Open main menu

Talk:U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted in classified Pentagon report filed on 27 May 2003


Remember that claims need to be attributed. This is an article about a claim made by a Washinton Post staff writer, in an article published by the Washington post. The title and body must reflect this. Remember that it is not our job to investigate, or to establish truth. We are reporting on claims made by others. - Borofkin 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, title needs to change. It should also be shorter, so I will hold off until someone has a good idea on how to say this. --vonbergm 08:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed the title. It is still too long, but a better working title. --vonbergm 08:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
title asserts the existence of "Iraqi mobile weapons labs", which is contrary to the substance of the story. maybe something along the lines of
Report: Expert findings contradict Iraqi "bioweapons lab" claims 
Doldrums 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Quotation marks should fix that. About your suggestion, it has been known for a while now that these trailers were not bioweapons labs. The news is that the administation and the CIA already had solid evidence to that effect while they were claiming that the trailers were bioweapons labs. The title should somehow reflect this. Either way, "mobile weapons labs" should be changed to "bioweapons labs" and it should be in uotation marks. --vonbergm 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed. Doldrums 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

McCellan QuoteEdit

maybe we can use this -

Q Do you think that -- the truth is there are facts on the ground right now that -- you can go back to statements from 1998 and such, but there are facts on the ground now that are raising questions about the situation as presented or laid out by the President, what we could expect, what you all believed would happen, what you believed you would find. Now we have facts on the ground that are undermining the quality and the credibility of those comments.

MR. McCLELLAN: I differ. I think we're beginning to learn the truth and we've seen some of the evidence of Saddam Hussein's desire to seek nuclear weapons, going back quite a while. We've seen some of the evidence of his weapons of mass destruction program through two mobile biological weapon labs that have been discovered. And that's in -- we've only been there, what, 120 days.

- "Press Briefing by Scott McClellan" — White House, July 16, 2003

and maybe this

"The CIA stands by its assessment that complex mobile laboratories discovered in Iraq were designed and built to produce biological weapons, a senior CIA official told CNN on Saturday."

- "Official: CIA holds position on Iraqi mobile labs" — CNN, June 8, 2003 Doldrums 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent quotes (especially the McLellan one) and should be put into the article imho. Doldrums, do you want to incorporate this? --vonbergm 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
u can go ahead and use it. am in google search rather than wikitext mood today. and now, for some comic relief -
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has stressed that any substances or weapons found to be containing banned agents will be tested not only by U.S. weapons experts, but by others across the globe to be sure of the results."
- here on Fox News, no less!

Doldrums 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


The second WaPo source has a great timeline to see adminstration official quotes on one side compared to various evidence that the trailers are harmless on the other. A lot of the information in the timeline is already in the article, but having this information next to each other gives a very clear picture of how things were happening. If anyone has a good idea how to adapt this for wikinews, this would make the article a lot better. --vonbergm 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any ideas how to implement the timeline, I think this is pretty much done. Will streamline a little and move to publish soon. --vonbergm 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Of what significance, and of what findings, does this reporter have for a claim? I don't see this as a news article - reporting about what others state, when there is no controversy, is not considered a newsworthy item to me. Additionally, I do not see an article as a "report". And, the numerous comments are presented in a way to allege uncertainty or inconsistentcy in the officials' statements. The fact that these are coming from different individuals in different occasions makes me think this was deliberately done to allege something, thereby violating the NPOV policy. Besides, there is no backup for most statements here. Such as, "Much of the information came from an Iraqi defector dubbed Curveball who was an asset of the German BND. The credibility of this source was disputed." Additionally, this quote right here states that they are suitable for use for conventional warfare, however the rest of this article alleges that the trucks were not used for any type of weaponry: "Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote September 8, 2003: "However, it now is clear that these so- called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents."" I'm seeing various issues with this article. Please address them before this article gets published. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

MrM, fixed the weapons/bioweapons issue, thanks for pointing it out. I don't understand your first sentence. As for the rest, the controversy is that government officials were asserting that the trailers were biological weapons labs long after there was conclusive evidence to the contrary. The text relating to curveball is referenced in the earlier wikinews article that is linked. Anything else I missed? --vonbergm 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't be asserting that there was "there was conclusive evidence to the contrary." We only report on others, we don't make decisions on the articles themselves. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, I am not asserting this, I am just pointing out what the controversy is. --vonbergm 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikinews is still asserting it if you do not attribute it to a source. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, maybe we can focus on issues with the article rather than talk page comments.--vonbergm 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On questioning of the article's state as news worthy, as it is already being written and this site has no simple limitation on the number of stories published per day that I am aware of that might apply here, why no go ahead? Other non-controversial articles have been covered before here and necessarily are common in most news agencies, because news is not only controversy-it is also news to inform the audience of general matters. Reports on the economic status of various nations, or expansion of rail lines are not themselves necessarily controversial but are no less news worthy for it. They may not be exciting necessarily, but I have not come across any decision to publish only exciting stories here-we are freed from that particularly as we are not a commercial agency. For the background, perhaps we should link to the relevant sections of wikipedia articles that provide it to simplify the aspect as it relates to conforming this story to wikinews policies? Octavian 20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


