This summary is only to make it easier to get a quick overview without having to wade through the articles talk page. My own summary of course and I invite
I. Pankonin to put his version forward.
To put the edits in context we need to look at what the edit is referring to.
The lead says: "The main rationale for the Iraq War ..... was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
The long standing original text read: "After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of any such weapons."
My position is that this is short, factual, to the point and entirely appropriate for a lead.
I. Pankonin changed this in a way that while factually correct implies that the The main rationale for the Iraq War was correct and only the quantities found contradicts the rationale.
As a result of
I. Pankonin's concerns I later changed the original text to read: "After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed." to make even clearer what exactly was being referred to.
I. Pankonin claims reverting his change is an attempt to cover up the existence of these WMD, however, the changes he wants to make are covered in detail here:
Rationale for the Iraq War#Discovery of degraded chemical weapons, which I directed him to.
I. Pankonin accepted the programs but still disputes that "no WMD have been found" although this is not what the sentence says and wants it to read: "Undeclared chemical weapons were found after the invasion".
As per our discussions in
Talk:Iraq War#WMDs found in Iraq, I contend that the majority of RS (not to mention the Duefler report) do not consider these weapons dangerous and believe the Iraqi government was not aware of their existence so it is misleading to mention them in the lead when they are already covered in a more appropriate article. I was not the first to revert the edit and have several editors supporting me and several editors are now supporting
I. Pankonin. I will leave it to mediation to find a solution.
Wayne
08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll draw people's attention to this short article from UPI. The weblink is dead now but the article was cited on numerous sites. I have italicized the appropriate section.
"Sarin Shells Made Before 1991 War
United Press International, May 31, 2004 http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=83E2BD4A-5F1C-4E84-9166-4E3A8E847643
"The 155-mm shells containing sarin gas that exploded in Iraq May 17 were manufactured before 1991, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. That was a pre-Gulf War shell, a different category than the weapons being sought by the Iraq Survey Group, Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, the joint staff deputy director for operations, told a Pentagon news briefing.
"The artillery shells were rigged to explode as a roadside bomb but failed to detonate. Apparently unknown to the bomber, the shells did not contain explosives but two liquid chemicals that were meant to mix and create sarin, a deadly nerve agent.
"U.S. Army soldiers found the shells and detonated them in place, releasing a small amount of sarin gas that sickened them.
"Rodriguez said the sarin shells were the only ones of their kind found yet.
"It's the only two we've seen the entire time, said Rodriguez.
"An artillery shell bearing traces of mustard gas was discovered in Baghdad, Knight-Ridder reported May 7.
"Neither find is being offered as evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged illegal weapons programs, one of the prime reasons offered by the Bush administration for the March 2003 invasion and war.
"Saddam's forces used both sarin and mustard gas against Kurds in Halabja in the 1980s."
Pre-Gulf War shells were "a different category" than the weapons being sought by the ISG. Combine this with Charles Duelfer's statement (which I mentioned further down this page):
"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ). (My italics)
These munitions were assumed to exist and were not what the ISG was asked to look for. Even the White House did not attempt to present these or the other relative handful of degraded shells as justification for the invasion. This alone should tell people something. I really think it should be "case closed" on whether decayed pre-1991 shells count as "WMD found". They do not. Dwtray2007 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been participating in the article and talk page discussions on this topic. I strongly feel that trying to qualify the conclusions of the
Iraq Survey Group with mention of weapons that were not part of the rationale for invasion is biased POV-pushing. The article is about the war that started in 2003, not the military history of Iraq. The rationale said that the weapons were in development and ready to use. That was wrong. The fact that there were a few hundred degraded shells from before 1991 doesn't change anything about the accuracy of the rationale for war. I don't think anyone needs to look further than
I. Pankonin's user page to decide whether this is POV-pushing.
1of3
17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it best to disregard potential bias through political beliefs as I. Pankonin has demonstrated good faith by inviting those who support my view to participate as well as those who support his. The dispute should be resolved on it's own merits. Wayne 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not trying to transform Wikipedia into Conservapedia. I like Conservapedia. They touch on issues I believe in. However, there is a lot of original research in their articles, and some of their sources are not reliable. I don't think the truth can be found by filtering out the things you disagree with.
I came to Wikipedia originally as a big reader of articles. I'm a fan of free information. I only started editing a few months ago when I was reading an article and noticed a particularly bad sentence that, in retrospect, violated numerous guidelines and should have been removed immediately. I brought attention to it on the talk page, and the (heated) discussion with other editors eventually led to research, and I ended up writing my first article.
As far as editing Wikipedia goes, I put Wiki guidelines ahead of my political convictions. I'd rather have an uncomfortable truth in an article than a comfortable lie. However, if something is uncomfortable to me and at the same time doesn't stand up to credible evidence, it is an injustice to me, and I will take steps to change it. That is the reason that I requested this mediation.
