinserted back a small portion of my previous text supported by references that satisfy WP:SOURCE (I made no reverts, it was you who started reverts). If you think these references are insufficient, please mark it [citation needed] and let me time to find better references (there are plenty of them in this case) or let me justify that the existing references are good. I suggest that we do not delete referenced texts of each other without consensus from that moment Doing so is violation of WP policies. If you will continue doing so, I have no other choice but to start reverting your edits. This is not good for us both. So, the choice is yours.Biophys 02:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First, you did delete many changes. Second, you reverted four times in 24 hours, a violation of the WP:3RR. Please revert your revert. Thanks. csloat 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So, that is your reply to start collaboration rather than reverts. No, I did not violate WP:3RR. Also note that I restored sourced texts, and you know that deletion of sourced text without discussion is violation of WP policies. Biophys 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Csloat, this guy also works on Active measures article where he publishes the same fantastic allegations. Could you help there? Vlad fedorov 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa

His statements contradict to well known historical facts. The fallout in Cino-Soviet relations was exactly because of refusal by Russians to share nuclear secrets with the Chinese. Pacepa, though, states that Soviet Union transferred these to China. Do we have a new Holocaust denier here? Moreover, this individual, apparently strives to earn as much money as possible advertising his "highest defecting rank". The same story happened with Litvinenko, - former KGB officer, who was so desperate for monies, that he quickly became a major witness for Boris Berezovsky "assasination attempt" and a writer of fantastic memoirs. I think we should create a separate article about KGB officers, writers Kalugin, Pacepa, Litvinenko, Bodansky and relation of KGB to the world literature heritage.Vlad fedorov 05:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the alleged problem with the Pacepa article is. He says, and I quote:
Khrushchev’s nuclear-proliferation process started with Communist China in April 1955, when the new ruler in the Kremlin consented to supply Beijing a sample atomic bomb and to help with its mass production. Subsequently, the Soviet Union built all the essentials of China’s new military nuclear industry. A couple of years later, however, the relations between Khrushchev and Mao Zedong went sour. The Chinese leader grew increasingly unhappy with Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization and took at face value his policy of peaceful coexistence with the West. Mao therefore branded Khrushchev as “soft on imperialism” and accused him of abandoning Communist principles. {...}
A few weeks after the IIIrd Congress, we were indeed treated to a new sample of Khrushchev’s destructive nature. He suddenly withdrew all the Soviet advisers from China and terminated all important joint contracts and projects. According to the Chinese, Moscow pulled out 1,390 experts, tore up 343 contracts, and scrapped 257 cooperative projects in just a few weeks. Data provided by various U.S. intelligence agencies attest that by the mid-1980s China was producing at least 800 kilograms of uranium and 400 kilograms of plutonium-239 per year. The exact strength of the Chinese strategic force is still relatively unknown, but in 1996 the number of warheads was estimated at 2,500, with 140-150 more being produced each year.
Is there a source that contradicts any of these statements? Also, what exactly does this have to do with Operation Sarindar, one way or the other, except perhaps as a roundabout way of casting doubt on Pacepa's writings? Finally, just for the record: one talks about Sino-Soviet relations (as in Sinology), not Cino-Soviet relations. Turgidson 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Pacepa is that he is one source with a grudge who has been disconnected from his alleged expertise for thirty years. The fact that he was once a Party official in Romania is used here as evidence that his opinions about what the Russians did 5 years ago have some credibility. They don't, and they haven't been verified by anyone. Russia is not even the same government that he once worked with! He is making assertions with no evidence or verifiability whatsoever, and these assertions are being treated as credible because he was once a party official. He defected in 1978 -- this guy hasn't spoken to anyone in the Party since before the Reagan Administration! Even if he is telling the truth that such an operation existed in the 1970s, any connection to the Iraq war is completely ridiculous. The second problem here is that the article's title, Operation Sarindar, refers to an alleged project in 1970s USSR. But most of the information in the article is about assertions of a similar operation in 1990s/2000s Russia. If anything, these are 2 different operations, and this article should be about the historical operation (which, if it really existed, we should be able to get some additional evidence from reliable sources about). Third, this fantasy has simply not been supported by any reliable source. All we have is opinion pieces stating unverified opinions, and those pieces are in extremely partisan sources -- Washington Times (owned by the Unification church), Frontpagemagazine (a right-wing operation whose main purpose is character assassination), and the self-published Newsmax, which is no better than a tabloid. The fact that no real paper or objective journalist will take these charges seriously should give us pause. csloat 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is The Washington Times "not a real paper"? As the respective article informs us, as of March 31, 2005, the Times had an average daily circulation of 103,017. Are those 100,000+ people buying (and presumbaly reading) that particular newspaper getting something "unreal"? If so, perhaps such claim should be made in the article on the Washington Times, and be subjected to the scrutiny of editors working on that article -- let's see if the claim stands. As for the second claim -- which arguably may be read as saying that no journalist contributing to the Washington Times is an "objective journalist" -- does it apply, in particular, to Bill Gertz , Donald Lambro, Rowan Scarborough, Lawrence Kudlow, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Wesley Pruden, and Tony Blankley? Although, admittedly, the above sentence does not explicitly say that all journalists employed by the Washington Times (that "extremely partisan source", "owned by the Unification church") are not objective journalists -- it comes close, in my reading, especially when combined with the clear animus against that newspaper. Perhaps that could be clarified. Turgidson 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem of Pacepa is that during Iraq-Iran war - exactly the time of his defection, it was Donald Rumsfield who was shaking Saddam Hussein hand, and it was the US who supplied chemical weapon to Saddam for the killings of Kurds.