MrM, so what are your remaining objections to the article? --vonbergm 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They are listed above. I will not repeat myself, so please read them again. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here comes the detailed analysis of your comment.
  • Of what significance, and of what findings, does this reporter have for a claim? -- Does not make any sense.
  • Why is this important? All this reporter is asserting is the contradictions in different statements in the administration. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The reporter (I assume you refer to the WaPo reporter) is not asserting contradictions in different statements in the administration. I don't know where you got that from. Why is this important? Allegedly there was a secret report that showed "conclusively" that the "mobile biolabs" were everything but that. But these findings were kept classified and officials kept making public statements asserting the contrary for almost a year. That is news to me. I guess you could try and be cynical and say that's not news, but ... --vonbergm 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as a news article - reporting about what others state, when there is no controversy, is not considered a newsworthy item to me. -- Responded above.
  • Additionally, I do not see an article as a "report". -- Don't know what you are trying to say. Is this an objection to the wording of the title? This is a standard way to refer to such an article and is a matter of taste and certainly no reason to postpone publishing.
  • It's not a report. It's an article. It should be represented as such. Reports have original findings backed by facts. This is nothing but a collection of quotes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So I assume that you are referring to the title (it would be awfully nice of you to confirm this so that I at least can be sure what you are talking about). Also, I don't know which "article" you are referring too. The characterization "nothing but a collection of quotes" certainly does not apply to the WaPo article. Please specify what you are talking about so that I can respond. --vonbergm 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And, the numerous comments are presented in a way to allege uncertainty or inconsistentcy in the officials' statements. -- Not sure what you are talking about. Are you referring to the quotes by officials. They are not inconsistent with each other, and they are by no means uncertain. Really don't know where you are going with this, you need to be more precise in what you are saying so that people can actulally respond.
  • What I am saying is that there are only a few comments about this in the article, compared to the hundreds that were made. These quotes were taken from select individuals, and represented as being inconsistent. We do not interperet quotes; and that is exactly what this article is doing. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, the quotes from government officials are not inconsistent. In fact they are very consistent in asserting that the trailers were bioweapons labs. (However, they are false, if that is what you are saying.) And yes, many more comments like this were made. If you would like to add one, we can talk about that. The purpose of these comments is to establish the existence of a "controvercy" as explained above. --vonbergm 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that these are coming from different individuals in different occasions makes me think this was deliberately done to allege something, thereby violating the NPOV policy. -- This "makes you think". Fine. If you additionally have a reason that there is a problem here, state it. The purpose of the talk page is not self-reflection.
  • Read again. Don't dismiss and make witty comments. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Just say straight out what issue you have with the statements. Do they violate NPOV? If yes, how do they violate NPOV? --vonbergm 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, there is no backup for most statements here. Such as, "Much of the information came from an Iraqi defector dubbed Curveball who was an asset of the German BND. The credibility of this source was disputed." -- The statements are all from the sources. In particular, the information you quote is from the linked wikinews article.
  • Linked Wikinews article? And is it sourced there, as well? All I'm asking for is attribution. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. --vonbergm 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, this quote right here states that they are suitable for use for conventional warfare, however the rest of this article alleges that the trucks were not used for any type of weaponry: "Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote September 8, 2003: "However, it now is clear that these so- called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents." -- In one place in the article the word "biological" was omitted and these were simply referred to "weapons labs". That was corrected when you first pointed this out. At this stage this comment does not apply any more.
  • I'm seeing various issues with this article. Please address them before this article gets published. -- I am assuming that you refer to whatever you mentioned above.
If you can please point out what I am missing here. I am past the age where I get kicks out of hide-and-seek games.--vonbergm 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And you seem to be overlooking the other issues. Instead of only reading a few words, please get through the sentence before responding. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
sory; being new here; it seems that the consisus is to publish,which I will. Doesn't seem fair to hoild back storie for no reasn. Yrtsihpos 22:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to publish, in fact I did not see a vote. This is not the proper etiquette to automatically go with what a few users think. If actions pertain, they should be addressed before. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I see just you opposing. Consensus dont need voting. But Its good that you helping us to make it even better. international 23:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, so what are the remaining issues? --vonbergm 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think article is ready to publish. international 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New title suggestion:Edit

