Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

WP:RM removal

Since the debate is ongoing (to a massive degree) I have delisted this from WP:RM. The scope of the article now seems to be in question as well as the title. I would usually add it to "Voting time extended" but I don't see how a deadline can easily be set. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the first vote can be pretty much considered a deadlock. I think we need to put up a vote whether or not the current title is appropriate and announce ahead of time a simple majority after 72 hours will prevail (or any other fixed time limit)? Then, if we do decide to change, then we can decide on a name. Maybe that will tip the balance one way or the other. --kizzle 01:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. As proposer of the move I object to a simple majority. It's clear that we don't have consensus for the move, so the article should not be moved. We don't do votes on Wikipedi. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, sheesh, just throwin that out there :) --kizzle 02:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

If a move was proposed from alleged links to links, there wouldn't be a consensus either. if both possibilites are below the threshold of "consensus", then the page title may be stuck in a sub-optimal state. w/a simple majority, the page can reach an optimal title.

In other words, if from one title, the vote to change to the other title is higher than vice-versa, then it is clear that the other title is more acceptable to the community.

In other words, if the title was alleged links, and the vote was to move it to links, there would not be a clear consensus to, and therefore, by your logic, tony, the title of the article should be "alleged links". yet at the sime time according to that logic, it should be links, and many other things - that logic leads to an inconsistent system. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:13, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

There's no consensus to keep it under this title either, so I'll restate: Why not just move it to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? I see no objections to that simple, concise, and neutral title so far. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did. Anyone who objects, move it back, but please explain why. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no complaints...it seems NPOV and far better than the term alleged as part of the title...as I mentioned earlier...the article can be the place to either prove or disporove any links based on clear and factual referencing.--MONGO 03:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please get Guiness on the phone, and someone take a picture :) - I agree with MONGO. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't say this much but I think I'm with Mongo on this. --kizzle 03:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

This title is mere speculation until a transcript of Saddam's interogation is published. Nobs 03:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to pick a fight, but I would be less inclined to believe anything Saddam has to say now more than I would have while he was still in power...in light of the fact that he will probably be fighting to preserve his life.--MONGO 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The title, and the real origin of this content

As csloat noted Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda/Archive1, you'll notice a complete overlap of content (and similar commentary) on the original author's web page [1]. That article is titled, interestingly enough, 'Saddam and Al Qaeda'. If that's a good enough title for their disinformation, it's good enough for us! -- RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Ryan was being sarcastic? Saddam and Al Qaeda is even more POV, it still needs alleged or something. zen master T 05:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god we are never going to get a title for this. How is "Saddam and Al Qaeda" POV? Its just two names connected together with "and". Fine. How about The nature of relationship and/or linkage between Pre-War/2002 Iraq (specifically Saddam Hussein) and Osama Bin Laden and/or Al-Qaeda which is alleged by some but heavily disputed by others --kizzle 17:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Saddam turning to religion

I have just a slight problem with this quote:

After the Gulf War, as Iraq experienced internal unrest, Hussein apparently turned to religion to bolster his government (for example, adding the words "God is Great" in Arabic to the Iraqi flag, and referring to God in his speeches).

"Apparently" is the word one uses when their not sure of their sources. Can we get some sourcing for this statement, or links to detailed analysis of this phenomenon? --kizzle 19:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, while I'm pretty sure this is correct I had not done the work to source it. It seems Saddam_Hussein#Postwar aftermath also refers to this in passing: "Saddam increasingly portrayed himself as a devout Muslim, in an effort to co-opt the conservative religious segments of society. Some elements of Sharia law were re-introduced (such as the 2001 edict imposing the death penalty for homosexuality and sexual offenses), and the ritual phrase "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"), in Saddam's handwriting, was added to the national flag." I don't know of any detailed analysis (I'll look) but it was more or less common knowledge. ObsidianOrder 07:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not a stickler for sources, but when someone uses "apparently", they're telling the reader they're unsure of them.--kizzle 08:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

title sentence

The alleged link was claimed to have caused considerable concern in the United States Bush administration, about a combination of their resources, motivating the subsequent invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

I'm not sure what the author of this is trying to say? Seems kind of awkward at best. --kizzle 19:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it, and I completely agree with you that its virtually senseless. The sad thing is that it was a 300 percent improvement over what was there before. :( -SV|t 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aw it's alright :) Well, I'll try something else, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes. --kizzle 21:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Content

One more thing, can we please stray from the "Some say/but others say" model for half of this page? If you know someone said it, then say who said it rather than attributing it to random hearsay. This is Wikipedia, not Fox News. --kizzle 19:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why was article renamed while vote was still in progress?