Here are sources:

  • http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
  • Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984::Documents Archive
  • National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82 Edited by Joyce Battle February 25, 2003
  • Video Clip: "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. [Windows Media Video (WMV). Opens in Windows Media Player] (Iraqi television; courtesy CNN)
  • U.S. Chemical and Biological Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War
  • http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html
  • U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • Just an excerpt: "On February 9, 1994, Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. disclosed on the U.S. Senate floor that the U.S. government actually licensed the export of deadly microorganisms to Iraq. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program".
  • In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades.
  • See What Iraq Addmitted About its Chemical Weapons Program: http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

Vlad fedorov 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose to add quickly to that article all these sources. Because the article in its current form is WP:UNDUE against Russia. Simple Google search shows more information about Iraq WMD sold to Iraq by the US. Article is completely biased. Besides all information about selling of biological and chemical weapon by the US to Iraq is declassified thanks to Iraq war.Vlad fedorov 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a simple search on the following keywords in Google: "US sold chemical weapon to Iraq" shows Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for US sold chemical weapon to iraq. (0.10 seconds). Vlad fedorov 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This last search proves (almost) nothing: without putting quotes around the search terms, you can replace US by USSR, Russia, China, or even John, and you get something like 700,000--800,000 hits. So, basically meaningless. Try instead [5], and you'll get precisely 13 hits, while [6] yields a grand total of 0 hits (of course!). Google search is a great tool, but let's use it judiciously and methodically if we want to get anything out of such comparisons. Turgidson 04:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey man! I am not talking just about Google searches. What do you think about sources on US selling chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Just look at those brilliant sources.Vlad fedorov 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, one of these days. Just too daunting right now -- it would take a few hours just to peruse through that list. How about an executive summary? At any rate, what does this have to do with Operation Sarindar? You're welcome to start another article on the topic you brought up, and see how that flies, but why mix apples and oranges here? Turgidson 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD on this page

I'll be submitting this page for AfD unless a compelling reason not to do so is put forth. As explained above, this is mostly one guy's fantasy, with support from suspected criminal John Shaw. Neither has any evidence to back their statements up, and the ISG, Pentagon, and Russian government have said so. "Operation Sarindar" gets exactly 17 google hits, not one of them a WP:RS. Fourth hit is wikipedia; most of the rest are blogs like "fuckfrance.com." Hardly notable. I did a lexis/nexis search and a search of proquest newspapers and got exactly zero hits. Not one in major newspapers, magazines, or journals owned by either database. This topic is far less notable than the conspiracy theory that narrowly survived AfD a few days ago. This page is a POV fork of that page and should be deleted. csloat 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is the same as it was during the AfD discussion. Only two important changes were made. First, the title was changed as suggested by one of the discussion participants (hence the smaller number of Google hits). Second, we removed some content forking with Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy. That was easy because this article is about weapons of mass destruction but Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is about conventional weapons, although these topics are related. Two days ago you claimed that no changes were made at all (your claims that I reverted old version). Now you are telling this is different article.Biophys 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not make that claim. It is in poor form to misrepresent what I have written; don't ever do it again. This article is now about a less notable issue, hence the small number of google hits. This topic is just not encyclopedic, as I have demonstrated. csloat 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about this edit [7] Biophys 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) You said that I have made 3RR violation and suggested that "everyone should seek WP:DR on that article". Do you consider deletion of the article as a part of the dispute resolution process?Biophys 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Where in that edit do I make the claim that no changes were made at all? AfD is not exactly DR; I'm not sure why you're asking that. Anyway, can you offer any compelling reason to keep the article? I'm still not sure I have heard any. csloat 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I told you. This article just passed AfD discussion and the decision was "keep".Biophys 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Csloat, just in case, you have the right to request Deletion Review, which means we could start voting again. But before request for Review I suggest you to thought out meticulously grounds for deletion. I think that prior to that we should create the article on the US sale of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during Iran-Iraq war (see my sources higher), and afterwards we could come up for deletion review with strengthened arguments of WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. Moreover, I just learned that you are an author of "Informed Comment" blog. Thank you for such a nice blog. Actually I read currently only two sources on Iraq matters - your blog and Robert Fisk of "The Independent". Thank you for your great job. Vlad fedorov 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not the author of that blog. My own blog is far less popular and far less frequently updated than Informed Comment. As for the AfD, it seems pretty clear to me that we now have a POV fork of an article that was already a POV fork. This particular one is far less notable -- only 17 google hits and not a single WP:RS for this fringe theory; there is no way this would survive an AfD vote. Relying on the previous AfD vote is silly since this is now a tiny subset of the article that was voted on. csloat 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is vandalism

I believe that recent edits of this article represent a clear vandalism, because they either (a) misrepresent the existing source (telling that article contains claims about WMD, while it is in fact about ordinary explosives) or delete referenced material to article by famous journalist Judith Miller.Biophys 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about Primakov

Csloat, you just deleted the segment about Primakov. Indeed, this information is not related directly to Operation Sarindar, but this explains that Primakov was allegedly bribed by Saddam Hussein. Therefore, his "denials" described in this article cost nothing. You have included information that try to discredit Shaw as a character witness. This is fine, but then we can and should provide similar information about other people (i.e. Primakov) to have NPOV article. Of course, we might also move such information about everyone to footnotes (I think that would be best solution) or delete it. Then it would be also balanced (NPOV). So, what do you think?Biophys 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly, this is defamation of Primakov. How he learned that Primakov was taking moneys? He was handing them to Primakov himself or Saddam invited the press fro that occasion? Vlad fedorov 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is not related to Sarindar, it should not be here. The bodansky stuff should go too, as a matter of fact. csloat 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no any reason for Bodansky stuff to go because he is talking about Saddam's WMD and Primakov, who is a major figure of this controversy. As about Primakov info, it can go only with similar "discrediting" info about Shaw (to keep the balance). But I would prefer to have all such information in the article (perhaps as footnote), so a reader can decide for himself whom to believe. Biophys 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What information about shaw is similar? The bodansaky stuff is not talking about Operation Sarindar. It must go. csloat 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply. 1. This information is similar:

"Journalist Christian Miller from the Los Angeles Times claimed that Shaw was the subject of an FBI investigation because he conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts and used the results of these unauthorized probes to direct multimillion dollar government contracts to his friends and associates"

This information was included to discredit him as witness. This information is just fine (I do not object), because it is important to know if this person can be trusted. But then information about the alleged Primakov-Saddam affair must be included as well. Biophys 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2. This is "Bodansky segment": Historian Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War [9] described the visit of Yevgeniy Primakov to Baghdad on February 22 2003 as a special representative of President Vladimir Putin. The Primakov initiative, endorsed by Putin, suggested that Saddam must hand over all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, among other things [9]. Next time, Putin dispatched Primakov on March 17 to meet with Saddam and urge him to step down, without much success. "Saddam tapped me on the shoulder and went out of the room", Primakov recalled.[9].

According to Bodansky allegations, "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over." [10] Bodansky stated that "the apparent absence of WMD munitions in Iraq demonstrates only one aspect of a comprehensive intelligence blinder, namely, the inability to account for the full extent of Saddam's arsenal, which was hidden both before and after the war".[9]

He is talking about two things: (a) Primakov-Saddam relationships; and (b) that Saddam did had WMD and they have been removed with help of Russians. Obviously, all of that is relevant. Sorry, I have to go now, can continue later.Biophys 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Actually, what's obvious is that none of this is relevant. Shaw's criminal activity, Primakov's credibility, and Bodansky's unsubstantiated allegations should all be removed. The Shaw article already includes his criminal information; it doesn't belong here. All of the stuff listed above (and thank you for the detail) is not relevant to this article, which should just be about Operation Sarindar. csloat 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you insist, Shaw's activity and Primakov's credibility can go (I would prefer them go to footnotes), but Bodansky allegations should stay for a very simple reason: they are much more credible than any other allegations here, based WP:SOURCE (verifiability) criteria. They derive from a reliable secondary source, I would even say scholarly source - the book by a recognized Middle East expert. Biophys 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I respectfully disagree about his unsubstantiated allegations, but that is immaterial. What matters is that these allegations, no matter how credible you believe them to be, do not have anything to do with Operation Sarindar, which is the topic of this article. csloat 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
How come? You are obviously mistaken. I just cited this segment a few sentences above. It says: not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops,.... This is relevant. It does not matter that source did not tell "Sarindar". It tells about WMD, which is the real subject of the conroversy. Biophys 12:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Operation Sarindar, not about every mention of artillery. csloat 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Operation Sarindar is about chemical weapons. If an artillery round contains a compound classified as a chemical weapon, it belongs here. Source says WMD. This is it.Biophys 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
O.S. may be "about chemical weapons", but not everything to do with chemical weapons is about Operation Sarindar. Again, if it's going to be included on this page, it must be relevant specifically to O.S. csloat 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but the source tells not just about "some WMD", but about WMD in connection to Saddam Hussein and Primakov, and Russian special forces. Therefore, it is relevant to Operation Sarindar. Again, nobody tells that any allegations are true. We simply describe all allegations whatever they are. Biophys 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. We cannot make leaps, even ones that we consider logical, without published sources backing them up. If Bodansky does not refer to this specific operation, the information should not be included here. csloat 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:SYN say: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C". Could you tell please what is "A", what is "B", and what is "C" here? We are not advancing any positions in this articles, and we are not making any logical conclusins (such as A+B=>C). We only cite different sources. These sources make contradictory claims, so no any logical conclusions can be made. There is no any synthesis here at all. We only reproduce what source (Bodansky) said about WMD. This article is about alledged disappearance of chemical weapons ("Operation Sarindar"), and Bodansky is telling exactly about THIS subject.Biophys 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A is the alleged disappearance of chemical weapons. B is Operation Sarindar, a specific conspiracy from the 1970s or earlier. The connection between the two is original research; Bodansky is not talking about Operation Sarindar. csloat 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The claim by Pacepa and Shaw was that Operation Sarindar (destruction and/or evacuation of WMD) was applied in Iraq. Bodansky is talking about the same. Biophys 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The claim that bodansky is talking about the same is your WP:OR, and it is probably false anyway, since his book does not mention this operation. csloat 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference 2

Could you please copy and paste here a segment of text from reference 2 (claims by unnamed Pentagon officials) that would tell ANYTHING about chemical weapons rather than ordinary explosives?Biophys 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So, no reply here. Indeed, this source says nothing about chemical weapons, unlike Bodansky whose statements you just deleted.Biophys 17:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC on this page

This is disputed segment (currently excluded by csloat from the article):

Allegations by Yossef Bodansky

Historian Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War [2] described the visit of Yevgeniy Primakov to Baghdad on February 22 2003 as a special representative of President Vladimir Putin. The Primakov initiative, endorsed by Putin, suggested that Saddam must hand over all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, among other things [2]. Next time, Putin dispatched Primakov on March 17 to meet with Saddam and urge him to step down, without much success. "Saddam tapped me on the shoulder and went out of the room", Primakov recalled.[2].

