Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Archives

March 2006 – September 2006

Contents 1 Disclosure of nuclear weapons design; Article cleanup needed 2 "May or may not"? 3 Help requested sorting out references 4 Purpose & Appropriate

[edit] Disclosure of nuclear weapons design; Article cleanup needed

NYT says the website was pulled because they posted some serious nuclear stuff, we need some hands to help work this article esp. since it had some exposure on the drudge report. Emax0 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC also said (c 3 Nov 06) that all the documents had been pulled because nuclear weapon design information was there (in Arabic). The 'expert' on the BBC World item refused to discuss in detail what was released, as it was too sensitive. But it seems hard to turn up any news about this. Is it a cover up? - Earthlyreason

[edit] "May or may not"?

Papers "may or may not" have been produced by Saddam Hussein's government? This is meaningless. Clearly someone thinks they were: quote them, and give attribution. E.g. "Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents refers to ... that the U.S. Government claims were produced by the government of Saddam Hussein". Or something. Anything's better than a meaningless tautology. JulesH 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some were, some weren't. The docs included letters to Saddam Hussein, translations of documents from other sources, etc. They were presumably mostly found in intel offices, but even that is not sure. One of the docs that was cited early as an example of "proof" of Saddam's ties to terrorism was described as a secret Mukhabarat document; it turned out it was an Arabic translation of a web page that had been published by the Federation of American Scientists in the mid-1990s. There are a lot of different documents here - some 48000 boxes, apparently - so it would be inaccurate to claim they actually were produced by the Saddam govt or even that they are suspected to have been produced by it. I agree that "may or may not" is atrocious, however; it was the best whoever wrote that passage could come up with at the time -- I'm sure we can do better (e.g. "documents found during OIF"?)--csloat 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested sorting out references

I've tried to put the references for this page in standard format, but there are a number of broken links. We also need some attention to the external links; there may be duplications... Alba 05:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of the broken links are because the documents were taken offline. I also think all the Shahda documents should be removed. Few took him seriously before, but it is now very clear that he is off the deep end; his "[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1712947/posts Coded letter find]" last month should have been the nail in the coffin of his credibility (even the freepers laughed at him). The fact that he and the Republicans who were instrumental in getting this material prematurely published have possibly compromised US national security is a sad irony of their cluelessness. --csloat 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose & Appropriate

