Talk:John A. Shaw

Let's try to keep the page NPOV
I know it is difficult because Shaw has said publicly that Russia helped Iraq move its WMD to Syria and Lebanon. The Bush Administration did not appreciate this statement even though Shaw was backed up by satellite photos and British intelligence. Shaw was later accused of wrongdoing in response to Shaw's charges of wrongdoing against others in the Bush Administration. With this controversy, charges and countercharges flying, it is difficult to be NPOV. But please try. Make certain your entries are factual and well-documented. Remember that Shaw has not been convicted of anything and neither has Doug Feith. And let's try to find some factual information about Shaw prior to his statements about Russia that got him in trouble. RonCram 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, look at the articles, Ron. The page pretty accurately reports the story as in the articles.  The charges about Russia suddenly disappeared after the election, and Mr. Shaw was unable to produce the supposed evidence.  Meanwhile, as explained on the al-Qa'qaa page, it was confirmed through satellite photos that the weapons were removed after the US invasion.  I guess it doesn't matter, though, now that you've simply taken to deleting my arguments instead of responding to them.  I'm sure you'll find a way to delete the accurate information from this page and then accuse me of "censorship."--csloat 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * csloat, when I respond to your arguments, you claim my remarks are not relevant. When I tire of talking to you and choose not to respond, you claim I have conceded the point. On my own User Talk page, the one thing I can do is delete you.  I will do it again.  Stay off of my User Talk. If you wish to talk about articles, do it in the appropriate Talk pages.RonCram 14:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your talk page, Ron, I was only responding to your false claims. I have not restored my words there but only registered my point - your deletion is pure censorship, like your deletion of the NYT quote below.-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaw is not under investigation - or is he?
Contrary to csloat's belief, John Shaw is not under investigation for his investigations into corruption in contracts for Iraqi telecommunications. Instead, those who attempted to discredit Shaw are under investigation by the FBI. RonCram 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, I attempted to track down the DoD news release and found this.RonCram 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to a report by Bill Gertz, John Shaw was provided certain investigative powers by DoD Inspector General. Gertz writes: "The program is led by John Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who also is a Pentagon inspector general for international armament and trade through a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon inspector general."  This disclosure makes one wonder why the DoD News Release was pulled since Shaw was given the power to investigate certain matters internationally. RonCram 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying now is that the DoD is part of the conspiracy? Is this the same conspiracy as the one involving the CIA and John Negroponte?-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That is not at all what I'm saying. BTW, you know full well that I do not put Negroponte in the same category as Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer and Valerie Plame (all of whom have skirted or violated the law).  Here's the issue: A News Release that cleared Shaw was posted on August 10 and then removed sometime later.  To say that is odd is a huge understatement.  It probably represents a power struggle inside the DoD between the pro-Shaw forces and the pro-Feith forces.  Or, it could be that the pro-Shaw people who got the News Release posted originally simply overstepped when they claimed the people who tried to discredit Shaw were under investigation by the FBI.  In other words, the portion that said Shaw was not under investigation may be true and the part about the FBI investigation of those who tried to discredit Shaw may have been false. Some type of review of the situation occurred, but no announcement of the outcome. The fact Shaw is out making public appearances kind of leads me to think that he believes he is out of all legal danger.  I know my comments here are full of speculation and do not belong in an encyclopedia.  On the other hand, we certainly cannot write about Shaw like he is a suspected criminal.  We have to lay out the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. RonCram 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron, none of the people you have named have even been accused of violating the law, and none of them are under investigation for doing so. Shaw is.  Probably the article was removed because it was an error; not everything is a sign of a power struggle.  I doubt there are many "pro-Shaw people" -- that not even Feith will take him seriously is indicative of how far gone he must be.  Shaw has been suspected of crimes as delineated in the LATimes article, so "suspected criminal" is not inaccurate -- though I would agree it is pretty POV and I hope I didn't insert it into the encyclopedia.  What I say on the talk page is not audited for POV like what goes in the encyclopedia.  You and I agree Ron as far as laying out the facts goes; it's just your selectiveness regarding the facts that is sometimes deceptive.--csloat 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is an example of a POV entry to be avoided

 * It's also because of incompetent Pentagon planning that other troops may now be victims of weapons looted from Saddam's munitions depots after the fall of Baghdad. Yet when The New York Times reported one such looting incident, in Al Qaqaa, before the election, the administration and many in the blogosphere reflexively branded the story fraudulent. But the story was true. It was later corroborated not only by United States Army reservists and national guardsmen who spoke to The Los Angeles Times but also by Iraq's own deputy minister of industry, who told The New York Times two months ago that Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America's undermanned post-invasion watch.