According to Bodansky, "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over." [3] Bodansky stated that "the apparent absence of WMD munitions in Iraq demonstrates only one aspect of a comprehensive intelligence blinder, namely, the inability to account for the full extent of Saddam's arsenal, which was hidden both before and after the war".[2]

I've submitted this page to RfC. Much of this is WP:NOR and should be deleted. Operation Sarindar was allegedly a program of the old Soviet Union, according to Mr. Pacepa. Pacepa appears to be the only source with any information that such an operation existed at all, and he defected to the West in 1978, so he has no knowledge of anything that happened since then. (All other sources cited here quote Pacepa; there is not a single book or scholarly source that confirms that such an operation ever existed). I believe the article should only deal with the historical allegations of Mr. Pacepa about this operation. One user - Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - insists on turning this article into a theory about where Saddam Hussein hid WMDs in 2003. I don't have a problem including a short section indicating Mr. Pacepa has made this allegation and that the allegation was denied by the Pentagon and by the Russians. But I object to the inclusion of extraneous information about Saddam and WMDs that simply does not belong here. Quotes from Yossef Bodansky in particular, alleging that Saddam stashed WMDs in Russia for some bizarre reason, do not mention Operation Sarindar and are simply not relevant here. I have Bodansky's book and the index lists no less than eight entries beginning with the word "Operation," and "Operation Sarindar" is simply not one of them. Biophys's assertion that Bodansky is talking about Operation Sarindar is simply not supported. After we remove that section, the entire article should be changed to make clear that this is a historical allegation, not a current political topic. We should not be using an article like this to intervene in current political debates about the war in Iraq, which is what Biophys is trying to do. csloat 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As clear from Bodansky book, he does not tell words "Operation Sarindar" and he does not refer at all to Pacepa (I never claimed that he did!). What Bodansky claims in the book is this: Saddam did had WMD, and Russians did helped him in evacuation or destruction of these weapons. This article is about disappearance of Saddam's chemical weapons. "Operation Sarindar" is only a title that can be changed if a better title proposed. Therefore comments by Bodansky are not only relevant but also very important. This is so obvious!Biophys 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Bodansky does not tell that Saddam stashed WMDs in Russia as you are telling.Biophys 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Operation Sarindar, not about everything to do with Russia and WMDs. You should not just change the title to suit your political agenda. csloat 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is not just about old Soviet program "Operation sarindar". It is about alleged implementation of this old program by GRU in 2002 and 2003 to help Saddam Hussein, as obvious from text of this article.Biophys 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with csloat; this article should be about the alleged Operation Sarindar plan, not fringe theories about Iraq's alleged WMDs. The article as it stands gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory propagated by only a few individuals, some of whom, as csloat has argued, are/were not in a position to know things they claim to (i.e., Pacepa, who had defected by '78). Parsecboy 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one section of this article, "Description of the operational procedure" is about Sarindar plan. The remainder (90%) of the aricle is about alledged implementation of this plan. It is about Iraq's alleged WMDs, as a few other WP articles. Biophys 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, and that's giving undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. Therein lies the problem. Parsecboy 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing is: the entire article is about something that you call "fringe theory". Therefore, it was on AfD review twice (both times submitted by cslot), and the decision was "keep". You may read the AfD discussions at the top of this talk page.Biophys 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Also note that all "pro" and "contra" opinions by notable people are represented in the article. So, the balance is due. Biophys 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is about "Operation Sarindar"; the fringe theory that the alleged operation continues in 2003 with Iraq should not be given undue weight. And other fringe theories that seem vaguely related thanks to WP:SYN (e.g. bodansky) should be excluded entirely.csloat 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The segement on Yossef Bodansky looks perfectly OK to me: it is well sourced, and in fits in the theme of the article. From what I gather, Bodansky details the visit of Yevgeniy Primakov to Baghdad in February 2003, and goes on to say: "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over." This is very much in the spirit of the Operation Sarindar plans that Ion Mihai Pacepa details elsewhere. So what's the problem? Turgidson 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it is WP:OR and violates wikipedia policies. In addition, not every unsubstantiated allegation in every book that exists is notable enough for an encyclopedia. csloat 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is OR in all this--based on what logical chain can one arrive at such a conclusion? And what WP policies are being "violated"? Just asserting such things without making a solid case simply does not cut the mustard. As for the second sentence -- perhaps so, but what exactly in Bodansky's book is an "unsubstantiated allegation"? That Primakov went to Baghdad in 2003? That he discussed with Saddam Hussein the evacuation of Iraqi chemical weapons? I am at a loss. Finally, who gets to decide which book can be included, and which not? I see no reason to ban quotes from Bodansky's books: is there a WP guideline or policy that would preclude quoting his books? Turgidson 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy against original research and synthesis