Report contradicting Iraqi "bioweapons lab" early known by Bush administration

international 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objections if I change title or better suggestions? international 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing. You are alleging that the administration did something wrong in that title. Sensationalist items should never be included in articles. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Can somewikinewsie check the grammar on this new suggestion adressing Mrms objection international 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Bush administration acused to know report contradicting Iraqi "bioweapons lab" on early stage
I see two issues. First the question about whether the information from the WaPo article is accurate. A central part has now been independently verified in the linked Reuters article, and from looking at the White House press conference and other official statements there seems to be little doubt that the "expert group" filed these reports and what the overall finding was. The other issue is the question about sensationalizing headlines. I agree that we should not do this. On the other hand the headline should reflect the facts in the article as cleanly as possible. In this case that means that the headline should reflect that the administration was continuing to claim with certainty that the trailers were for bioweapons long after strong evidence to the contrary emerged. Thirdly there is the issue whether a specific statement by Bush was problematic, with McClellan's defense being that two days are not enough for a field report to have impact on the president's statement -- which seems fair. So here is a new suggestion:
"US claimed trailers were biolabs despite evidence to contrary"
--vonbergm 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Better, but "biolabs" might be confusing. And, "despite evidence to contrary" might still be poking a little too much. Should be more like "Washington Post alleges report contradicting claims of mobile bioweapon factories". --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This suggestion miss the accusation that the report was known early. international 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
to me news is the report that bush peple knew and lied longtime ago? any reason to not report that chrge? Yrtsihpos 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
are you afraid of bush? Yrtsihpos 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What? What difference does it make? You can't say that they "lied". What you have is conflicting evidence - one person says x, the other says y. x and y are not the same. The article should not be taking sides of either one - therefore, "alleged" should be included, so we are not accused of taking sides. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yrtsihpos, this is just a matter of trying to keep the title look "neutral". I guess there is "circumstantial evidence" that the administration knew they were not telling the truth when they were not telling the truth. To report that in this way it needs to be very clear that the administration actually read the report they asked the "expert group" to write. --vonbergm 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind leaving the "Report" in the title. So how about:
"Washington Post: U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted early on"
--vonbergm 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I can do with that, but drop the "early on"; can be considered confusing (it can and should be encompassed in article, but the wording of it...). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
But something to that effect needs to be in the title, after all this "early on" is the part that is "the news". --vonbergm 23:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "early on" should be in the title as vonbergm 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This? "Washington Post: U.S. claims of Iraqi mobile bioweapon factories contradicted early on" international 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess so. I am having a second thought though. Since much of the info from the post article has been independently verified by Reuters, how about "Reports: U.S. claims of Iraqi mobile bioweapon factories contradicted early on". It is a little shorter and more accurate (why give all the "credit" to WaPo?). --vonbergm 00:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "Reports: U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted early on" is probably better since it is shorter. The missing info is not that important imho. --vonbergm 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
"U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted early in classified Pentagon report". I dont like the begining: "Reports:". It may be mixed with tne Pentagon report. Title may need to be long sometimes international 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I like it. More specific than the earlier versions, and it focuses on the part that is confirmed independently by Reuters. --vonbergm 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
ok just put published. Yrtsihpos 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the title issue is resolved. The allegation of a contradiction was made by a Washington Post article. This is what the first sentence of our article says. The title of the article should also reflect this - it should attribute the allegation to the Washington Post. What is wrong with "Washington Post: U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted" to which MrM agreed? - Borofkin 04:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read further up you see that the information has been independently verified by Reuters and implicitely accepted by McClellan. Although this is not part of the first sentence of the wikinews article but further down in the body, the title still accurately reflects the content of the article. For more discussion on this read above. In particular, if attributions still need to be made in the title then one should not only attribute WaPo, but at least also Reuters. --vonbergm 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

white house responseEdit

The new section is pretty much a copy of the corresponding paragraph in the body of the article. They should be merged. Also, the source to the response was already included in the article, I will remove the double link to the press briefing now. Maybe people can have a look on how to merge the white house response with the text in the body. --vonbergm 15:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring the impact of the 'cleanup' tag, MrM should fix what he breaksEdit

MrM tags this article and moves it to 'Develop', and fails to address the fact that it remains the second lede on the Main Page. It also ingnores the issue that this story is currently out on the RSS feed. Subscribers who click on this story will have a nice MrM tag to look at and wonder WTF?