I don't support the currently Saddam title, less confusion (more specific) but also more POV. There are currently 14 to 11 votes in favor of the alleged links title. Should we revote for or against the current title, revert to old title, or go with alleged links? zen master T 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidaway stated that there wasn't a concensus either way and that he was opposed to a change at all...though there is a majority in favor of changing it. Then it was changed, I agreed with the change, two others actually agreed with me and here we are. If you wish to take a new vote in favor or opposed to the current change or to redo the vote either way that's fine too. Personally I find the new title best because it allows us to create an article discussing the "links" between the previous government of Iraq and al-Qaeda, not the links since the "end of major combat" as Bush put it.--MONGO 06:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is more support for the alleged links title than anything else... zen master T 07:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The common manner of moving a page is without vote, just like editing content. It was determined rather quickly that the current title has more consensus than the suggested title. so the move was done. If you want to move it back, have a vote. i'm pretty confident that the majority will favor the current title. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

How about Alleged links between the Bathist regime of Iraq and Al-Qaeda? There are already 14 votes in favor of alleged links.... zen master T 07:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia titles don't have "Alleged" in them. The titles concisely list the subject matter, and the article details the various allegations. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, see Gzuckier's post above. --kizzle 16:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldnt this be 'Alleged links between the Baath party and Al-Qaeda'?

"Regime" is POV. "Baathist" is an "-ist" of the thing and not the thing itself. Not particularly useful in referring to a specific. Lets not pick up bad habits from news anchors, now. -SV|t 01:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saddam and Al-Qaeda is POV

It's not like Al-Qaeda was even allegedly meeting directly with Saddam (but Donald Rumsfeld has). The best title is Alleged links between the Baathist government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda What do people think? zen master T 01:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that brings up a good point; we know there were links between osama and saddam, in that both were financially and militarily backed by the Reagan/Bush administration. QED!!Gzuckier 21:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vote on title, v.2

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

1. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:44, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
2. --MONGO 03:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Grue 05:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. --kizzle 20:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
5. ObsidianOrder 10:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) maybe not perfect but better than any of the proposed alternatives. I'm ok with it.
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC) A reasonable title in line with Wikipedia naming conventions.

Alleged links between the Baathist government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda

1. zen master T 01:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

Who moved this by the way? SV|t 01:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: is Al-Qaeda allegedly meeting with Saddam specifically? zen master T 02:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, but calling his government the "Baath government" is a bit off as well. -SV|t 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

• SV|t 17:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

saddam hussein vs. former iraqi government

The case for asserted links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, by George W. Bush

"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action." Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat." Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Well duh, cause Saddam was behind 9/11. --kizzle 20:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm? zen master T 21:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

evolution

Just wanted to mention thet I am overall fairly happy with the way this article has evolved. I wanted to step back for a bit and see what people will do with it. I may not agree with everything, but I think overall it has been an improvement. I'll be back eventually, don't worry ;) ObsidianOrder 12:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Title double standard, what is WP policy?

Why is this article's title straightforward and doesn't need an "allegations" or "claims" in it, yet there are other articles such as the 9/11 controversy articles that seem to require caveats such as "conspiracy claims" or "conspiracy theory" in them? 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory Someone mentioned on a talk page recently that there is a wikipedia policy that states articles should not have caveat words or words that pre-judge the subject in them such as "allegations". At the very least this alleged policy should be consistent and apply to all articles? Does this policy apply to titles with "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy claims" in them? For a general discussion about this and the requisite degree of neutrality in a title see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Using this article's title as an example and comparing it to an arguably equally dubious subject it seemingly would make sense to retitle the AIDS conspiracy theories article as AIDS and biowarfare (spliting irrelevant content to already existing articles). What do people think? zen master T 01:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

zen - it is simply because nobody credible has disputed the existance of some of the connections, specifically the first 1994 meeting in Sudan and the 1998 meeetings. The Kuala Lumpur meeting and the Salman Pak camp are also near universally accepted to be real, but it is unclear whether both parties participated in them. I'm sorry, but an encyclopedia does judge. If I make a wild claim out of thin air (such as most of the "AIDS conspiracy theories"), that is one thing. If numerous sources independently report things which support each other and are later confirmed by physical evidence, that is another thing. The current status of the Saddam-al-Quaeda connection is simply undecided (pending further evidence). It is not probably false (in which case it might merit "alleged" in the title), nor it is probably true (in which case the critics will be relegared to a section of the article). There is no double standard. What I think is more likely is that you are so unhappy with the extent of the evidence presented here that you feel the need to prejudge the subject before the reader gets to it. ObsidianOrder 01:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The current status of the Saddam-al-Quaeda connection is simply undecided (pending further evidence)