is violated here. Bodansky's argument is not about Operation Sarindar. He never mentions it. That he mentions something that appears similar to a conspiracy theory dreamed up by someone who may have had knowledge about Operation Sarindar 30 years ago does not mean that he is writing about Operation Sarindar, and it is original research to make that link. As for which of Bodansky's allegations are unsubstantiated, you tell me where Bodansky provides proof of what Primakov has spoken to Saddam about, or of what Russia did to help Saddam stash the alleged WMDs. csloat 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said Bodansky mentions Operation Sarindar? But what he mentions -- as quoted in the paragraphs written by Biophys -- is something that can be used in a WP article without problem, I think. Now, I don't know what "proof" Bodannsky provides or not -- I didn't read the book -- all I can say is that, reading what Biophys wrote, it all looks well referenced and very much usable. If there is a specific problem with a quote, let's hear it. Otherwise, let the article proceed. At least, that's my opinion, and I will leave it at that for now, I do not see the point of going on and on about this matter, unless there is something new brought to the table. Turgidson 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is quoted cannot be used in this wikipedia article without problem; the connection between it and Operation Sarindar is original research. If you do not understand this, please read WP:NOR. csloat 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Csloat, you said: "As for which of Bodansky's allegations are unsubstantiated, you tell me where Bodansky provides proof of what Primakov has spoken to Saddam about...". Remember: "verifiability, not truth.", see WP:SOURCE. I do not have to prove anything, and I do not have to care how Bodansky proved anything. Since this source satisfy very well WP:SOURCE (note - this is reliable "secondary" source, which is the best type of source for WP!), we are using it.Biophys 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I was asked which of his allegations were unsubstantiated and I responded. That does cut against its notability, but that's not the argument I've been making here; the argument here is that this material violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. csloat 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a sensible compromise be keeping Bogdansky's section but noting he doesn't use the OS name? The OS name is dubious; especially considering the fluid nature of intelligence ops and their names - for exameple, there is no dobut Operation Simoom happened, but the name was not used until a film was made about it and as such I wouldn't be suprised to find out the original documents used a completly different name(s) and this one was invented for the movie... Perhaps restoring the old title of Russia and Saddam WMD allegations or something similar would solve the issue, as I certainly think the topic is notable (even as a conspiracy theory) and related articles/facts can be gathered in one place. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Why not rename it back?Biophys 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That still does not solve the problem that a lot of the article violates WP:SYN and should be deleted. Parsecboy 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Then if others agree (let's wait for a couple more opinions), we might proceed as follows. 1. We rename the article back (so it is clear that aricle is about alleged involvement of GRU/Russians in disappearance of Saddam's WMD). 2. I will remove/modify whatever I think should be removed. 3. You and others would comment what remaining pieces violate WP:SYN, we discuss this, and change whatever necessary.Biophys 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a rational way forward. What do the rest of the editors involved here think? Although I don't like the implication that you own this article. Parsecboy 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like Biophys owning this article either. Frankly, his proposal is more of the same thing he's been doing -- when a controversy arises, he changes the name of the article to try to subsume the controversy. This article is and should be about operation sarindar only. If you want another article about the fringe conspiracy theory that Saddam and some aging former KGB agents packed up nukes on mules or whatever, then start a separate page and put your information there. That page will then go through the AfD process, as is appropriate, and the community will decide how fringe it is. Everything on this article except the few statements that specifically refer to Sarindar should be deleted, and it should be made clear that this entire fantasy is all the allegation of one man who has not been part of the Communist Party apparatus anywhere since 1978 and would thus have no way of knowing any of this. Again, if you want to start a separate page for your bodansky theory, go for it, but it's not likely to survive AfD. csloat 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Parsecboy, if you do not like me, we can ask Turgidson to edit this article after renaming, simply because he is the only neutral person who worked on this article too. Why he is neutral? Simply because his block log file is clean, unlike mine, cslot's, or Vlad's. So, no problems with own. Key issue here is different: cslot does not want to rename this article and erroneously (I believe) claims WP:SYN problems with Bodansky citation.Biophys 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about whether anyone likes you or about how many blocks anyone has; it is about having a problem with anyone - you, me, parsecboy, or turgidson - owning any wikipedia page. Turgidson is certainly not "neutral"; he has been vehemently advocating the same WP:SYN violations that you have, and neither of you has shown any indication of even having understood the policy in this regards at all. WP:SYN is relatively objective concerning this issue. csloat 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I have no problem with anyone here. What I have a problem with is that Biophys seems to think that he/she owns this article because he/she created it. That and violations of Wikipedia policy, which clearly prohibits original research and synthesizing material. Block logs are irrelevant. Parsecboy 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