Note the gratuitous attack against the Bush Administration. Note also the failure to provide any citations to support the entry. This is a good example of the type of writing wikipedia is trying to avoid. RonCram 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your removal of this quote is pure vandalism, as I explained below. I have restored it.-csloat 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I misread this as your writing. You have my apology below. RonCram 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Issues around the al-Qaqaa weapons dump
ABC News reports:
 * But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported. The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

In essence, the claims by the Iraqis that 380 tons of weapons were looted from the weapons dump after the invasion is simply not true. It appears that possibly 3 tons are missing, instead of 380 tons. The rest of it was taken out of the dump prior to the invasion, as the satellite photos showed.RonCram 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron look at the dates of those articles. Right before the election.  It turns out a lot of the claims being thrown around by Bush supporters before the election about al Qaqaa were false.  The satellite images you refer to show two trucks - hardly enough to move 380 tons of explosives - parked outside a different part of the facility than where the weapons were kept!  This is all on the al-qa'qaa page Ron, you should read it some time.  There was videotape from April 2003 that clearly showed the weapons still there.  This was reported in the NYT the same day as your Washington Times piece came out.  Then in March 2005 the NYT published more evidence that the weapons were removed by insurgents after the fall of Saddam.  The LATimes also published statements of US national guardsmen backing up the point that the weapons were removed after the fall of Saddam.  There were eyewitnesses who saw the insurgents loading up many trucks and systematically taking the weapons.  Meanwhile the Bush Admin promised an investigation in late 2004 but that investigation never materialized - suggesting that the Bush claims were mere electioneering to try to prevent an October Surprise on this issue.  Bush supporters -- except you, apparently -- dropped the issue completely after the election, but the evidence revealed since then supports the claim that they were removed after the fall of Saddam.  Of course, we know where they are now -- they are being used to kill Americans in Iraq.  Most ominously, the deputy minister of industry in Iraq (our guy, not Saddam's) has since told the NYT that "Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America's undermanned post-invasion watch." (NYT May 15, 2005).  I realize you won't believe any of this until you read it in the Weakly Standard, but I post it here for anyone else reading who may actually care about the truth.--csloat 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My goodness, csloat. First of all, the picture in the Washington Times showed two trucks, but there are many more pictures of many more trucks.  Second, Gen. Sada says much of the WMD was also flown from Iraq into Syria.  Third, Nizar Najoef, the award-winning Syrian journalist, wrote an article identifying where the WMD were hidden in Syria.  One article even includes the notes the journalist received from his informant.   You might also want to see the satellite photos of the Syrian locations including the surface-to-air missiles that protect the locations.  David Kay also admitted part of Saddam's WMD program was transported to Syria.  Kay is not convinced huge stockpiles went there, but he wanted the issue resolved.   You might also want to read the news reports that Syria moved some of the WMD to Sudan.  Unfortunately, this is hot international issue.  According to John Shaw, Russia was involved as well as Syria. The Bush Administration evidently feels it would be wrong to make a huge deal out of this.  Not all the weapons were removed from the facility prior to the war, mostly contraband weapons were removed.  Some conventional weapons were removed after the fall of Baghdad, but not nearly as many as the Iraqis claimed.  Did you bother to read the article I linked to above?  Only 3 tons were taken after the invasion, not 380 tons.  I do not deny other weapons caches were raided, but the amount lost is not nearly what was claimed by "our guy."  By the way, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that Iraqi government officials are "our guys" when you understand that being viewed that way in Iraq would be political suicide.  