Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia and Saddam WMD allegations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Saddam WMD allegations

Russia and Saddam WMD allegations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Please see this version Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable conspiracy theory associated with a disreputable character John A. Shaw and not backed up by WP:RS; all items are sourced to NewsMax and Washington Times. Most of the article is a list of items from the NewsMax article purporting to prove the conspiracy theory. Anything useful here should be merged into the Shaw article and this one should be deleted. csloat 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Marking an article for AfD is not the way to discuss merging. I think there is a violation of certain commonly accepted WP procedures here. It was suggested to merge this article with other articles just a day ago. This is great. We started discussing this question at the talk page. I suggested to try some improvements and then decide about merging. So, why not to allow me to improve this article first, and then decide? What would happen if everyone started marking articles for deletion instead of discussing their merging and working under their improvement?Biophys 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I am creator of this article). According to WP rules this is not a majority vote. What are concerns here? 1. Notability. This is a notable controversy because it is widely known (including a lot of Google hits), supported by several notable people and describes a notable controversial subject (Iraqi WMD and possible involvement of Russia). 2. Sources. There are numerous sources and all of them satisfy WP:SOURCE. Based on 1 and 2 , there are no reasons for deletion. 3. Merging. The only reasonable suggestion here could be merging with Post-Saddam WMD search which includes "transported to other countries" section. However, Post-Saddam WMD search is already excessively long. So, it is simply more convenient for readers and more logical to have this article separately.Biophys 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Deleting the article does not preclude merging. If there is any notable content here that is not already in the John A. Shaw article -- and I'm not sure there is -- I've already suggested that it should be merged into that article. But this article itself should be deleted. csloat 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. This article is about certain allegations, not a biography of Mr. Shaw. Allegations come from several different persons, not only Mr. Shaw. So, there is no way to merge this article with his biography. Also, merging with Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is not a good solution. First, Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy is already very big (maybe too big) article, and this article is also rather large. Second, this article includes claims and issues that do not belong at all to Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy: Pacepa, operation "Sarindar", claims about chemical and perhaps biological weapons, etc. Honestly, I can not understand your concerns. This is a prominent controversy described in media. Why not to have it in Wikipedia? No one claims here this story is proven or truth. See: there is a large Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. This is just one of these controversies. I guess you think it is not notable. O'K, let's see what other people think. Biophys 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Seems notable and well referenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. non-notable conspiracy theory associated with a disreputable character John A. Shaw and not backed up by WP:RS. Besides, Biophys deletes insertions of sourced text, that tells that John A. Shaw brought these false allegations to support president Bush on elections. Vlad fedorov 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless backed up by a reliable source. Orderinchaos 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. The claims by these people were made in NewsMax, Washington Times, FrontPageMag.com, CBN News and FOX News. These sources perfectly satisfy WP:SOURCE. These claims may be false or true, but this is completely irrelevant (verifiability, not truth). It only matters that such claims have indeed been made by these people (based on reliable sources).Biophys 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Newsmax, Frontpagemag, WTimes, and CBN are all one-sided politically motivated sources of questionable reliability. FOX news did not corroborate this entire story. The issue is not just verifiability (e.g. if Newsmax quoted it was it probably said) but also notability -- if the only sources treating this story as significant are extreme right wing publications, it is probably not encyclopedic. If this really is "news," surely Wikipedia can wait for the NYT or CBS to pick the story up. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, all these sources are politically one-sided. But they satisfy WP:SOURCE. If there are any sources from the opposite part of political spectrum, we can cite them to make article as neutral as possible.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Idle conjecture (and wishful thinking) masquerading as plausible conspiracy theory. Non-notable. smb 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You say it is non-notable. Well, the Google search makes close to a million hits. The subject itself (Saddam's WMD and possible involvement of Russia) is certainly notable. Further, claims that the story is real come from the following notable people: (1) former Deputy Undersecretary of US Defense John A. Shaw, a top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs; (2) Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War; (3) Ion Mihai Pacepa who is certainly a good expert in such matters; (4) Thomas McInerney, and (5) Kenneth R. Timmerman.Biophys 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting who believes what here -- these five sources do not all believe the same thing; if they do, that is not what the quotations say. Where are the "one million hits" coming from? What are your google search parameters? I doubt all one million are actually about this specific story. csloat 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, all these sources do not tell exactly the same. It seems I cited everything correctly. Since you marked this article as AfD, I simply do not have enough time to do everything well and carefully research and read all sources. Please tell which sources you think are misrepresented at the talk page of this article.Biophys 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The following search-string returns only 200 pages: Iraq WMD Russia John-Shaw -world-war -ww2 -wwii -"cold war" smb 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Article passes the encyclopaedic test and WP is not concerned with truth - just if points of view are sourced from verifiable sources. Article needs to make crystal clear what are allegations and what is more factual.W. Frank 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The sources making the allegations are all of dubious reliability. Quadpus 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A request. Anyone who will be looking at the article, could you please take look at my last version here [1]? Vlad Fedorov deleted all reliable references from the article and transformed this article to a garbage, and now Quadpus is telling that article is "poorly sourced". Biophys 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I removed any non-dubious sources (And I don't believe I did), it was inadvertent. I only reverted the last change to the article. Quadpus 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. If you only think that section about Shaw belongs to Introduction, O'K I can instert it there, but keep all references, etc. O'K? Biophys 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or better, Merge for the reasons explained by CSloat; this is a non-notable conspiracy theory that is upheld seriously by only a guy, Shaw. Also the nature of the sources indicates that this is not taken seriously by any respectable media outlet.--Aldux 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply.As clear from the text, this theory was supported by several very notable guys, and I do not know how many other people. Your second point I think is irrelevant, because all sources satisfy WP:SOURCE. Mass media at the West are very "partisan". I would be very surprised if such news were printed in "liberal" Los Angeles Times, New York Times, BBC, or Guardian (and vice versa). This is just one of numerous "partisan" topics.Biophys 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge content to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Apart from that, the title is ridiculous (Russia and Saddam? Sounds like a bad movie), so move this article to something useful to preserve history, but delete the remaining redirect. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You say:"Russia and Saddam? Sounds like a bad movie". Could you take a look at articles Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990, Iraqi State Internal Security and some others? Iraq was one of very important partners of the Soviet Union and later Russia. Those billions of Iraqi debt to Russia - where they came from? Almost all Iraqi military equipment, from tanks to Kalashnikovs came from the Soviet Union and later Russia. Of course, to address well this point, one would have to create an article Iraqi-Russian military and intelligence cooperation, which I perhaps will do if this article is deleted. As about merging, this article might be merged with Post-Saddam WMD search which includes "transported to other countries" section). However, Post-Saddam WMD search is already excessively long. So, it is simply more convenient for readers to have this article separately.Biophys 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was merely commenting on the title, not the content. A better title would be "Allegations of Russian WMD support to Iraq" or something to that extend. And yes, the title Post-Saddam WMD search is also a horrible title for an encyclopedia article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But then you probably suggest to rename this article rather than merge? Biophys 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting a merge, but if kept, please change the title. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an interesting article, on a notable topic. The Ion Mihai Pacepa article in the Washington Times (on which this is partly based) comes from a knowledgeable observer of such affairs. The article seems worth developing and polishing, not spiking. Turgidson 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