Biophys please do not change the title of this page every time there is dispute about your POV-pushing and insertion of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories here. Let the RfC process continue before making any such changes, and always seek consensus before making the change. Thanks. csloat 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


If I understand correctly, the purpose of your AfC was to improve this article. Right? That is exactly what I am doing. In reply to your AfC request, User:Parsecboy made a critical comment. Basically, it was not clear for him what is the article about. So, I slightly changed the title to make it more specific. I only added words "in Iraq" to refine the place of action. I would like to note that you edited this article previously during AfD discussion. You just started an RR war with regard to a minor change of title of this article. Please do not do it Biophys 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please wait for the RfC process to proceed -- nobody has recommended the unilateral change you made to the title. It makes this article even less relevant or notable and opens it up to yet another AfD. I am changing it back; do not revert without seeking consensus. Also do not stalk me to other articles to revert me. That is considered harassment on wikipedia and is very likely to get you blocked if I report it to WP:AN/I. You have been warned. csloat 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
May I notice that we both live in the US and watch FOX channel. And this article about O'Reilly is not fair. Of course, I will stop editing it for now - just because you ask. No problem. Let's be mutually forthcoming. But I would like to ask you stop reverting me. It was you who started reverting the title of this article. O'K?Biophys 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As about alleged wikistalking, you may take a look here [8] and here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov. This is not pretty. So, no one is doing wikistalking here. O'K?Biophys 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Biophys is a known revert warrior and POV pusher, csloat. See here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, I agree stop editing this article and leave it as it is right now if you and other sides (I mean Vlad) will do the same.Biophys 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I havent seen any evidence of Vlad wikistalking and I'm not sure why it is relevant here. I will lay off reverting the Bodansky stuff for now but please be on notice that it is original research and against wikipedia policy, as is most of this article. csloat 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please add then a comment on my RfC page Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov. Thanks. Vlad fedorov 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I told this already several times and can repeat again. This article is about alleged evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces in Iraq. ~90% of the text of this article is about that (including claims and denials), and it has always been about that.Biophys 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Biophys you have named this article after Pacepa allegations. All other allegations are different from Pacepa's. We have to delete all other allegations, unless they mention 'Operation Sarindar'. Otherwise you violate WP:OR. Vlad fedorov 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys - please do not change the title again without seeking consensus or I will file a report against your behavior at WP:AN/I. csloat 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly join Csloat. Because I belive Biophys' behavior is of disruptive character. Vlad fedorov 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
But you did not provide any valid explanation why the words "in Iraq" can not be added to the title.Biophys 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Because Pacepa said that Sarindar referred to Lybia, and similar program existed for Iraq. Vlad fedorov 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And Biophys has not sought consensus on the name change. There is no "Operation Sarindar in Iraq"; all we have is the bizarre suggestion that something similar to what allegedly existed in the 70s regarding libya may also have existed for iraq (which makes no sense at all, since Iraq was a US ally at that time). In any case, the burden of proof for any name change is on you biophys. This is WP:DE and should stop immediately. csloat 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is very simple. There is only one mentioning of Lybia in this article, but the remainder (at least 90% of the text) is about alleged operation by Russian special forces in Iraq. Therefore, such change of the title is appropriate. No one claims that such operation took place in Lybia or anywhere else in the world except Iraq. Biophys 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? Pacepa claimed that such operation took place in Lybia. Pacepa is your most important source for the article. Otherwise, if you rename the article we should delete most of Pacepa's allegations, because most of them are about Operation Sarindar in Lybia. Vlad fedorov 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Per my above comment, I think a more descriptive title would be better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodansky

So far the only people supporting the inclusion of Bodansky's opinion are Turgidson and Biophys. Yet neither one of them has responded to the point that it is original research that connects the quotes to the article. I will give it a couple days before removing it again, but Wikipedia policy is very clear against the inclusion of the product of such synthesis. Since neither Biophys or turgidson has responded to this argument, is it safe to assume you are dropping your objections to removing the opinion? csloat 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat your arguments above:"A is the alleged disappearance of chemical weapons. B is Operation Sarindar, a specific conspiracy from the 1970s or earlier. The connection between the two is original research; Bodansky is not talking about Operation Sarindar." Answer. Yes, Bodansky did not tell words "Operation Sarindar". He tells about evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces. And this article is also about evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces. So, there is no need to make ANY logical conclusions. To clarify the subject of this article, I tried to change the title, but you reverted me twice without any reasonable explanation. Biophys 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No. This article is about Operation Sarindar, a program that allegedly existed in the 1970s in Russia. Bodansky is not talking about that; the connection you make to that operation is a synthesis prohibited by WP:SYN. csloat 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No. This article is about alleged evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces in Iraq. ~90% of the text of this aricle is about that (including claims and denials), and it has always been about that. Only one chapter describes "operational procedure". Biophys 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps 90% of this article is also off topic, but there is no question that the Bodansky quote is offtopic. It should be removed forthwith. csloat 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you did not provide any valid arguments as clear from the long discussion with Turgidson and me above.Biophys 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Which of my arguments was not valid? It is you and Turgidson who have not responded to this very valid and accurate point!! csloat 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, both Biophys and Turgidson. If you would not delete Bodansky statements from the article which I belive are not related to Operation Sarindar. Then I have to insert the information about the US selling both chemical and biological WMD to Iraq.(see above even academic sources). This is also relevant to the article, because it follows that Russians cleared up mess for the americans. Second, I see guys that you don't know about the existence of Bodansky book named "Secret Story of the Iraq War", where Bodansky tells completely different story about WMD in Iraq:
"Among his revelations:
— The most authoritative account of Saddam Hussein's support for Islamic terrorist organizations -- including extensive new reporting on his active cooperation with al-Qaeda in Iraq long after the fall of Baghdad — Extensive new information on Iraq's major chemical and biological weapons programs -- including North Korea's role in building still-undetected secret storage facilities and Iraq's transfer of banned materials to Syria, Iran, and Libya — The first account of Saddam's plan for Iraq, Syria, and Iran to join Yasser Arafat's Palestinian forces to attack Israel, throw the region into turmoil, and upend the American campaign — The untold story of Russia's attempt to launch a coup against Saddam before the war -- and how the CIA thwarted it by ensuring that Iraq was forewarned — Dramatic details about Saddam's final days on the run, including the untold story of a near miss with U.S. troops and the stunning revelation that Saddam was already in custody at the time of his capture -- and was probably betrayed by members of his own Tikriti clan — The definitive account of the anti-U.S. resistance and uprising in Iraq, as the American invasion ignited an Islamic jihad and Iran-inspired intifada, threatening to plunge the region into irreversible chaos fueled by hatred and revenge — Revelations about the direct involvement of Osama bin Laden in the terrorism campaigns in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East -- including the major role played by Iran and HizbAllah in al-Qaeda's operations."
It follows that Koreans sold WMD, not Russians. --Vlad fedorov 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One would need an exact quote to judge -- the above seems just a blurb. But of course, if Saddam got WMDs from North Korea, that does not exclude at all he would have gotten such armament from Russia, too (or from other places, for that matter). Let's keep the logic straight on that. And, by the way, looking at this excerpt from Bodansky's book, I see that he mentions Pacepa as an expert source on Arafat, Abu-Nidal, and related matters. Food for thought... Turgidson 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You haven't grasped my thought, If you publish Bodansky in the article, I would publish also all information about the US selling biological and chemical weapons to Iraq and other stuff, because Bodansky covered this sale too in his book, and he is an expert. And if Bodansky covers these issues, then applying your (and Biophys') methods of editing the article I could patch anything related to the sales by the US of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq into the article whatever the source this information comes from. And Biophys tricks with renaming the article to prohibit the insertion of information about dirty US won't help. I specifically consider that this article was created with one aim - just to defame Russia and as such is violation of WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, leaving aside the question of WP:OR.
Your passage about contradictions is ridiculous though, because contradictory sources should be eliminated according to WP:RS. If Bodansly states A, then states it is not A, we could deict it in the article. And we should also depict in the article that no traces of WMD were found in Iraq - and this is the official information. Vlad fedorov 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep the speculation out of the article. Bodansky never mentions operation sarindar, therefore this quote does not belong in this article, period. csloat 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Vlad fedorov. (1) "information about dirty US": I have no idea what you're talking about; and please refrain from referring to the United States as being "dirty", OK?
I have published earlier sources confirming that the US sold to Iraq bilogical and chemical weapons to kill Kurds and Iranians. Don't play fool here, the US itself is the largest terrorist in the world and the word "dirty" is an honor for such country. Vlad fedorov 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One more time: you must refrain from using words such as "fool" when referring to another editor; I consider that to be a completely unwarranted personal attack. As for your opinion about the United States, I think it makes it crystal clear what your POV is. And that's is my last word on this: I will not continue a discussion with someone who holds such opinions, and expresses them in such language. Turgidson 19:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I could note that it is you who began that discussion by censoring my words about the US. Everyone has his own POV, and your POV is also cristal clear to me. There are no men without POV on Earth, except the deadmen. And it you who began to censor other editors here and received an approriate response. You pretended that you don't understand why I call the US "a dirty country" and reseived response. By the way as you are not native English language speaker (you are Romanian), please, familiarize yourself with the meaning of the collocation "to play fool":
act/play the fool
to behave in a silly way, often in order to make people laugh. Come on guys, stop acting the fool and pay attention.
See also: act, fool, play
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms © Cambridge University Press 1998
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/act%2Fplay+the+fool
Perhaps, better studying of English would help you in distinguishing mythical "personal attacks on you" from the real? Vlad fedorov 04:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(2) "Your passage about contradictions is ridiculous": (a) Where did I use the word "contradiction"?; (b) I said "Let's keep the logic straight", which is different; (c) please refrain from referring to what another editor writes as being "ridiculous" -- this is not being civil. And, by the way, no need to leave messages on my talk page--sorry, I will not respond to people talking like that to me. Thank you, and have a nice day. — Turgidson 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So you prefer to talk on personalities and not about the content of the article? I would consider and remember this. Vlad fedorov 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I told this already several times and can repeat again. This article is about alleged evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces in Iraq. ~90% of the text of this article is about that (including claims and denials), and it has always been about it. Biophys 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then 90% of the article should be deleted. We start with Bodansky. csloat 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Biophys now uses templates for discussion, although it hardly could be called "disscusion" - "autoreply" is better term. Bodansky and Shaw never mentioned that Russians evacuated chemical weapons, so their allegations should be also deleted, because it doesn't relate to the Operation Sarindar. Vlad fedorov 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Biophys, if the article is about the supposed removal of Iraqi CBRN by the Russians before the Iraq War, then all references to Operation Sarindar need to be deleted and the article's name changed. Editors are not allowed to "connect the dots" on Wikipedia. Parsecboy 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Such an article would not be notable. Even this one is not notable but somehow it survived AfD. Wikipedia is also not the place to legitimize fringe theories. Biophys is being very stubborn about this material unfortunately, but he has not yet posed a valid reason for it. csloat 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
After watching you in action "legitimizing" that Saudi-funded Wahhabist front-group full of Taqiyya propagandists, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Sight unseen.--Mike18xx 09:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike18xx, I would think it to be very irresponsible if you revert the article because you don't like csloat. Perhaps read the talk page before making such controversial edits. Parsecboy 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I think that you and cslot are simply deleting the most reliable scholarly source from the article (Bodansky) because you want to promote your personal bias/opinion that Operation Sarindar was not real. Turgidson agree with me on that.Biophys 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No; we are deleting original research from the article because it does not belong here. This article is about Operation Sarindar, which Bodansky never discusses. End of story. csloat 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you are deleting a perfectly sourced and relevant segment of text to promote your POV. The source (Bodansky book) not only satisfy WP:SOURCE, but this is a scholarly source witten by a notable person. This article (operation Sarindar) is about evacuation of chemical weapons by Russian special forces in Iraq. Bodansky discuss exactly that, as anyone can see from the text. End of story.Biophys 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This guy is obsessed with KGB. See just a part of his "stories" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. He also regulary "threatens" to publish other such articles. Please see also his threats here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Let.27s_make_small_changes_gradually_and_discuss_every_change_first. And by the way Biophys perfectly fits into WP:OWN definition. He regularly mentions that he created the article and other users are always disturbing him. I think WP:OWN is perfect description of his behaviour. See even the same suggestions that Biophys always writes do match perfectly there http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:OWN#Comments Vlad fedorov 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on user Biophys behaviour on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. Other users should know who Biophys is. Vlad fedorov 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Operation Sarindar