Why doesn't MrM just fix it himself to his own satisfaction? -Edbrown05 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Well, as hindsight is perfect, every time I do that, guess what happens? Whenever I edit an article, whenever I start an article, whenever I even touched an article, guess what happens? I'm done. Tags are the things I've been limited to. This is the only way I can contribute to this site. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry MrM, that is not called "contributing" but "disrupting". --vonbergm 01:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No its called forcing a user in a corner. Jason Safoutin 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sick of your intimidation and stalking skills here, Vonbergm. As a side note, I don't take what you say seriously enough to care about what you think or about what you do. You've shown nothing but consistent idiocy in the form of editing here, saying one thing and doing another. As a preacher of the bad deeds of I, you simply don't care about the ones you have done yourself. I don't care if you want Wikinews to become a low-grade weblog, Ed, but I actually care about this site enough to not let it slip into the plagues of MSM. If it means taking this crap from you, then I'm more than willing to do it. You can sit here and debate this all day, gentleman - but if you ignore me one more time and claim disruption on me, then you have serious issues that need to be addressed. Here is not the place to seek help. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, if you actually have actionable objections or other clearcut complaints or suggestions, how about listing them? Simply referring to things said half a day ago is not enought, especially when all the points you have brought up have been discussed. --vonbergm 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
And I apologize for making you feel intimidated, that is not my intention. --vonbergm 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Read up. You've criticised my concerns as issues that must be a result of bias. Those concerns above are what you have ignored. I suggest you take another look at them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, I already made the effort once to disseminate your post sentence by sentence. That has gotten us nowhere. I think it is your turn to clearly list any of your remaining concerns so that we can be clear exactly what you are talking about. --vonbergm 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
They're listed. Clearly. Above. I just detailed where they were in the last post. Please... read. I've given the issues numerous times here. I've pointed them out a half a dozen times. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM, this is getting annoying. I alrady said above that I am past the age where I enjoy hide and seek games. I read your initial comment. I made some changes to the article where you had a good point. I fail to see your other points -- heck -- I don't even know if my edits addressed at least some of your points as you refuse to let me know which part of your original post still applies and which part is obsolete. If you see a problem with my comments and questions in response to your post, please let me know. But just ignoring my efforts to carify what your concerns are and simply insisting on a tag while <pointing up> is not acceptable. --vonbergm 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You are getting really annoying by ignoring users' concerns. You have violated both WN:E and WN:NPOV on this article and its collaboration. You are an example of why collaboration no longer works on this site. I've shown you, I've told you, where my concerns are. You dismiss them as my own bias, then repeatedly ask me what my concerns are. Those are my concerns. Stop trying to blame me of a bias, and take a look at the objections. This is really tiring me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So much stubbornness opposes work hereEdit

Abandon the attempts to elevate any aspect above what it is user MrMiscellanious. This is a news story for a collaborative news project, no more. Leave past actions in the past. Stop self imposed limitations to half efforts and make fully collaborative contributions to the editing of the article to correct what you find fault with. Your current, or formerly hopefully now, self limitations only cause you to fail yourself because you are not adept at comprehensively explaining precisely what your find at fault along with precisely what types of modification you desire on those points. Your method of complaint when those half efforts purely under self-imposed limitations fail, is only self imposed and fails-stop the self-limitation. Are your not an editor before you are anything else here? Edit the article, subject your edits to the same sorts of collaborative modifications every editor does. That would clarify what you find at fault, and allow other editors to identify what is at fault in your own conception of the article to make it better in all respects. Contribute edits as an editor first before any escalation as escalation for its own sake is nothing and has no power but to plunge any project into the gutter. Octavian 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think ready to publis now. Yrtsihpos 04:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
By doing this, you have already violated WN:E and WN:NPOV, for ignoring actionable concerns that have to do with this article's neutrality. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your concerns is only defined actionable by yourself and the majority have agreed to some extent follow your earlier advice. If you use this radical way of editing (tagging) you must specify your conserns about present article. Now it is about concesus. You are the only one complaining now and your actions to unpublish are disruption of the work here. I will publish the article and urge you to accept it published. international 17:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The more you ignore, the more I'll tag. You cannot just ignore a user and actionable objections based on imaginary consensus. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just reverted your publishing again, International. The objections stand on this page. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not clear according to Mrm. Vote for publishing or notEdit

Mrm write he has "actionable objections" against this article in its present form. I say he is povpushing and disruptiv in his way of tagging article. Concensus dont need voting so this is just a way to make it visible or not. Suggested votes is *publish and *develop more. Comments below.

  • Publish international 17:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Develop, needs improvement, sorry. irid:t 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Develop, and this is ridiculous. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Publish Yrtsihpos 20:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Develop Fix of what he asks. It's that simple. Jason Safoutin 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditionally if objectors will work to settle their concerns with details of HOW, Develop, otherwise Publish. Octavian 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Publish on or before April 18 or change the opening sentence from "In an article published on Wednesday" to "In an article published last Wednesday." There's plenty of time to
develop; the story is only timely because of the recent story in The Washington Post. Karen 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments about the aboveEdit

I would suggust letting Iron and MrM Edit to document and work to improve it, as opposed to just repeatedly publishing it. I do not agree with all of MrM's comments, but the article def needs something... it currently stands as a bunch of quotes strung together, almost. Lyellin 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