Iraqi politicians are constantly looking for ways to distance themselves from U.S. government. RonCram 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ron you are obfuscating the issue as usual. Dubious claims about weapons in Syria are a different issue than the al-qa'qaa weapons being stolen by insurgents. We have video of the weapons there after the invasion. You just assert that you have other satellite photos and then bring up the dubious claims of Sada et al. If you have evidence of WMD in Syria I'm sure the Pentagon would be interested but I am not. We were talking about al-qa'qaa and conventional weapons. I really don't feel like trying to disabuse you of your conspiracy theory. BTW even Scott McClellan in your precious moonie paper citation says there is no evidence to support Shaw's ludicrous theory. And again if you look at evidence after the election - not from late october 2004 - you see that the consensus is still that there were over 300 tons of weapons looted. And, again, as you ignored my argument let me restate -- al-qa'qaa was only one of several such facilities that were looted.--csloat 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) I think the Iraq-hid-WMDs-in-Syria conspiracy theory is notable enough now that it deserves its own page. The little slide show produced by the Lebanese Association, complete with scrawled map, is hilarious, reminiscent of Powell's cartoon SUV silliness. By all means, Ron, start such a page so such allegations can be more properly vetted; they're really not relevant here, methinks. It is pretty strange that people could think that Saddam went through years of trouble to create WMDs just so he could hide them in Syria and let himself get captured by American forces rather than actually using them when his survival was at stake. Now that Syria has these WMD (most of which must be so old as to be unusable, BTW), will they hide them in Egypt after we "liberate" them? --csloat 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ron don't vandalize this page anymore
Ron I just noticed your latest edit was sheer vandalism. You deleted a valid quote and did so in such a way that the sentence before it makes no sense. I'm going to assume this was an accident, even though you have done this before when you were losing an argument on your talk page, simply deleting my points completely. I didn't put them back there because it is your talk page, and if you want to show your friends how you got the last word in, more power to you. But I did fix your deletion here because it is valid information in the article; please do not vandalize articles to censor valid points. Also, please do not accuse me of censorship anymore (as you have numerous times) when it is obvious you are the one who prefers to simply delete valid information they find uncomfortable or annoying.--csloat 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * csloat, I truly apologize. I have to blame my eyes.  I truly thought that was your writing and not a quote as my comments above attest. You know it is not like me to just delete quotes. However, I reserve the right to delete anything on my User Talk page.  Regarding your request, I will be happy to stop talking about your censorship as long as you refrain from censoring. By the way, you have improved in that area. RonCram 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron I am not looking for your approval. You have never backed up your assertion that I censor material that is relevant and you will not be able to because it is not true.--csloat 19:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And let me add, thanks for the apology, and I will try harder to assume good faith when dealing with you, and I ask that you do the same. I apologize for jumping on your talk page about this article.  I had never heard of Shaw before but after looking at the article and then at the sources cited, it seemed to me you had gone out of your way to cover up the man's reported crimes and framed his allegations of conspiracy as pure fact.  I feel that the issue has been addressed.--csloat 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC's deletion