I have made several improvements to the article but it still needs a lot of work. If this Operation really existed, someone should find evidence and information about its historical significance (whether it dealt with Libya or some other country). Over 95% of the article is about the bizarre speculation that this program from the 1970s was reinvented in 2003 for Iraq. While that speculation may be worth mentioning, there is next to nothing here about the operation that supposedly existed in the 1970s (the only thing, by the way, that Mr. Pacepa would reasonably have any actual knowledge about, since he has been gone from there for 30 years). So if this really existed, surely some books have recorded information about the historical existence of this operation. I ask Biophys to please come back with some information about the history of this rather than more about the Iraq allegations (which are more than thoroughly covered here). I will note that I searched print sources of information for this Operation and it isn't covered by anyone. Not a single newspaper or magazine in Lexis/Nexis database has ever mentioned the phrase "Operation Sarindar." Nor has a single journal in the EBSCOHost database (over 3,000 journals) or the Infotrac database (over 9,700 periodicals) ever mentioned the phrase "Operation Sarindar." So it looks like all we have are Mr. Pacepa's claims. csloat 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

much ado about nothing

I just fixed this part - a quote from Pacepa: "All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction. Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third World countries, which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retain lethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway." That's pretty funny - so apparently Shaw and Pacepa are ultimately accusing Russia and Iraq of doing exactly what the US wanted Iraq to do from the beginning -- destroying their WMDs. Why is this alleged operation being used as a political punching bag against Bush opponents? It really makes very little sense. csloat 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The above rhetorical question, "Why is this alleged operation being used as a political punching bag against Bush opponents?", is quite revealing of a certain mindset, more in the MoveOn–Daily Kos–The Huffington Post vein, than WP. Why view everything through the prism of whether one agrees or disagrees with President George W. Bush (I take that's what Bush refers to, yes?) I say, let's keep the discussion focussed on sources, and how to interpret them (as in the objections in the previous paragraph), and leave the politics surrounding the 43rd President of the United States aside. Fair enough? Turgidson 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is not my comment that reveals that mindset; it is the material in this article that does so! Jack Shaw admits that he pushed this story solely to help Bush in the election. So don't shoot the messenger. csloat 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So John A. Shaw is supposed to have admitted to such a dastardly deed: push for the re-election of the President during the United States presidential election, 2004—picture that! By the way, the source for this assertion is The Washington Times, which I remember being called by csloat a "questionable source" somewhere on this very same talk page—is that (highly subjective) qualificative still operative? And, according to Bill Gertz, what Jack Shaw said was, "Getting the truth out instantly was more important than process." How does that translate into "pushed this story solely to help Bush in the election"? — Turgidson 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't understand my point about the Washington Times, the time to ask about it was then. As for Shaw, if you don't understand what he said, you might read the entire quote: "The Kerry media-driven October surprise attack on us and the president stopped within hours," Mr. Shaw wrote. "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." csloat 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Turgidson, you probably noted that csloat not only deleted everything about Bodansky, but also deleted a lot of other things. It seems that article should be renamed back as "Russia and Saddam WMD" and content restored...Biophys 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand these mass deletes -- how can they be justified? One should argue first on the talk page, before engaging in such drastic changes. And, if it means deleting sourced material, based on reputable sources, then it's downright against WP policies. I haven't followed each and every twist of this saga lately -- there are many other things going on -- but, if that's the case, it's not good. Could you please summarize what those deletes entailed, and how they affect the article? As about the title -- I'm a bit leery of using just "Saddam WMD", sounds a bit too colloquial (and, at any rate, it should be "Saddam's WMD"). How about something a bit more formal, such as "Russia and Saddam Hussein's WMD"? Or, to keep things more symmetrical, at the level of states, why not "Russia and Iraq's WMD"? After all, though Saddam was a dictator, almost (but not quite) in absolute control of Iraq, he didn't technically own those WMD's, they were the property of the Iraqi state, right? On the other hand, perhaps it's better to emphasize this episode happended during Saddam Hussein's tenure. How can one best reconcile these considerations, while keeping the title short and to the point? Turgidson 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been no "mass deletes." I was very careful to explain each edit on the edit summary, and I will be happy to discuss any single one of them. If you have a question about any edit let me know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)

Another thing about the name of the article - it is and should remain "Operation Sarindar." That is the title that survived an AfD, and that is what the article is ostensibly about - a historical operation (an alleged operation actually, one that apparently never existed) that was allegedly revived in 2003. You cannot keep changing the name of the article just because you want to include tangential information or exclude information that you disagree with. We should stick to notable and, as Turgidson mentions, reputable sources. In fact the two main sources for this article - Shaw and Pacepa - do not qualify, but they are at least mentioned by some notable sources. But self-published blogs and questionable sources like newsmax should not be used for soapboxing here (see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX for details). Please see the above section of this talk page, where I pressed Biophys to please help us with the historical background of Operation Sarindar. That sort of information would be especially useful in order to avoid precisely the problem that Turgidson points out -- the use of this article as some sort of political football. This should be an encyclopedia article that explains (in a neutral manner) an alleged historical event. csloat 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. This article was kept after first AfD discusssion under name "Russia and Saddam Hussein WMD". Name "Russia and Iraq's WMD" is even better. But such topic is much wider and partly different; it should describe the history of Russian-Iraqi military/WMD cooperation (which I do not mind). Main problem with this article is very simple: scloat deletes all sources (including scholarly book by Bodansky) to promote his POV. After all, I strongly agree with Piotrus and Turgidson that either a name of this article should be changed, or a different article (such as "Russia and Iraq's WMD") must be written from scratch.Biophys 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Start another article if you think there is a different topic worth talking about here; this article is about Operation Sarindar. Repeatedly changing the title whenever you have a conflict with someone is a sure sign of WP:DE and WP:OWN violations. I am not promoting any POV here; I am trying to make this an encyclopedic article. Bodansky stuff was deleted for violating WP:NOR as you are well aware. csloat 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, we are changing title back, and this is already supported by two people besides me. There are no WP:NOR violations here as you are well aware.Biophys 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Start a new article if you want. I don't see any vote about changing a title; your assertion appears false. You are being disruptive; start an RfC on this article if you want to make such a major change. Also it would help if you at least attempt to make an argument in favor of why you would make such a change in this article - rendering more of a political football than it currently is - rather than attempting to improve the article as it is. csloat 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Charles R. Smith, "Russia Moved Iraqi WMD. Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon," NewsMax, March 3, 2005.
  2. ^ a b c d Yossef Bodansky The Secret History of the Iraq War. Regan Books, 2005, ISBN 0-060-73680-1
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference CBN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMD_conjecture_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq/Archive_1&oldid=1191253125"