They are free to do it as article is not published now. But will they do it? international 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
strange wiki where some stop work of other Yrtsihpos 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User MrMiscellanious, you have made statements on general areas in which you desire some change, yet not how you want any of those areas changed, so will you describe some ways to change those areas to combine your preferences with those of others to satisfy your concerns as far as they should be? Would you edit the areas in a way as to indicate how you want those areas changed? There is inevitably a way to incorporate the points that are rational into an article that complies with the requirements of articles here, so to find it you must do one or the other as there is no other sign of means for productive work here, only delay and reversal and reference to inadequately defined preference for alterations. If you do not do either I must also agree that you are only disruptive here in your stubborn adherence to delaying for the sake of your unfulfilled desires while simultaneously refusing to act to adequate degree on any path to achieve them; but if you do either detail how you want those areas changed or edit them yourself and through either become a collaborative editor here, no one could find you other than productive here in the article after that time. You do not simply want your vision of the article to be superior to that of others do you? Collaborate, be an editor and not an obstacle. Octavian 02:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you another Opalus? I've stated my objections. Fixing them myself won't do this wiki but one good; if there is no understanding of our users, then we make the same edits on the same topics, every single time they come up. As you have invited me to edit this article, I invite you to address my issues above. Heck, I invite the whole wiki! Instead of forming polls to try and publish an article that ignores concerns, perhaps people should start reading the concerns. It's in black and white and English. Translators are abundant if it isn't your primary language. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Opalus? I am from Germany. I speak German first. I live in the US. My efforts at translation where I can not express thoughts clearly in English first are usually adequate for all required functions. Yet, I do not understand how to address your issues as I do not know what type of information you want added. I read your concerns and desire to satisfy them as far as should be done but I do not know how you want them met when either reading what you have written either in English or seeing automatic German translation. That is the "how" desired. I do not see any ignoring of your desire, I see only your desire stated without a means to meet it. That is why I have asked for description on how you want them met. They are your complaints and you are not an instructor and we are not students at university. If you will only tag and declare objection without either fixing the problems you see yourself or describing the way you want those areas modified so that it can be incorporated into the article, you are only disruptive by delaying publishing. Describe what you want done clearly, or do it yourself as you are only an equal to every other editor here. Octavian 04:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply fixing them won't do any good. If you don't understand what was fixed in the article, or why it should be (like I'm trying to do now, but no one seems to obviously care), then there is no reason for Wikinews to exist. MSM follows through on making it one person's job to write an article, another's to edit. We operate as we all write and we all edit; understanding of our co-contributors here will reduce the amount of redundancy of these events. Now, this is the last time I will say this. There are concerns on this talk page that are being ignored. I am asking, kindly, all users involved in this editing of this article will actually take them into consideration, as they are actionable and they are legit objections. Failure to do so will result in continued tagging of this article until those objections are solved. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps for those as bewildered as myself, you could demonstrate how your objections would be answered by cleaning up the article yourself. Then editors could incorporate your contributions into the story to make it run smoothly if those efforts of yours get awkward. -Edbrown05 04:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe my response can be seen in the post above yours. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the means to answer your objections in the post above, will you rephrase it with the means more directly stated? I have read "And...?" and the analysis "Objections" sections. Could your comment be that you refuse to describe what you certainly know most clearly as the way to answer your own objections despite it being the simplest means if you refuse to edit yourself? Do you not want your objections answered and the article published? What authority do you have to make complaints without describing or attempting to resolve them, and yet persist in refusing the publishing of the article? You are not a chief. No one here is, it is collaborative. Detail the way to correct the article as you see requirement to fix, or correct it yourself and have others do the same to your input, or stop this. Have I missed any conclusion to this? Do you expect others to somehow understand what you want added without your saying it? Octavian 05:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

MrM, would you re-state here, without all the above clutter, your objection (copy and paste)? -Edbrown05 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. You can read them above. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


i'm publishing this article, since every objection raised regarding it has either been addressed or awaits clarifications from an editor who has repeatedly been asked to submit those clarifications, but has refused. so no actionable objections remain. Doldrums 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • My objections are above. The only thing refused on this page is you and other editors choosing not to read them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
point to one which has not been read and acted upon. if u are unable to, i'll take it to mean that none exist. Doldrums 16:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
read, nothing that needs any editing. and therefore published. Doldrums 16:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You have failed to assess the objections before publish. Your edit will be reverted. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
i haven't. and so ... Doldrums 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You have just failed Wikinews by ignoring the concerns of other users. This proves to me you are not keen to the idea of a community, and therefore are not fit for a wiki. My invitation for you to explore other ventures is open at this time, but as of now you have just violated Wikinews policy and proper etiquette. This just goes to show, whenever I put objections, whenever I explain my edits, it is a lost and meaningless effort. This is a sad and sickening day that you could not even give credence to the fact that others may think differently from you, and instead you ignore them and push them to the ground. You are a disgraceful editor, and have just put your personal feelings above what is best for the wiki. And that is what's destroying this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
i have read the above comments. having accused me of violating policies and guidelines, please substantiate the same. u may express ur views on me and my work, to the extent permissible by wikinews policies and guidelines, on my talk page. i point you to what those p.'s and g.'s have to say about ascribing motives to and characterising other people's edits. i point out that i and other editors have given credence to ur views by making appropriate edits to the article, discussing the same with u and requesting u to clarify those of ur objections which are not clear to us, something that u have failed to do. Doldrums 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No. You and others have failed to read my statements. You have always done this in the history of this wiki. This is the final straw. In less than 20 minutes, I will revert this article one more time. This article does not conform to Wikinews' policies. You have been warned of that numerous times here. You have failed to heed those warnings. You have been given detailed information on those warnings; you have ignored them. You ignored to respond to another contributor's concerns. You do not wish to make this article conform to these policies. That is what you have told me and the community for your refusal to read or assess any of my concerns. That is extremely detrimental to this wiki, and you should be ashamed of yourself. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
what makes you believe that this article does not conform to wikinews policies (and for that matter, that i haven't read ur comments)? Doldrums 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Every action by you on this talk page and on the article. The failure to read or assess the issues raised in the "And...?" section above shows that you are not willing to listen to other users' comments. That is disturbing, and that is destructive, and that is not welcomed here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
having read that section, long before u started ur string of accusations and personal attacks, i found that every point u raised (including the two u belatedly mention below) had either been addressed by changes to the article, or with requests for further clarification that u explicitly refused to provide, again and again. so i cannot agree with ur accusations or the conclusions u draw from them. i again point out that the article talk page is the place to discuss matters relating to the article, and the user talk page, for those relating to the user. Doldrums 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Second leadEdit