Is the purpose of this article to reference Iraqi Freedom documents, or is it to serve as a repository of essays regarding Iraqi Freedom documents. I removed one such instance from external links that was particularly POV, however it should be noted that they're rife on both sides of the issue and should probably be removed. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that such links should only be included if they are referred to in the article or if they are important documents about the issue.-csloat 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to provide information on this important innovation in intelligence analysis. It is especially important for articles about DOCEX to be included since DOCEX itself has been taken down. Your complaint about linked articles being POV is no reason not to include them. Wikipedia's policy on NPOV is not about silencing POVs but on giving voice to all legitimate POVs. I have restored the link you deleted. The issue discussed in the link certainly warrants discussion in the article itself, but discussion in the article is not required. One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to provide researchers with additional sources for their research. RonCram 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, you've deleted a lot of valid information detailing recent events. I'll be reverting. Second, the purpose of this article, like all others on wikipedia, is to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable information in a NPOV manner. Third, this "important innovation in intelligence analysis" led to a huge breach in national security (which is the information you deleted, replacing it with outdated information). Fourth, as for the links, if they aren't cited in the article, they should go - there is no reason for a lengthy list of articles from the Weekly Standard. If I started putting in a list of articles from the World Socialist, they would rightly be deleted (unless they were valid references from the article). Fifth, you added a bunch of unnecessary junk to the New York Times website link that applies to session information - such information should not be stored on Wikipedia. The link ending in html is fine. If you are going to change anything back, please justify changes individually (and make them individually) rather than wholesale reverting; I am guessing at least one or two of the issues I am reverting here were honest mistakes. Welcome back, Ron!--csloat 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not delete any valid information. The claim the documents revealed nuclear information not available elsewhere is still on the page after my edits. You can check the history. I only restored information that should not have been deleted. Second, the purpose is to provide information in an NPOV manner and deleting information like you and your friend have done is not NPOV. Third, "the important innovation in intelligence analysis" has been wrongly castigated by the intelligence community. Readers deserve access to published information on both sides of this debate. Your edits are limiting readers to only one side of the story. This is not NPOV. Fourth, the articles linked will eventually be noted in the article itself. You have to give some time for the information to be read by the wikipedia community so the info can be digested and written into the article. Fifth, I do not understand your comment regarding "session information." RonCram 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found the info regarding "session information" you mentioned. That was not a change I made intentionally but was the way it was on the page I reverted to. The way it was, it linked to the printable version of the article - which I think is fine but I have taken out the session info since you requested it. However, you have not demonstrated that the information you deleted was outdated or POV and so I have restored it.RonCram 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you deleted an entire section entitled "Nuclear secrets" that dealt with recent developments in favor of adding in outdated information. The material that was deleted is out of date and no longer relevant -- nobody found any Saddam/alQaeda links in the documents, the SSCI confirmed this, and the question of whether these materials were properly exploited before being released on the net is no longer a relevant one. It's odd to me that a couple days after you come back you immediately start a revert war by making edits that make it seem as if nothing changed in the world after you stopped editing wikipedia. I'm not sure who my "friend" is in your post. You say I am limiting info to one side of the story; I see no evidence you've even read what you deleted. What is it you think I am hiding? If an article "will eventually be noted" then it should "eventually" be cited -- we cite sources when we make the claims that need the cites, not before we've even used them for anything.-csloat 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I am sorry. I did not scroll down far enough to notice that change. I did not intend to delete that material. Although, after reading it, I am not certain it is encyclopedic. It seems rather polemic to me, but I would not have just deleted the info without discussing it and the reasons for deleting. Your claim that no one found any Saddam/al Qaeda links is not accurate. The SSCI did publish a report making that claim but the report itself was roundly criticized in the ongoing debate. Your attempt to limit wikipedia readers knowledge of this onging debate is not NPOV. Your "friend" is Blaxthos. He has a very similar POV as you do. I strongly disagree with your view that the article has to note a citation before the link is allowed to stay. Wikipedia is a collaborative community effort. Ideally, one person can add a link and someone else can read it and add an entry to the narrative. Your idea is not wikipedia policy. One of the main purposes of an encyclopedia is provide additional sources for researchers so they can do further research. RonCram 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't know Blaxthos. The SSCI report was "roundly criticized in the ongoing debate"??? If by "roundly criticized" you mean "treated as the final word on the topic by all serious commentators" then perhaps you have a point. There is no "ongoing debate" about this - the matter is settled; except for a few voices out on the extreme fringe of right-wing conspiracy theory, and those voices are not encyclopedic. The Republican-led Senate Committee was pretty resounding in its conclusions on the matter. As for citing every article you find in the Weekly Standard, it doesn't fly. If we aren't using the article or referring to it in the text of the article it shouldn't be there. I'm not going to start filling up the list of references with cites from leftwing sources for "balance." None of that stuff belongs there. NPOV sources or government documents or other official sources are relevant, but editorial comments from extremist hacks on either side do not belong unless they are explicitly cited.-csloat 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone to stand on -- it is an attempt to catalogue knowledge. WP:NPOV is not a blunt instrument you can use to wedge POV sources or information into articles, via references or external links. As far as RonCram -- I only just ran into him on another article a few days ago, and here. His behavior -- including false claims of personal attacks, and repeated POV pushing in multiple articles -- has caused me to no longer assume good faith regarding his edits or his agenda. I found this article quite by accident and noted (above) my question regarding its purpose and its POV (note on both sides). I do not have the time to argue back and forth with editors with an agenda -- I will gladly participate in any RfC's or straw polls on this topic, but I won't give validation to those who game the system or wikilawyer. /Blaxthos 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)