TDC has decided to follow me from article to article deleting quotations he doesn't agree with. I'm sorry TDC but the Frank Rich quotation is clearly marked as such and it presents relevant and factual info. If you don't like his opinion, get the NYT and LAT articles and quote them in a less opinionated manner; from your actions the only conclusion is that you intend not just to disparage Frank Rich but that your real goal is to censor the information about the Qa'qaa theft that the quote presents. I don't have a problem with the quote being removed if the information is still presented there. Those two news reports have never been refuted or even addressed by the 2004 election propagandists.--csloat 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop your edit war TDC. You are ignoring the arguments against your changes.  And your information about Russian generals is irrelevant here; there is nothing on that page about Shaw or these allegations.  It's amazing the lengths you are going to defend a known criminal.--csloat 23:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you have violated the 3RR, please change it back or I will (reluctantly) be forced to report this to the admin board. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I see why you have been baiting me. Interesting.--csloat 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Baiting you?!> WTF, had I been baiting you I would have reported you over this. Dont read intent into a situation where there is none. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been baiting me for weeks now TDC, and it's obvious to anyone following any of this trash. Please leave me alone so we can get back to improving this encyclopedia rather than continuing your little game.--csloat 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Me leave you alone! God Damn thats Rich! Not frank Rich .... cant stand that little prick. Anyhoo, I am not baiting anyone, so drop the paranoia, I am tired of bieng accused of everyhting under the sun by you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * TDC, you have been picking on me ever since your ridiculous attack on The Raw Story, which now is laughable since I see you inserting quotes from newsmax and citing blogs like IBD as legitimate sources. I don't care what you think about Frank Rich; his statement belongs here, or a clear summary of the factual information provided by his statement.  But stop acting like it is being quoted as gospel -- it has always been clear that his opinion is being stated as his opinion, and I see no reason for you to pull this quote out of the million or so opinion quotes on wikipedia and turn it into your personal jihad.  Other than that you are picking on me.  I have tried and tried to assume good faith with you but you keep pushing beyond the limits; you have been caught in numerous lies and distortions about these issues, and then you go on to accuse me of stalking.  It's insulting and it's annoying.  If you have something legitimate to contribute to wikipedia, wouldn;t your time be better spent doing that rather than picking fights with me, criticizing my reputation, and trying to censor quotations you disagree with?--csloat 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, and I usually do, I was not alone in challenging whether or not “Rawstory” conformed with the WP:V policy. And it is a “policy, by the way, not a guideline. I have also not cite a blog in the artle, just in talk, so there goes that straw man. As I have stated below, Rich’s comments on this are not notable, and most certainly not a paragraph’s worth. Lengthy quotes are usually discouraged in Wikipedia, and most can be wither condensed or placed in Wikiquote as per the guideline. As for my own personal “Jihad”, I am Christian, and do not go on “Jihads”, digital or otherwise, so please stop the personal attacks. For the record, I have not been picking on you, I merely observed, quite accurately I might add, that you have on many occasions followed users, myself included, from article to article and engaged in pointless edit wars with them. You have admitted to this, and I really do not see the point in debating this any further, but you continually bring it up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you usually recall correctly you will recall that I asked you to review wikipedia policy regarding stalking when you made that accusation. You will also recall that I have never stalked you and never "admitted" to stalking you.  It's odd that you can't seem to provide a diff to back up your ridiculous statement.  I am not interested in who you worship, Mr. Cudgel, but if you prefer I say you are on a crusade against this information rather than a jihad so be it.--csloat 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not in Jerusalem either so "Crusade" is not appropriate either. And, since you asked, here are the facts as you presented them:


 * The fact is I looked at your user contributions to see if you were engaged in the same kind of heavy-handed drive-by massive POV edits and censorship on other pages that you were engaged in on Plame affair and Salman Pak; I saw that indeed you were, and I intervened where I had information.


 * You can continue this, if you like, but I am going to get back to writing a great encyclopedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, yeah right. If you were to post the rest of that conversation you'd also notice that I quoted wikipedia policy; since you seem to have a poor memory, let's go through it again: "The term 'wiki-stalking' has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Now let's review. The important part is disruption -- "the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Not the intent of facilitating the truth. Looking at your edits, however, you jumped onto Plame affair with distorted charges about the The Raw Story source. During about a week of relentless whining about the source, you never saw fit to even attempt to edit the actual page about The Raw Story to include the information you thought was devastating to the source. If you really cared about the truth with your edits, why do you only introduce such claims where they are tangential at best, avoiding the article where they would be significant? You're pulling the same nonsense here; whining on and on about Frank Rich, yet there has never once been a TDC edit to the Frank Rich page. What brought you to this page anyway? Some kind of fondness for known criminals and liars like Mr. Shaw? Or the fact that I had posted here?--csloat 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on this page - RfC
I am starting an RfC on this page since both myself and TDC engaged in 3 reverts over a 24 hour period and we are nowhere closer to resolving the issues here. It is my contention that the two facts presented by the NYT and LAT articles -- the LAT nov 04 shows that American troops witnessed the removal of weapons from al-Qa'qaa and the NYT 3/05 states that an Iraqi investigation has also found that that was the case and cites an Iraqi eyewitness to the same event -- should be included in this piece. They both show that the weapons were removed after the US invasion, contrary to Shaw's claims. TDC insists on removing this information because he doesn't like the source of it (an op-ed in the NYT by a Democrat). I believe the information belongs in the piece and I would be happy to see the op-ed quote removed if replaced with an accurate summary of the LAT and NYT findings. TDC keeps removing it entirely without putting the information back in. I don't have time or energy to keep an edit war going, and I would rather see wikipedia improved than become a staging ground for edit warring. I invite comments and input on this from whoever visits this page. Thanks.--csloat 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know what you are talking about Sloat, I never violated the 3RR, no matter how you try and phrase it. There is evidence on both sides of this issue, and both the La Times piece and NY Times piece are unverifiable because they draw almost exclusively from the dreaded “unnamed sources”. They also present claims, not verifiable facts. Other media outlets cannot verify them, because the sources are un-named. Sloat also is insistent on cramming a paragraph long quote from Frank Rich, an overtly partisan source, as “proof” for his contention. I object to the inclusion of the long babbling Frank quote because of his lack of objectivity, but more importantly, his lack of notability on the subject. If we included long winded quotes from any talking head with an opinion on every subject, this place would, and pardon my français, look like shit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have three reverts on this article as the history shows. That much is clear. Your claim that the articles are unverifiable is completely bogus; they are published in well known and well respected newspapers.  Are you seriously claiming we should eliminate all newspaper articles from wikipedia that cite anonymous sources?  The quote is not long and babbling, but as I said, if you want to eliminate the quote without eliminating the information it provides I will not object.  While you're reading up on Wikipedia's stalking policy you might also want to familiarize yourself with WP:V, which says, at the very beginning, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."  The page says nothing about avoiding opinionated quotes or avoiding published sources that cite anonymous sources.--csloat 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You had four revert on the page my friend, not 3 as you have previously stated, but that is besides the point. I am not claiming that all newspapers should be eliminated, that would make this place pretty bland, but as the NPOV and WP:V make clear facts are things like a mile is equal to 5280 feet, or that the viscosity of water is 1 cps at 72F. Things like the report from the LA and NY Times fall under the claims and allegation category. You cant just say that “since the LA and NY Times story has come out we know this to be true” and have the article reflect this opinion verbatim. You are turning a claim into a fact with the way you have presented it in the article, and that is my primary objection. Find a better more NPOV way to rephrase it, or dont include it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have trouble with the wording, change it; deleting entire paragraphs is not the way to go.--csloat 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There, I changed it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A good start to more reasonable editing but next time, change without deleting entire paragraphs, and without inserting blatant falsehoods, like your claim that postelection reports are "conflicted."-csloat 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding to the RFC - This is a very odd article. From the title you would expect it to be a biography of John A. Shaw, but if you read it and look at the edit history, the actual function appears to be a conflict between two editors who are each attempting to present their respective POVs on the Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy -- which already has its own page.  My suggestion is to dump most of what's here, and rewrite the article so that it is a true biography of Mr. Shaw -- the current piece has almost nothing about him.  No date or place of birth, no educational background, no career information, no list of publications, etc., etc.  People interested in the Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy can be directed there for more information on that particular subject.
 * The recommendation is seconded. The content of this page should be merged with Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy and this article should be rewritten as a bio. At least try to make it look like a bio. --Vector4F 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is pretty typical of what Sloat does with smaller articles, he turns them into POV hit pieces on the subject. Some of the finer examples of this include: Laurie Mylroie and Stephen F. Hayes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TDC, but I'll speak for myself if you don't mind. I agree with the recommendations.  The Qa'qaa stuff was not inserted here by me but by another user, RonCram, who used this page to showcase Shaw's claims regarding the Qa'qaa controversy; I simply added the information that showed those claims were false. But I agree the substantive issues should be primarily discussed on the Qa'qaa page, and I agree with the rewriting suggestions made by the users above.--csloat 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Source checking
Hello, I have looked through the source (just inserted by Vlad Fedorov) claiming that "Shaw admitted his falsifications". But Shaw actually said according to the source: "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)