comment. That's not a news article, it's an opinion piece in a paper which has a reputation for partisanship and lax ethical standards. Quadpus 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

comment. Says who? Turgidson 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

comment pretty much everyone. csloat 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

comment Then back it up in the respective article, instead of making unverified assertions on this talk page. And, while at it, define "pretty much everyone". That means >95% of people on Earth, or what? Turgidson 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan to do your research for you. Pick up a copy of Washington Times and judge for yourself, or do some research about it yourself and figure it out. "Pretty much everyone" to me means everyone familiar with the publication, not everyone on earth. csloat 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks: the burden is not on me to prove your assertions -- it's on you. And, as far as I can tell, all this talk about "reputation", "pretty much everyone" knows, etc, is just pure speculation, with no verifiable sources to back it up. Turgidson 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then don't assert that a well-known unreliable source is reliable. Thanks. csloat 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

comment. Well-known by whom? Certainly not by me. You have presented no evidence of your claim, which makes your claim unsourced. Vegasprof 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to accept that I'm not going to do your research for you or debate with you. Pick up a copy of the Washington Times at your leisure and make your own judgement, as I encouraged you to before. Or read about the paper on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet. Have a nice day. csloat 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

comment. The fact that there are completely alone every time they flog a story like this should be evidence enough. Regardless, the piece you are talking about is, as I said, an OP-ED piece and is therefore not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the author himself. Quadpus 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE "OP-ED piece" is a reliable source, especially if it is signed and dated.Biophys 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is amazing to me that a large portion of the argument for deletion is that the political orientations of the sources are not to the liking of the the people recommending deletion. False stories occur frequently in various media, all over the political spectrum. If a story in a publication is false, then it should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But, what reason is there to believe that these particular stories are false? Vegasprof 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would say weak keep, but a lot of the problems with the article seem to be due to edit warring. It's interesting, but the article needs work. For one thing, the title is misleading. From what I understand, Russia was alleged to have helped Iraq with WMDs prior 2002, but, although this is mentioned in some of the references' texts, this is barely addressed in the text of the article. Instead, the article is about a specific allegation that Russia hid Iraq weapons, an action I had previously only heard of Syria being accused of doing. Post-Saddam WMD search is a long article, but it should be at least the basis for the content of this article, including the title. Consider Theories that Iraqi WMDs were transported to other countries prior to invasion or Operation Sarindar. These are unwieldy and cryptic, respectively, but more reflective of content. The article could also be better organized, especially the introduction, which is far too long (though all this seems to be a result of edit warring), and the sections, which are organized by alleger rather than allegation (though, again, this seems to be a result of edit warring). On the other hand, the article is well-sourced and makes it clear that these are allegations haven't been proved. We allow articles for 9/11 conspiracy theories, endorsed most notably by celebrities and left-wing blogs, that allege that the U.S. government is lying about a terrorist attack. We should also allow an article with the more likely premise, reported by Fox and the Washington Times, that the Russian government is lying about its relationship with Iraq. If you don't like the content, just adjust it to be more NPOV and/or have more sources for the opposing theories. Though try not to degrade the article in the process. Calbaer 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You was right. It was completely degraded by Commodore Sloat after your notice. Please see this version: Russia and Saddam WMD allegations. The article was 3 times reduced by Commodore Sloat (who is AfD nominator), made extremely POV, etc. I will work with the article if it survives AfD discussion.Biophys 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Topic is notable and content seems to be sourced. --Richard 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if you want, but i would advise to simply merge it in. the main article. There's an appropriate place; the Shaw allegations just expand on what is already there in transported to another country., . Pacepa doesn't seem to have said they were removed, it says the Russians helped Saddam destroy them. that would be a new section there. What the truth of the matter may be is not the point. There are a number of suggestiosn reported in the press; probably only one is correct, but they were all reported and can be discussed in WP. DGG 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. There are many helpful critical comments here. The title must be changed, and even the subject of this article must be slightly different as not to overlap with other articles. None of the existing versions is really good. Not my version [2], and not the current one. But all of that can be worked out. Biophys 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.