"There is no evidence of a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" - Conclusion of the 9/11 report. --kizzle 19:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to Obsidian's points, I'll simply re-iterate that Wikipedia articles do not use "alleged" etc. in the titles. The subject is stated, and the article sorts out the details. And an allegation is not at all alike a conspiracy theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, see my earlier post pointing out Gzuckier's post above on other articles with "alleged" in the title. --kizzle 19:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why should allegations of a conspiracy theory be treated differently? All articles' titles should be simply stated. Allegations of Saddam involvement with Al-Qaeda is precisely a conspiracy theory so why the double standard? zen master T 18:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

They are simply two seperate articles, AIDS and AIDS conspiracy theories. One article speaks of information that is generally known and factual, the other is basically asks more questions than it answers. Nobs 01:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then this article should be titled Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda support theories or Allegations of Baathist government of Iraq support for Al-Qaeda to be consistent? ObsidianOrder, there is more evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda did not have a relationship. Basically, a title should be 100% neutral and not assume any possible conclusions contained in the article. If something is factually a "wacky theory" any facts and citations that support that conclusion should be included in a neutrally titled article. zen master T 02:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant to note here that as the article intro states (albeit buried), a comparable series of meetings to those listed here occured between Al-Qaeda and Saudi government officers, as well as those from other nations as well. Are such citations welcome in the timeline? If not, are we seeing POV by selectively listing only these contacts without context for the 'foreign policy' actions of these terrorist and national groups? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan - that would be fine, either under a section of the Al-Qaeda article ("Governments supporting ..."), under its own article (such as "Links between Al-Qaeda and various governments"), or if sizeable enough, under "X government and Al-Qaeda". I think that's fair, I have no objection to it. In particular "Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan and Al-Qaeda" will be quite interesting and I'd be interested in contributing to them. This article can crosslink to those for context. I don't think that other government links properly belong in this article, though. ObsidianOrder 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

How about Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theories? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:04, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

If the justification is that the truth of a few of these allegations remain undetermined, and others are widely accepted to have taken place, then I think it's appropriate that the now-debunked allegations be marked more clearly, to keep from justifying the 'Alleged' title that this kind of half-true content would normally call for. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

so where would the claim that "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks.", made by none other than the president of the United States, lie in that respect? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:30, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Interviewer, Jan 31, 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim."

Note he made that statement before this and after this. I'd call it either gross incompetence or complete manipulation of fact based on the desired goal.

Moreover, as I've maintained from the beginning, the more informative and contextually 'true' narrative for this article is one based on the administration's ongoing, relentless effort to twist intelligence to justify their war in Iraq (of which the Al-Qaeda relationship was but a single facet). The article as it stands is little more than the original poster's now-debunked list of allegations that he has posted to his web site and numerous blogs. The longer this article retains that flawed content and premise, the longer this page serves to disinform while it informs. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

a related vote

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:36, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

An example of the need for a new format

PLEASE read through the below excerpt, which illustrates the significant need for a new context/format for the presentation of this article's content in an accurate and informative way.

It belongs in the article, as more than a 'statement'. The relationship between the claims and the evidence is a large part of the story. It also makes clear by direct example the danger of intentional 'cherry-picking' of allegations without context, without corroboration or relation to the existing body of actual evidence.

Quoted from the Knight-Ridder report of March 9, 2004 detailing Tenet's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee CIA director disputes Cheney assertions on Iraq:

{Senator Carl} Levin {(D-MI)} also questioned Tenet about a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News, in which Cheney cited a November article in the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, as "the best source of information" on cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaida.

The article was based on a leaked top-secret memorandum. It purportedly set out evidence, compiled by a special Pentagon intelligence cell, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the third-highest Pentagon official and a key proponent of the war.

"Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?" asked Levin.

"Senator, we did not clear the document," replied Tenet. "We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."

Tenet, who pointed out that the Pentagon, too, had disavowed the document, said he learned of the article Monday night, and he planned to speak with Cheney about the CIA's view of the Feith document.