I hope we're able to find a compromise that satisfies all parties. It's a controversial issue, and there's bound to be some heated arguments, but I have confidence and hope that we'll be able to resolve this issue. The next step is formal approval of the mediation, and then we need to convince a mediator to work with us. I'm glad that everybody agreed to participate. -- I. Pankonin ( t/ c) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of this dispute until I was listed as an involved party (presumably because of a comment I posted at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq). I've just read the discussion over at Talk:Iraq War#WMDs found in Iraq and, frankly, it's ridiculous.
The simple fact of the matter is that, at the time of the invasion, Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor a program to produce them. The main justification for the invasion (that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to international peace and security) was completely wrong. Everyone in the world knows this, and you will not find a single, reliable published source who disagrees. Even the UK and US governments have stopped claiming that Iraq's WMDs were a threat.
It is true that Saddam hoped one day to resume WMD production, and it is also true that the ISG found some old, degraded munitions (but no usable weapons) in Iraq, but this was not what the Bush administration was saying in early 2003 and it does not, logically, support the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat and the invasion was justified.
By all means, let's discuss the ISG's findings in tedious detail where appropriate but the lead section should be worded so the reader is left in no doubt that this rationale for the invasion was simply wrong. Sideshow Bob Roberts 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I also think, frankly, that this debate is absurd. If one thing has been demonstrated now beyond reasonable doubt, it is that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, nor programs to develop them.
On the specific point of the degraded shells, I shall repeat what I said on the relevant talk page. Firstly, they are munitions and not weapons. Secondly, they were battlefield munitions at that, so no threat to other countries in the manner presented. Thirdly, and this is important, Duelfer himself stated:
"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ).
So those munitions do not count. Even the head of the (American-led) post invasion inspections has stated that. The official justification of the invasion was unfounded, was believed to be unfounded at the time by a great many people (French and Russian Governments, former head of UNSCOM Scott Ritter), and has since proved to be unfounded. Not only that, but it contradicted the White House's own statements only a year or so previously (In 2001, Powell and Rice both stated that Iraq was effectively unarmed):
‘[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.’ (US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa, Ittihadiya Palace, Cairo, Egypt 24th, February 2001, quoted in CBS News, ‘Powell '01: WMDs Not 'Significant'’, viewable at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml , video viewable at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5502.htm )
"…let's remember that his [Saddam Hussein’s] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 29th July 2001, video viewable at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5502.htm )
It also contradicted a CIA assessment in 2003:
‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox [1998] to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.’ (CIA report, February 2003, quoted by NBC News 24th February 2003, viewable at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/ )
So, really, what more needs to be said? Dwtray2007 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This summary is only to make it easier to get a quick overview without having to wade through the articles talk page. My own summary of course and I invite
I. Pankonin to put his version forward.
To put the edits in context we need to look at what the edit is referring to.
The lead says: "The main rationale for the Iraq War ..... was the belief that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
The long standing original text read: "After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of any such weapons."
My position is that this is short, factual, to the point and entirely appropriate for a lead.
I. Pankonin changed this in a way that while factually correct implies that the The main rationale for the Iraq War was correct and only the quantities found contradicts the rationale.
As a result of
I. Pankonin's concerns I later changed the original text to read: "After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed." to make even clearer what exactly was being referred to.
I. Pankonin claims reverting his change is an attempt to cover up the existence of these WMD, however, the changes he wants to make are covered in detail here:
Rationale for the Iraq War#Discovery of degraded chemical weapons, which I directed him to.
I. Pankonin accepted the programs but still disputes that "no WMD have been found" although this is not what the sentence says and wants it to read: "Undeclared chemical weapons were found after the invasion".
As per our discussions in
Talk:Iraq War#WMDs found in Iraq, I contend that the majority of RS (not to mention the Duefler report) do not consider these weapons dangerous and believe the Iraqi government was not aware of their existence so it is misleading to mention them in the lead when they are already covered in a more appropriate article. I was not the first to revert the edit and have several editors supporting me and several editors are now supporting
I. Pankonin. I will leave it to mediation to find a solution.
Wayne
08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll draw people's attention to this short article from UPI. The weblink is dead now but the article was cited on numerous sites. I have italicized the appropriate section.
"Sarin Shells Made Before 1991 War
United Press International, May 31, 2004 http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=83E2BD4A-5F1C-4E84-9166-4E3A8E847643
"The 155-mm shells containing sarin gas that exploded in Iraq May 17 were manufactured before 1991, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. That was a pre-Gulf War shell, a different category than the weapons being sought by the Iraq Survey Group, Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, the joint staff deputy director for operations, told a Pentagon news briefing.
"The artillery shells were rigged to explode as a roadside bomb but failed to detonate. Apparently unknown to the bomber, the shells did not contain explosives but two liquid chemicals that were meant to mix and create sarin, a deadly nerve agent.
"U.S. Army soldiers found the shells and detonated them in place, releasing a small amount of sarin gas that sickened them.
"Rodriguez said the sarin shells were the only ones of their kind found yet.
"It's the only two we've seen the entire time, said Rodriguez.
"An artillery shell bearing traces of mustard gas was discovered in Baghdad, Knight-Ridder reported May 7.
