Template:Did you know nominations/Saudi Arabia and weapons of mass destruction


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and weapons of mass destruction

 * ... that Saudi Arabia has used poisonous gas in four airstrikes on different parts of Sa'ada province in Yemen? Source: "Shamkhani: Saudi Arabia Uses Biological Weapons against Yemeni People
 * ALT1:... that according to the Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia has used poisonous gas in four airstrikes on Sa’ada province of Yemen? Source: "

Created/expanded by Ali Ahwazi (talk). Self-nominated at 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC).


 * : REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Saff V. 
 * Article created by Ali Ahwazi on 3 February 2017 and has 5625 characters (904 words) "readable prose size"
 * Artile has acceptable English
 * Hook is a interesting fact.
 * ALT1 is sourced
 * ❌ There is one citation need Tag at the article, after this sentence: In fact, it is regarded as a Chinese liquid-fueled, single-stage, nuclear medium-range ballistic missile. Saudi Arabia bought several dozen (between 36 and 60) of this kind of missile from China in 1988. For the first time, Riyadh showed them in 2014
 * @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found any copyvio
 * At first the NPOV Tag at the article must be removed. Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What part is copyvio?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. According to this link, there is any copyvio problem.Saff V. (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to “There is one citation need Tag at the article”: I added relevant reference(s), and actually solved the problem. Meanwhile, regarding NPOV tag, I added some more related (neutral) paragraphs to make it more balanced/neutral, then the tag removed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg There is no way that this article can feature on the front page, certainly not in the current state and with the current hook. The whole hook is based on an allegation by "Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani", that is to say it is neither neutral nor verified (moreover, the one source for this is an Iranian propaganda outlet, which is probably not a reliable source under any definition); moreover, the article grossly misrepresents that flimsy allegation as: "Meanwhile, according to a report by the human rights watch, Saudi Arabia has used a kind of poisonous gas in four airstrikes on diverse parts of the province of Sa'ada in Yemen" [sic] (in the proposed hook, it gets even more egregious, as an unspecified "the human rights watch" Shamkhani claims to quote becomes the prestigious Human Rights Watch). As can be seen from even this sample, text, the article is overall ungrammatical -- more examples: "Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia has a foundation for building nuclear programs that based on the observations, as a probability can be led in building nuclear weapons in the future, and even according to reports, it has a kind of deal with Pakistan about the project of nuclear weapons, and also there seems to be the utilization of chemical and biological weapons in the wars by Saudi Arabia" (this is in the lead). Or: "Saudi Arabia, officially is considered as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and also it has an agreement with International Atomic Energy Agency. Of course the notable point is that Saudi Arabia has been accused of following nuclear weapon and chemical weapons, despite being a follower of IAEA, NPT and OPCW." Also note how the above is voiced in essay-like manner ("of course the notable point" -- please do not coach the readers as to what is "of course" and a "notable point").
 * This article and hook seem to me like they promote a stand in the current propaganda war between the Iranians and the Saudis. Please take it elsewhere, not on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your edit to remove the problem that I nominated. although I agree with you to suggest another hook(s) and this article include some wp:NPOV violation, the current hook is based on the confirmed reports from human rights.Any way I recommend by WP:BITE that another user except creator examine the article and try to remove or improve sentences that has NPOV violation. SO the best way is requesting the wp:GOCE. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, it is not based on any confirmed report, it is based on a political statement by the minister of a dictatorial country, cited exclusively through the press releases of that country, and with the false claim suggesting that Human Rights Watch validates this; the source also cites an official of the Houthis (i. e. on the Iranian side of a raging conflict) claiming that there is a report on this. I have no intention, and am under no requirement, of sifting through the article, as it is way too much of a task and of way too little interest to me -- the violations of several cornerstone wikipedia policies and the awful grammar (not to mention a myriad other things, such as "main article" links to irrelevant articles such as Toxic) are enough to fail this article in its current state, and this is the process as far as it concerns me. Fix the problems yourselves, if you really are invested in this topic, then resubmit. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me call attention to the fact that you reviewed the article and found no problem with it except an uncited statement, which raises question about your own familiarity with the basic rules of DYK. You indicate now that you do see NPOV and grammar issues, yet you had ticked both as "acceptable" in your review. (Incidentally, there is no "acceptable" level per the criteria defined under DYK rules. You don't let articles "slide" with errors just because they're "acceptable".) Dahn (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't make relation between issues! I ticked acceptable in English, because when I read the article, I found the meaning! But at that time I pointed to remove the NPOV tag. Also I thought that this violation can be removed by copy edit. That was just a suggestion.Saff V. (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To the point: these are the DYK rules, minimal set. As we stand, in that minimal set the article fails on at least three grounds, defined under points 3 and 4: the claim in the hook (like much of the article) is neither properly sourced to reliable sources, nor properly attributed -- for instance, beyond citing the allegations on the Iranian side, the article cannot seem to produce the report by "the human rights watch", whatever watch that may be. By consequence, the hook also violates the requirement that hooks should be about a "definite fact" -- what we have is a vague allegation, by an involved party, presenting itself as fact, which is the worst thing you can have in a hook. NPOV is the third policy it blatantly ignores. On top of this, we have grammar and vocabulary issues, both of which would need to be reduced to something legible and coherent before this article is even considered. Dahn (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that when the article posted in main page of wikepedia, it must have the best quality. I n other hand the nominator of this DYK is newcomers. As well as he has tried to remove some grammatical problems of the artice during these days. Please do not bite the newcomers. I wanna to give him chance for removing NPOV violations.Saff V. (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you passed the article claiming it was readable, you made it unlikely that anyone would correct it: as a rule, one would not have checked it again for that criterion, and you would have had this article passed as is. So when you passed it by claiming to have verified grammar, you derailed the whole verification process. I only came here and gave it another look because what caught my eye is that: a) the claim present in the hook is highly contentious and very unlikely, so I went and verified it; b) the editor claiming to have verified for readability and grammar uses bad English in his very review. Please understand that my comments here are not meant to put anyone down, but to point out what we should be about here: quality, reliable, content; if there are serious problems with the contribution, the solution is to improve on that contribution, not to feel offended that I point them out.
 * As for the "improvements" that have supposedly occurred since: they are themselves ungrammatical and awash with weasel words. The claim about what HRW supposedly says is again cited through questionable secondary sources (you really can't find a report on this published by HRW??), and it is no longer about chemical weapons, but about KSA having supposedly used cluster bombs -- last I checked, cluster bombs were not chemical weapons, or any kind of WMD, and so the very mention of that factoid in that article is an instance of WP:COAT. Moreover, this of course invalidates both hooks, and shows what level of research went into writing them; it also shows that Iranian and Yemeni sources are prone to lying when they claim that HRW has ever said KSA used chemical weapons. I note new allegations regarding chemical weapons, and pushed in the article, are similar fluff cited exclusively from Iran's propaganda outlets. So no, no improvement there, just an attempt to game the system. Dahn (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I appreciate @User: Saff V. that guides me (who am relatively a new user, particularly in such parts)​. Secondly, recently I’ve done some editions to modify the article, although it might be insufficient; Meanwhile, I’ll do more modification in order to remove its problems as much as possible. Besides, I will present more related hooks in near future. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Inspired by your comments, I tried to find more evidences possibly found in the on-line sources. A simple search brought up this Tallahassee Southern Regional Model United Nations report where it reads "In Yemen, attacks on civilians with chemical weapons have been reported by Yemeni military personnel" or "A number of Yemeni civilians have been killed from inhaling poisonous gases, particularly white phosphorus munition." The latter was cited to two sources one of them being Human Rights Watch report. So, unlike what you said, there's no lying and the HRW report really exists! The HRW report says "In 2016, the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in Yemen used artillery-delivered white phosphorus munitions."