 * 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)


 * Could you please cite where "he admitted he distorted the story"? And how exactly did he distorted the story? As about another article, let's discuss it there.Biophys 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Biophys! Where in this article you have found such text "he admitted he distorted the story", "Shaw admitted his falsifications"? There is no such text there, so we have nothing to search for. Vlad fedorov 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Present version of this article includes the following: "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" This make false impression that he admitted his lies But in reality he insists he is telling the truth but he revealed this truth sooner rather than later for political reasons. This must be properly formulated, unless there are some additional references. Note that WP:BLP rules must be observed.Biophys 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you always prejudge what was in reality? You prejudged that Stomakhin is innocent dissident. Now you prejudge that Shaw told truth. Why you eliminate opinions of others? Why not to present all points of view? What you dispute is a direct of "Mr. Shaw went public to counter a political "October surprise" campaign designed to "crucify the president" over the missing explosives, he wrote to Mr. Rumsfeld". Nothing here is false. I agree with csloat. Vlad fedorov 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know and do not care if he is telling the truth. I only care that his words (as they appear in sources) must be properly reflected in the article. If he says "I am a lier" (honestly, I have never seen a politician who would said that!) - let's write that. If he claims "I am telling the truth" - we should write that, but also cite other sources that criticize him and claim (perhaps) that he is wrong.Biophys 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this biography has some problems
Sorry for intervening here, but this biography seems to be POV. Right now, the article begins from summary that is extremely agressive. The life of the person should probably be described in chronological order starting from this:

"Mr. Shaw received a B.A. from Williams College, where he was a member of St. Anthony Hall, as well as a bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. from Cambridge University, where he was a Fellow of Magdalene College. He has taught international security studies at Cambridge University, Williams College, Georgetown University, and the Institut Politicque in Paris." And so on.

The story with explosives and other controversies are certainly important and must be described in separate chapter(s). But this should be written in more neutral tone and be more consistent with sources. Can I try to do something like that (and you would correct me later), or you think the article is perfect now? Biophys 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. You're right, WP:BLP suggests this should be a biography, not a scandal sheet.  All the same, however, this person is only notable because of his disputed claims and because of his criminal activities.  So it isn't a problem that those things take up most of the page, since that is what he is primarily known for.  Nevertheless, basic facts about his life, education, and personal history should be included here. csloat 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section about his founding of the crew while teaching at Williams. I'm not sure if it belongs under the header "Professional Background," but that was kind of my only choice. I'm also not entirely sure how to create a new section, but I don't know if there's enough pure biography in here to actually create a bio section. 09rhb 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, when I added a reference to the crew team history page, the formatting became all messed up. Not really sure how to fix this... 09rhb 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Corruption charges?
I made a paragraph called "Corruption charges". I doubt that it is actually consistent with WP:BLP rules. Such charges are "exceptional" and therefore must be "supported by multiple reliable sources" according to WP:BLP. LA Times is a reliable source, but the sources are not "multiple", since all claims come from a single person, although a notable journalist. Biophys 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous text
The following text about Mr. Shaw has bee previously created:

"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.  Shaw reportedly was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes.  " 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:. 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 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced
We have one sentence about Shaw's office, which doesn't even give the dates; we have four paragraphs about his speech. This is imbalance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic article, request for lead section
The lead section of the article describes him in past tense, which gives the unfortunate impression that he is no longer living. In short, "was" should become "is". The same sentence describes him as a "politician" but this is misleading, because he has never stood for elective office. I'd suggest "political figure" would be more accurate. As a consultant to Mr. Shaw, I think it best I avoid direct edits to this article, and hope another editor will be willing to implement changes, should they agree with my points. Frankly, there is a lot wrong with this article, so I'm continuing to evaluate what I think should be done with it. Other editors' views welcome. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These changes seem unlikely to be controversial. For the record, appointed officials can also be politicians, but it seemed unnecessarily verbose to include the word. Rhoark (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia and Iraq WMD section
Hello, I'm back today not to make a specific proposed change, but rather to call attention to a problematic section and solicit feedback on how best to address it. (And if this is your first time on the page, please scroll up slightly for my COI disclosure.) To wit: Russia and Iraq WMD is the article's longest single section, much of it being the back-and-forth of a dispute over statements by Mr. Shaw that Russia was involved in moving WMDs out of Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Regardless of what one makes of the claim, this section is basically a WP:COATRACK re-litigating details more appropriate to the article Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