As Mrm with questionable means delayd the publishing of this article and took it out of second lead earlier it is small-minded of him to try to keep it from exposure. But it look like that is the way of his agenda, sadly. international 17:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sure to your disappointment, but I don't have an agenda. Honestly. My "agenda" is to make sure Wikinews is up to the standards we, the community, have adopted. Some users disregard this as unimportant. Those are the users' whose articles are claimed to be the works of a "blog" when we are reviewed. The utmost least we have to do is make sure that all content is true, and free of bias. Having statements like "The credibility of this source was disputed." with no attribution is sickening. Even worse is the segmenting of quotes and taking them out of context, not relevent to the context that accompanies them. That is present in the article. It was highlighted above, and you ignored it. This article does not deserve second lead. It is an old article, bumped without reason, that masks a more current article. We do not update with old news. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it entirely disruptive to follow these baseless words with actions that delay a story from being published. "I don't see this as a news article - reporting about what others state, when there is no controversy, is not considered a newsworthy item to me." Reporting what other's state is what we do, regardless of controversy. If one person states a story "is not considered a newsworthy item to me," then that one person needs to move on to reading something else. This is an attack on statements like the one above, regardless of who made it. Karen 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Let me state right here, publicly and loudly, that I am disappointed in the community for allowing this atrocious article to be published. Users concerns no longer matter here. Collaboration has ceased to exist; this article itself is a prime example. When users state something, I hope that every other user who is involved in the editing of an article listens to them. I thank Vonbergm for responding to some of my objections, but I am disgusted by all other editors. When concerns are brought up, you simply cannot ignore them and call them "baseless" or non actionable without providing an explanation. That is the lowest and most basic form of respect you could show a user. But, with other preoccupied minds, that is a challenge here. This is probably the worst example of a community this article can display; a community whom excludes users for absolutely no reason at all, one that won't listen to any type of comments lodged by other users. I am extremely disappointed in users' actions on this article and this talk page. If this continues a pattern, then this wiki is destined to becoming nothing more than a political blog. As it stands, this article currently violates the WN:NPOV policy, and has major attribution issues. There are speculative statements in this article. The title is horrific. Each and every complaint I have made I have backed up earlier. I offered suggestions, I explained why they were a bother, I refrained from tagging until it was published roguely. What users did was instead of listen, they pushed these aside. They went around any and all collaboration. They formed teams and decided it was in the best interest for everyone to listen to them. This wiki better not operate as it has in this example, because if it does, I have a feeling none of us will want to ever return here again. And I hope those who have left of this wiki do not base their opinion on the state of the wiki by this article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your disappointment - your own creation.Edit

I stat it right here. You lack commuicationskills or chose not to us them to get your will through!

Your use of the word collaboration in an Orwellian way!

Your statement contain someting that looks like a try to rewrite the history about this dispute and that is - lying.

If this, your statement, reflects your reality I find no hope for collaboration by means of discussions and arguments here. And that, discussions and arguments, is what we got.

Some have seen this a long time now. Some users have left. Some users have adopted your way of doing things which done things far worser. Some like myself feel discouraged and dont make many articles any more.

Enough is enough! No more disruption. No more povpushing.

I have no more hope that you reform yourself or leave Wikinews. Please just suprice me and show me that am wrong.

international 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


May I ask for the rationale behind removing the background information on Curveball? --vonbergm 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Desperation I guess. The info about his credibility is on Wikipedia. Revert if you think i made a misstake international 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The info about his credibility is in the Wikinews article. Linked in the "related news". Don't see what the problem is. --vonbergm 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I fixed 20:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Community FeedbackEdit

(I have removed this flag.) irid:t 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff from the time it was first published three days ago to now. Except for cosmetics, there were few significant changes. One of MrM's concerns was addressed [1] right away by inserting the prefix "bio" in front of "weapons" in one instance, and another a couple of hours later by changing the title, as MrM was troubled that the WaPo "article" should not be called "report". Just after that Edbrown tweaked of the lead, to improve the article (this does not seem to have anything to do with concerns raised by MrM).

