Talk:Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction

POV criticisms
Some criticisms have been written in a way that is very POV or which constitutes original research. These criticisms may well be true (I don't know) but if they are to appear in a wikipedia article they need to be in the form of quotes or paraphrased statements clearly attributed to their original source. ie. It is against Wiki guideline to have text which is phrased in the manner of "... the programme needs fixing because it has suffered from fraud and accounting errors totalling $25million..." (because that is effectively a controversial statement being made by a wiki editor). However it is OK to have text along the lines of "...expert John Doe has stated the programme needs fixing because it has suffered from fraud..." as long as you include a clear reference to the original publication or other source where John Doe made that statement.

Also some of the material suffers from generally poor writing (eg. misspelling and use of all-caps for names.

I've removed the following text from the article because it fails on these points:

"The entire Nunn-Lugar Program needs an honest audit. It lost $100M of US taxpayers’ money just on the Shchuch'ye plant. For the discussion of Shchuch'ye in Senator Lugar's own words, please use this link http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Lugar"

When VECTOR PLANT of Novossibirsk, Russia, the largest producer of bacteriological weapons in the world, came to the US-funded DEFENSE ENTERPRISE FIND to ask for just $1M that could be used to repair and maintain its dilapidated weapons storage facilities, it got nothing at all. Later, the Department of Defense audit of DEF could not refute an allegation that $20M may have been stolen from DEF, found $2.2M of “unallowable” expenses, and found that DEF had spent half its grant or $35M on itself, which, according to the audit, was “twenty five times the industry average”. The audit is here http://nunn-lugar.com/def/secondaudit.shtml

I'm sure it can be re-incorporated in some form, but it needs a re-write and checking of sources. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * FYI, here's some advice to anyone reading this obscure little backwater: when something needs a re-write -- re-write it! (sigh.) Eaglizard (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am moving tangentially related material about the Defense Enterprise Fund (DEF) to it's own article page and cleaning that information up, since much of that information seems to come from the editor's own first person POV blog entries. The DEF has an interesting history, but it is a separate issue that should be connected to this page. The information provided also seems to come from two sources: the official Dept. of Defense Inspector General reports, which meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiable, reliable outside sources; and unverifiable original research written by the individual that edited the Wikipedia article (portions of the entry are copied verbatim from his own blog entries and clearly violates the rules set out on the No_original_research article that states: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." -User:Danisteg 14:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Parking this link here for possible future use

 * http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-01/news/0212010472_1_russia-arms-biological-weapons-nuclear

Historic event: Russia destroyed all chemical weapons ahead of schedule
Historic event: Russia destroyed all chemical weapons ahead of schedule

https://www.vesti.ru/article/1602191

and many more links to

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8#%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F--145.255.168.249 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)