The options I see would be to simply scale back the details, or perhaps rewrite the section to be more concise, covering the basics of the dispute but focused more on his career without trying to adjudicate the matter. Meanwhile, there are other details not now included (including criticism of Mr. Shaw by the DoD) that would be more relevant for the purposes of a biographical article. In case there is support to make a change of this sort, I'm working on a suggested revision. Meantime, I'd be very interested to hear what others think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The sourcing on this section right now is pretty bad. Some of the links are dead. Washington Times is not a reliable source. I've started a discussion at Talk:Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction presenting acceptably reliable sources on the matter. Rhoark (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone over there pointed out there's a dedicated article at WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. I've reduced the section in this article and given it a main article hat. Rhoark (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rhoark—definitely an improvement, and sorry for the delayed response. I'll have some other points to make about the page soon, so if you're willing to have another look then, that would be great. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP issue with Corruption and criminal investigation of Shaw
Hi again, it's been a while but I'm back, this time to ask editors to look at the Corruption and criminal investigation of Shaw section of this article. The tone and material conveyed in this section is quite problematic, making some extremely damaging claims against Shaw without strong support from a variety of sources.

It is my belief that the content of this section presents a clear violation of WP:NPOV, and therefore necessarily WP:BLP. The section heading Corruption and criminal investigation is itself non-neutral and appears intended to persuade readers immediately that Shaw is guilty of corruption, although no sources support this contention. Certainly, the LA Times sources used, which are all written by the same author, T. Christian Miller, make claims of corruption, however even these sources don't and can't say that Shaw was found to be guilty of these claims (nor were charges ever filed). Since the section essentially relies on reporting from Miller, and makes extraordinary claims against Shaw, I wonder if the information should even be included. From a BLP perspective, surely for such claims extraordinary robust sourcing is required.

I'll leave this here for now, as I'm mainly interested to hear from other editors about how best to address this section. As mentioned before, I am working on behalf of Jack Shaw here, so I won't be making any edits. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started reviewing and revising, but will proceed slowly due to other things happening in my life.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, great. I see you've started making changes. I'll read again once you're finished, or let me know if you still plan to continue. Happy to discuss any details, if I can help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * May be a day or two. I'll put a note here when done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now. Any problems?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments following initial overhaul
Thanks again for your close look at the article and for diving in to make some changes here, Anythingyouwant. Overall, I think the structural changes make a big difference in the readability of this article, and I really appreciate the time you've taken. It's undoubtedly a better article than it was before. I am, however, still concerned that the article spends so much time on the ins and outs of allegations against Shaw. I also see a few specific issues with details in the Firing, investigation, exoneration section:


 * One statement is included twice in the Firing, investigation, exoneration section, about theFBI spokesman "saying that the FBI had vigorously investigated alleged wrongdoing by Shaw and others." However, this isn't quite correct per the source, which says: "FBI spokesman Ed Cogswell declined to comment on specifics of the Shaw case but said the FBI vigorously investigated all reports of wrongdoing by public officials." Given the vague nature of this statement, it might be best to leave it out, or directly quote it.
 * Included in the description of the allegations against Shaw is the following: "Second, documents and officials indicate that Shaw sought to broaden this contract to cover an entire cellphone network for Iraq". The wording "documents and officials", is vague and perhaps WP:WEASEL-y, though I'm aware that to clarify might mean adding quite a bit more detail.
 * An email to Wikileaks is currently cited as support that Shaw demanded Daniel Sudnick be fired. However, this document does not mention Sudnick at all, and mentions Shaw only once, in a confusing way.