Then there was almost three days of only minor changes (and fleshing out of McClellan statement) while MrM insisted on the cleanup and develop tags. After these initial edits the only thing that possibly addressed concerns of MrM are these two edits [2] [3], where the second edit was answering a new concern brought up just prior [4], the only edit after the initial burst in which MrM raised a clear question or concern.

In my response to his initial complaint, I explained to MrM that the information regarding Curveball is in the linked wikinews article. His response was "Linked Wikinews article? And is it sourced there, as well? All I'm asking for is attribution." -- no mention of wanting the article also listed in the sources section. Still, looking back I probably should have also listed the source for the "Curveball pagragraph" in the "Sources" section and not just the "Related News" section.

And apparently (as MrM stopped tagging the article), this actually was the concern for which he withheld the article from publication for three days. The problem could have been fixed right away if he had made one edit to simply double-list the article under the sources three days ago, or at least make a clear statment to that extend on the talk page as was requested from him numerous [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] times by several different contributors. As this is not the first time in recent history [20] that MrM has held back an article by stubburnely refusing to collaborate, and I am growing increasingly impatient with this type of disruptive behaviour, I would like to solicit suggestions from the community on how to deal with similar situations in the future. --vonbergm 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Reading the first time around will solve these situations in the future. Requests to "repeat" statements only shows disrespect to the user, and tells them you did not wish to learn their spot in the collaboration area. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just as new newsie; seems to be censoring out of news criticle of Bush and censoring shold not be continueing in futrue. Yrtsihpos 03:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Maybe soluteon is to swarm censors? or block them. Yrtsihpos 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I could careless if Bush is doing good or bad things. What Wikinews does not do, however, is show bias - and that's what plagues half of the stories about Bush. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User MrMiscellanious, you state for one to read but you failed to detail any methods for correcting in your view those objections that you raised, and refused to ever list more detail outside of the minor work in the analysis "Objections" section as I read this page. What more was there to read for new content, your mind? I was not and am not able to do that, but I did desire to settle your objections yet to every statement requesting details on any means to do so, you refused. You never detailed any means to allow other users to resolve your objections after "Objections" but claimed more objections afterwards and persisted in refusing direct activity. Octavian 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrm can compare his objection with Ironiridis more specified objections here. This is good communication, collaboration. Clear and understandable. I adressed them exept for the title that I leave to others to shorten/tweek as I think its good as it is. international 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Why bother? No, I'll just stop editing altogether if users' can't read a single comment. I should have known that certain users here are not interested in WN:NPOV, and do not wish to actually provide neutral articles for this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you are trying to say, your comment does not seem to have any relation to the issues on this talk page or this article. First of all, you already acknowledged that some of your concerns got addressed, so I really don't understand what "users can't read a single comment" is supposed to mean. Secondly, and more importantly, the concern you had which prompted you to delay the publication of this article for three days was not an NPOV concern but merely a question of how to list the sources ("related news" vs. "sources" section). --vonbergm 14:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I know it may be less than perfect, but if we do show anything but a neutral point of view in a story, any objections and their reasons are listed in the story's discussion for all to read. My point is, there may be a middle ground to major editing conflicts and having to just stop editing altogether, which is to just document your objections and reasons for the sake of history (which may show you were right, after all). But it seems too extreme to just claim the grapes are sour, and claim nameless users are not interested in establishing a neutral point of view. A single person isn't well-adapted to providing a neutral point of view without first seeing many other points of view. No one person can really be neutral, or we'd just give up the general policy and just do what that one person tells us. Karen 20:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
MrM believes Wikinews should be held up to, and against the MainStreamMedia, as a news source (in my opinion) and uses that approach to set standards for story production that other users may not wish to live up to. -Edbrown05 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Edbrown05, How about sticking to the article. Jason Safoutin 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I was. -Edbrown05 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion of someone has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Jason Safoutin 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