"Neither find is being offered as evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged illegal weapons programs, one of the prime reasons offered by the Bush administration for the March 2003 invasion and war.
"Saddam's forces used both sarin and mustard gas against Kurds in Halabja in the 1980s."
Pre-Gulf War shells were "a different category" than the weapons being sought by the ISG. Combine this with Charles Duelfer's statement (which I mentioned further down this page):
"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ). (My italics)
These munitions were assumed to exist and were not what the ISG was asked to look for. Even the White House did not attempt to present these or the other relative handful of degraded shells as justification for the invasion. This alone should tell people something. I really think it should be "case closed" on whether decayed pre-1991 shells count as "WMD found". They do not. Dwtray2007 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been participating in the article and talk page discussions on this topic. I strongly feel that trying to qualify the conclusions of the
Iraq Survey Group with mention of weapons that were not part of the rationale for invasion is biased POV-pushing. The article is about the war that started in 2003, not the military history of Iraq. The rationale said that the weapons were in development and ready to use. That was wrong. The fact that there were a few hundred degraded shells from before 1991 doesn't change anything about the accuracy of the rationale for war. I don't think anyone needs to look further than
I. Pankonin's user page to decide whether this is POV-pushing.
1of3
17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it best to disregard potential bias through political beliefs as I. Pankonin has demonstrated good faith by inviting those who support my view to participate as well as those who support his. The dispute should be resolved on it's own merits. Wayne 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not trying to transform Wikipedia into Conservapedia. I like Conservapedia. They touch on issues I believe in. However, there is a lot of original research in their articles, and some of their sources are not reliable. I don't think the truth can be found by filtering out the things you disagree with.
I came to Wikipedia originally as a big reader of articles. I'm a fan of free information. I only started editing a few months ago when I was reading an article and noticed a particularly bad sentence that, in retrospect, violated numerous guidelines and should have been removed immediately. I brought attention to it on the talk page, and the (heated) discussion with other editors eventually led to research, and I ended up writing my first article.
As far as editing Wikipedia goes, I put Wiki guidelines ahead of my political convictions. I'd rather have an uncomfortable truth in an article than a comfortable lie. However, if something is uncomfortable to me and at the same time doesn't stand up to credible evidence, it is an injustice to me, and I will take steps to change it. That is the reason that I requested this mediation.
I hope we're able to find a compromise that satisfies all parties. It's a controversial issue, and there's bound to be some heated arguments, but I have confidence and hope that we'll be able to resolve this issue. The next step is formal approval of the mediation, and then we need to convince a mediator to work with us. I'm glad that everybody agreed to participate. -- I. Pankonin ( t/ c) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of this dispute until I was listed as an involved party (presumably because of a comment I posted at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq). I've just read the discussion over at Talk:Iraq War#WMDs found in Iraq and, frankly, it's ridiculous.
The simple fact of the matter is that, at the time of the invasion, Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor a program to produce them. The main justification for the invasion (that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to international peace and security) was completely wrong. Everyone in the world knows this, and you will not find a single, reliable published source who disagrees. Even the UK and US governments have stopped claiming that Iraq's WMDs were a threat.
It is true that Saddam hoped one day to resume WMD production, and it is also true that the ISG found some old, degraded munitions (but no usable weapons) in Iraq, but this was not what the Bush administration was saying in early 2003 and it does not, logically, support the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat and the invasion was justified.
By all means, let's discuss the ISG's findings in tedious detail where appropriate but the lead section should be worded so the reader is left in no doubt that this rationale for the invasion was simply wrong. Sideshow Bob Roberts 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I also think, frankly, that this debate is absurd. If one thing has been demonstrated now beyond reasonable doubt, it is that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, nor programs to develop them.
On the specific point of the degraded shells, I shall repeat what I said on the relevant talk page. Firstly, they are munitions and not weapons. Secondly, they were battlefield munitions at that, so no threat to other countries in the manner presented. Thirdly, and this is important, Duelfer himself stated:
"We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard." (Talk of the Nation, NPR June 22nd 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 ).
So those munitions do not count. Even the head of the (American-led) post invasion inspections has stated that. The official justification of the invasion was unfounded, was believed to be unfounded at the time by a great many people (French and Russian Governments, former head of UNSCOM Scott Ritter), and has since proved to be unfounded. Not only that, but it contradicted the White House's own statements only a year or so previously (In 2001, Powell and Rice both stated that Iraq was effectively unarmed):
‘[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.’ (US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa, Ittihadiya Palace, Cairo, Egypt 24th, February 2001, quoted in CBS News, ‘Powell '01: WMDs Not 'Significant'’, viewable at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml , video viewable at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5502.htm )
"…let's remember that his [Saddam Hussein’s] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 29th July 2001, video viewable at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5502.htm )
It also contradicted a CIA assessment in 2003:
‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox [1998] to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.’ (CIA report, February 2003, quoted by NBC News 24th February 2003, viewable at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/ )
So, really, what more needs to be said? Dwtray2007 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)