Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Iraq War/Archive 1

A summary of Talk
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, 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, 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)


 * A NPOV compromise I could possibly agree to: "After the invasion, although small quantities of degraded chemical weapons were discovered, the Deufler report found them to be misplaced ordinance from the 1980’s Iran-Iraq War and no longer dangerous. No evidence was found of the WMD or programs the administration claimed existed." I must point out that I strongly feel such a compromise is unnecessary as a lead is only an overview and these degraded weapons are not notably controversial (except to a POV minority with an interest in them being so), do not comply with other criteria as per WP:Lead and are already adequately covered in a more appropriate article that is linked from this page. Wayne 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think the first sentence is necessary. Second, there are a few factual problems with the second sentence:
 * No evidence was found of the WMD...: Hundreds of chemical munitions have been found. To my knowledge, nobody ever differentiated between weapons made before or after 1991 prior to the invasion.  It doesn't matter whether Hussein was deceptive, ignorant, or negligent.  The fact is that they were in Iraq, and they weren't declared or destroyed.
 * ...or programs...: Such as the ballistic missile program that was in violation of UN resolutions?
 * ...the administration claimed existed.: This singles out the U.S. Presidency, when in fact there was very little dispute among the U.S. Congress and the U.N. Security Council that these allegations were true:
 * "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant: regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite; in the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability" (French Foreign Minister)
 * "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction." (German Ambassador)
 * "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." (Senator Clinton)
 * These problems are all solved in my proposed sentence, After the invasion, however, no evidence was found that any such weapons were made after 1991. I think this still gives bias against the rationale for going to war, but it's factually correct, and that's all I'm looking for.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a link where Powells presentation included pre 1991 lost inactive WMD. Iraq can't declare or destroy what they didn't know existed. The planning stage of a ballistic missile program was not in violation of UN resolutions. Only the application was and your source admits that didn't happen. The US administration made the claims. Congress later admitted they were given false information. Other governments made their statements based on those claims. It is clear you have one POV vision while I have another which I believe more accuratly reflects the facts. Lets let it go and see what the mediator comes up with. Wayne 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll address these "factual problems".
 * I'm done arguing for now. Our mediation hasn't started yet, and it's clear to me that we're just going in circles.  I'm not even sure the mediation will work.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:00, 8 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)

Another view
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'm in the process of trying to include you in this mediation. I just need WLRoss to sign off on the idea, and then you should get a notice from Daniel.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * May I point out that insisting that I. Pankonin's edits are POV-pushing based of of his political affiliations is a personal attack, not a valid argument?-- Rise Above The Vile   11:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is calling edits biased a personal attack? It's a comment on the content, not the contributor. 1of3 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "I don't think anyone needs to look further than I. Pankonin's user page to decide whether this is POV-pushing," is not commenting on content, it is commenting on the contributor. WP:NPA clearly states that "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme," is a personal attack.  Please refrain from doing this.--  Rise Above The Vile   16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between someone's affiliations and the advocacy they choose to put in the content of their user page. As Jimbo says, "using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." 1of3 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that gives you an excuse to use prejudice. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should disregard the contents of your user page when considering whether your edits might be biased? 1of3 23:08, 10 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)
 * I wish I could agree. I feel compelled to agree.  But I can't shake the suspicion that this sort of willful ignorance of evidence right under our noses is a profound mistake. 1of3 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are admitting that your POV pushes you away from assuming good faith. I think that all editors have a POV (and in the case of the Iraq War, a strong POV), but the key is to edit in good faith, striving for neutrality, while assuming good faith in others (particularly those with an opposing POV).  Ursasapien (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am admitting nothing of the sort. My assumption of good faith is subject to evidence confirming or against it, the latter of which is in abundance. You don't have to be opposed to a stance to recognize bias towards it. I've removed several unsourced statements to which I was sympathetic. 1of3 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inappropriate on I. Pankonin's userpage; he is not campaigning for anything or anyone. Accusing him of "POV-pushing" based on his stated political beliefs and affiliations is a violation WP:NPA.--  Rise Above The Vile   18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is political activism on a user page not inappropriate? Jimbo says, "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." And, "I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work."  Especially in light of the absurd political point to be mediated here, consider my respect quite rightly diminished. 1of3 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's words are not Wikipedia policy or guideline. If he wanted to make them so, he knows how.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:56, 12 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)


 * For the most part I think your editing has proven out what you say. And I thank you for explaining that in detail. But the sticking point here seems unavoidably motivated by politics.  I think I may have said something like this before, but a cop can't shoot you for having some wet bullets in your pocket, and if he was saying you had a gun, trying to use the bullets as justification after the fact would be reprehensible.  I know anyone can find fault with that analogy, but the underlying situation is faithfully in the gist.  The reason the issue here seems so political is that it is the crux upon which the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children could be justified, or not.
 * I wonder how this mediation is going to play out. We're talking about the first paragraph of an article about the number one top controversial issue in the world today.  The alternatives are both factually accurate; there is no dispute about that.  I suspect it will quickly boil down to the mediator's take on whether mentioning old degraded weapons that weren't part of the rationale for war is biased or not.  That seems to me to be the kind of thing that should be raised in an RFC rather than mediation. 1of3 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good comparison. I'll respond after we get a mediator.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mediation is preferable before going to a RFC 1of3. I've seen RFC's on other controversial points and as a rule the POV editors get supporters in who have never contributed to the page before to get support for POV changes. Conservative editors seem to often have a network of friends to call on for support while liberal editors tend to be loners without that advantage. You can find them easily....just read the talk page and see which names appear from nowhere and instead of contributing just support something controversial with covert namecalling and accusations (while at the same time often threatening the NPOV editor with a block for namecalling). Unfortunately these people tend to have good reputations for their work on non controversial topics so carry considerable weight with the community. One of the problems with WP but one that doesn't have much effect on mediation. Wayne 04:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
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 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 encourage you to accept the mediation so your views can be heard when we discuss the matter. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:12, 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)