V, I'm not sure what you want here: Yes, its clearly disruptive behavior. Yes, his "standards" are only applied to articles which disagree with his POV. etc. Its obnoxious. But it ain't as bad as some people's wikipedia strategies. Nyarlathotep 21:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You guys amaze me. What does this have to do with the article? I am going to advise everyone commenting here that Wikinews is NOT a theatre of war according to WN:NOT and I urge you to take your personal issues with any user and voice them somwhere else. Jason Safoutin 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look up Jason, this has to do with community feedback. -Edbrown05 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a case of improper citation of policy? Or an attempt to use policy to suppress a matter that is not covered by it, so that through an implication the the casual observer might be swayed that it does? This is not becoming any theater for simple aggression. Is there any insult to the user? It is stated by one that the user's behavior is casually recognized as "obnoxious", yet that is not insult to the user, harassment, or intimidation but is only comment on a particular interpretation of the actions of the user, undoubtedly intended to further a casual atmosphere to this discussion. The discussion is polite as it does not descend to the level of the most base of break room talk, and though on a talk page of an article effectively done and published now the page has been repurposed by necessity. As this discussion is in a place linked that is declared to be the water cooler-a typical break area that would seem to lend the character of a break room to this section, and tacitly allow for this to occur due to the necessity of the conversation. I see users speaking to determine methods to prompt the user to act in a way that each might find more functional, more useful. Still, it seems readily possible if required that each statement could be rephrased into questions regarding proper actions by that user, but that is avoided here by the imparted casual nature of discussions. This seems an effort to address problems before rising to that formal level-is that somehow prohibited by the NOT policy or any other? Is this type of casual conversation not a most integral element for any group to function efficiently? Octavian 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page and its comments are to be related to information pertaining to the article itself. If you have a problem with someone take it to dispute resolution, Arbcomm or mediation. If you have anything to add in regards to the article then continue, otherwise please comment elsewhere. Jason Safoutin 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
To user DF. I do not personally have any problem with the user except that detailed before, and it is strictly limited to the article and actions there as that was my interest solely formerly. However, I do not believe that any here wish to escalate matters without allowing this discussion to proceed first. I only thought it simply short sighted at the time to attempt to stop it simply for what seemed improperly considered policy, and for sake of limitation that had not practical purpose as the article was effectively done before the comment was made. It may be that despite the change observed, those involved will change venue or be compelled into changing venue for their own use. It is not important, except that casual interaction on the limited matters related to articles and organizational matters should be conducted in some forum to reduce frustrations. Octavian 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Octavian, my comment was not targeted at you specifically, and I am sorry If I seemed that way. I apologize. Jason Safoutin 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nyarlathotep, thanks, that is roughly what I was looking for. A reality check on my assessment of the situation, and possibly some advice on how to deal with this better in the future. --vonbergm 22:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Further discussionEdit

In light of recent developments in discussion here, I am respectfully asking that any further discussion that does not pertain to the article go elsewhere. Userspace is perfect for this. Thank you. irid:t 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again. Please use other talk pages for discussion that is not in reference or directly related to the article. Use your User Talk page. Multiple people can join in the fun using your talk page. irid:t 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A Reply and a Question

OK, sounds reasonable. I've had no participation at all in this article (didn't know it existed until today) but it is on a subject in which I have a major interest. My question has to do with the facts of this matter and with NPOV. As far as I can see the facts are that there never has been any credible evidence of mobile biological WMD units in Iraq - no evidence of any kind. The mobile laboratories have been, from the beginning, a figment of the imagination (apparently originally conceived so they could be invoked as a reason to deny that UN inspectors could be effective in Iraq.) No facts ever, no facts now, there is at this time no official assertion anywhere that the trailers were for WMD. That seems to me to be a perfectly valid NPOV statement: no evidence has ever existed, the claims have been totally abandoned. Any prior claims that the trailers were for biological WMD culture have been conclusively shown to be false.

It is further a valid NPOV statement to say that the CIA/DIA white paper contains enough evidence for someone familiar with the reaction used on the trailers to make hydrogen to conclude that the trailers could be used to make hydrogen and almost certainly were used to make hydrogen. It is a valid NPOV statement to say that the "fermentor" shown in a photograph in the white paper, the "fermentor" quite obviously being a pressure vessel, looks far more like what you would expect to be the main unit of a hydrogen generation system than like a biological culture vessel. (As the biological culture claim has been aqbandoned that's a totally reasonable statement.) (You'd have to be fairly irrational to culture biological WMD under pressure, as any leak in the system would, conceivably, spray out biological WMD.)

It's a further NPOV statement to say that the white paper appears to intentionally obscure part of the information that indicates hydrogen generation was the purpose of the systems by using the term "caustic" to refer to the lye found on the system, lye being one of the reactants used to make hydrogen. It's a further NPOV statement to say that the white paper appears to intentionally misrepresent the cooling unit on the trailer, as the reaction used to make hydrogen does release considerable heat. That heat must be removed to avoid having hot lye burped throughout the system, destroying compressors and valves. There is no need to invoke any other possible use of the cooling unit as its presence is completely explained by the use of the system to generae hydrogen and by the nature of the reaction used. As the cooling unit is an essential part of a hydrogen gneration system used to produce large quantitites of hydrogen its presence in no way indicates any other use for the system.

All those statements are NPOV as far as fact is concerned: they are consistent with the facts. They may be highly prejudicial to the Bush administration but that's not the fault of the statments, it is the fault of the administration for having relied on misinformation to begin with. NPOV means presenting facts objectively, doesn't it? It doesn't mean "tolerate unsubstantiated claims and treat them as being of the same quality as facts," does it?

One more question: would it be appropriate for there to be a Wikipedia article just on the trailers? The newspapers and media never have adequately reported how flawed the white paper is.

(If this gets moved to my own user talk I have no objection, although I'd like for at least some small link to be here, as it is what is here that is the reason for my comments. If what I say amounts to flogging a topic that already has been flogged nearly to death saying so could, I'd think, be the major part of a response. I'm pre-attuned to that idea and can tolerate quite a bit of scorn, as it may be richly deserved. Thanks.)

 Minasbeede 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Washington Post. Green Giant (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Pi zero (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Return to "U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted in classified Pentagon report filed on 27 May 2003" page.