As for the "cluster bomb"s, I think you're wrong again (since you were also wrong regarding the HRW report). It's considered as a WMD:
 * "It is for such reasons that cluster bombs can be categorized as weapons of mass destruction"
 * "Landmines and Cluster Bombs: "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Slow Motion"
 * "This weapon of mass destruction, the forerunner of the cluster bomb..."
 * "Part II looks at the technological aspect of the cluster bomb as a weapon of mass destruction during the Vietnam War."
 * "Yemen: Saudi Arabia-led coalition uses banned Brazilian cluster munitions on residential areas"

All in all, I think there can be some new improvements.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A student paper for the Model United Nations is by no means a reliable source! Are you sure you understand the concept of reliable sourcing? The HRW report you claim it cites simply alleges that KSA used white phosphorus ammunition and that some Yemenis may have died from inhaling debris, which is certainly not a chemical attack, nor does HRW say it was one. As for the assertions about cluster bombs being WMDs, the sources which do state that claim simply argue for an opinion, an interpretation, which is of no relevancy to the actual nomenclature; as we stand, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs defines cluster munitions as conventional weapons, which are by definition not WMDs. All of this should not dissuade readers and reviewers from the fact that your attempt was to present a contentious claim, sourced from Iranian propaganda, as fact, and none of your current claims even addresses or acknowledges that serious breach of wikipedia rules. Dahn (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)