These are just a few specific things that caught my eye. Again, my main query to yourself and any other editor is whether the article should include so much detail about the allegations against Shaw, given that investigation by the FBI led to nothing, and that so much of this information is drawn from one reporter's work. (Although the Irish Times and Mother Jones also published pieces on the allegations, the Irish Times draws heavily from T. Christian Miller's reporting and book on this topic.) Any thoughts about potentially summarizing this section? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, which I'll try to deal with one-by-one, along with the recent comments at BLPN. Regarding Cogswell, I have put the full quote into the footnote; I think it's okay to mention it in the opening paragraph of a section, and then go into greater detail later in the section, but in this case I have gotten rid of the furst mention for the sake of brevity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the vague "documents and officials", here's what the cited LAT source says: "The plan fell apart after Shaw ordered Coalition Provisional Authority officials to modify language in the police radio portion of the contract to allow the Nana Pacific and Guardian Net team to construct an entire cellphone network for Iraq instead of a limited system, according to current and former U.S. officials and documents." Since the last three words in this quote qualify the statement, we can't make the statement without similar qualification.  It's a little bit weaselly, but that's the LAT's fault.  Maybe the officials and documents are detailed in Miller's book, and if you think they're worth detailing here then maybe we could.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the alleged demand that Sudnick be fired, good catch, I missed that stuff. I have now rephrased: "Shaw then suggested that Sudnick resign and undermined Sudnick at the Pentagon.". The source is page 64 of Miller's book.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, regarding the length of the subsection about firing, investigation, and exoneration, I will now go and try to shorten it. I'm not a big fan of deleting sources even if they're primary sources, but I can certainly trim our accompanying text.  One advantage of not shortening this material drastically is that it kind of bulletproofs the article, by accurately summarizing the sources, so no one can easily come along and claim a whitewash or try to reinsert material that they can slant against Shaw.  Moreover, Miller seems like a reputable LAT journalist, and his book publisher (Little, Brown) is reputable too, so we cannot cut much of that material.  There is a valid concern about undue weight here, so I'll now go see what I can do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have shortened that section a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, this is definitely far better than previously. I've shared this with Mr. Shaw to get his take; there are changes I'm sure he'd ideally like to see made, however it may be the case that sources don't exist to support some of what he'd like to see represented here. So I'll need a few days to review and research, but I think this is likely very close to the best we can get it. Thanks, and I'll follow up again by next week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Anythingyouwant. I've had a chance to review with Jack and although he would like to see some changes here in the ordering and phrasing, and some additions, sadly, the sourcing won't allow it. However, he did have a few adjustments which can be sourced and which I feel will improve the clarity somewhat on a several points:


 * In the sentence introducing Nana Pacific, I think it would be useful to note that this is an 8a company. This can be wikilinked as follows: 8a.


 * In one of the sentences about the communications contract, I'd like to suggest an adjustment as follows: "Second, he allegedly told the staff of Daniel Sudnick, a senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Communications, that there would be "hell to pay" if a contract for a pilot first-responder program did not include a proposed provision allowing it to be designed so that it could later establish a nationwide commercial CDMA network."


 * Finally, in the sentence about Sami al-Majoun, it would make things clear to readers to note that Majoun was the deputy to the Iraqi communications minister: "Third, Shaw sought to have the Iraqi communications minister replaced with Sami al-Majoun, his deputy minister, who was part of the Liberty Mobile consortium."


 * All of these changes can be supported within the existing sources. Let me know if you think these seem reasonable. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill, I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, all done. I added a few more things, too.  Note that there are now three essays by Dr. Shaw in the external links section.  One or two or three could be described in the main text of the Wikipedia article, if that might be worthwhile.  Or we can leave it for another time, or someone else.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all really solid work, thanks so much for taking up my request and going above and beyond with it. The new final section about his work since looks good as well. It's always possible there will be reason for me to come back here again in the future, but I think we're done here! Truly a far better entry than a few months back. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to go, then. And thanks very much for the star.  Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John A. Shaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407214913/http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=653271 to http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=653271

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)