In building the case for war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials relied in part on assessments by the CIA and other agencies. But they concealed disputes and dissents over Iraq's weapons programs and links to terrorists that were raging among analysts, U.S. diplomats and military officials. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ya seriously. Stephen Hayes = propaganda toolbag for Douglas Feith. --kizzle 02:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lets keep in context: the above is a press report about a press report (what's wrong with using the Congressional transcript), secondly, the memorandum originated in the Pentagon, Levin's question is addressed to CIA chief; (no evidence that the Pentagon is in the purvue of the CIA); third, question is about "agreement", Tenet does not dispute contents; fourth, the Knight-Ridder writer then makes a leap to the Pentagon disavowing the document. Obviously the report was a minority opinion, and there is no requirement that policy makers must use consensus data to make decision; fifth, the Knight-Ridder third genreation material uses the loaded language, "Saddam was in league with...", whatever that means, with no explaination. Nobs 17:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it in context, as I have been pleading:

1. The transcript is fine - the excerpt however shows CONTEXT, in a few lines, that links Cheney, the rationale, the memo, the Weekly Standard article, Hayes' book, and Tenet all in 3 easy-to-read lines. THAT IS WHAT THIS ARTICLE DESPERATELY NEEDS. In the absence of it this article is misinformation.
2. The information needed is not necessarily the press report itself, it's the FACTUAL information contained in the report regarding the context of the leaked memo and its inaccuracy.

inaccuracy is unfair charchterization; should read disputed conclusions Nobs 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not characterize. If my few-days old recollection serves, inaccurate is the very term used by both the Pentagon and Tenet to describe the memo. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The memo originated in the Pentagon, summarizing CIA data in a way that the CIA did not agree with.
2. Tenet disputes the report. The contents may or may not be true - it's raw intelligence and should be treated as such, not taken as absolute fact (as the report and this article currently do).
3. No leap. The Pentagon did indeed disavow the document at the link I provided in the article.
4. It was not a minority opinion, it was a memo written by Feith based on selected, unsubstantiated raw CIA intelligence. You mischaracterize its origin.
5. I don't understand your comment about loaded language vis a vis KR. Can you elaborate? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Tenet does not dispute the contents, only the analytical conclusions. In fact it may be leap to use the word "dispute", the CIA may have considered the conclusions use of the data premature. As also the Pentagon.
2. There is no hint in the Knight-Ridder article that the Feith document was based on "CIA data" as you claim. I beleive the information in question originated with external (non-U.S) agencies. (the only connection of the CIA to this document in fact is Levin asking Tenet about it)
3. A minority opinion is just that, a view less popular or conventional in government circles when discussing or analyzing information. The Feith document would appear so. This isn't to say that the view was corrupted or wrong, the only criticism appears to be it lacked evidence, thus the argument to do nothing and wait for more evidence. That response also must be considered in light of 911 Commission Report, etc., the changeing role of the FBI toward "prevention" and not just reacting, "failure to connect the dots" etc.
4. "in league with" is certainly a journalistic phrase and I don't believe appears in the Congressional transcript or the Feith Report (I'm not certain and I could be wrong, but either way it doesnt belong there). "in league with" has a myriad of meanings, most of which would best be characterized as from a Western idiomatic point of view, and would fail to penetrate and understand nature of the relationship (assuming of course, there was a relationship).

1. He and they do indeed. 'Raw Intelligence' means 'ww said xx did yy', not 'we have proof that xx did yy'. Conclusions so drawn are faulty, as Tenet and the Pentagon described as 'inaccurate' and 'unsupported conclusions'. Premature or no, they were inaccurate and unsupported. 'Disputed' is not strong enough - the memo was 'disavowed'.
2. Claiming the Feith memo was not based on CIA data is blatantly untrue. From a site with which you may be familiar: "The Pentagon's statement continues: The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee's question. " [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027628/posts]
3. Claiming there was a 'majority' and a 'minority' opinion is assuming that there are only two opinions. From raw intelligence, that too is a failure of logic. Feith's 'opinion' existed already, and he chose 'facts' from raw, uncorroborated intelligence, to try to 'sell' that opinion.
4. I still don't understand how that alters the relevance or veracity of the information or the context in which it is provided. And I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

1. As the source states "products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA", in other words KR nowhere states Feith report is based on "raw CIA intelligence"; CIA may have been working on its own understanding of the intelligence that was collected by another agency and shared with the U.S. government. But Douglas Feith's work is not subordinate to CIA.
2. From the KR full text: "The administration's statements, he said, reflected a prewar intelligence consensus that Saddam had stockpiled...". There really is no disagreement here. If the Feith report's view was held by no other persoan than Feith himslef, it still would be a minority or dissenting view from either the "consensus" view, or an "emerging consensus" view if one was not yet in existence at that time. It was most likely written to give cover for the lack of a consensus view because of the lack of corraborating evidence, yet certain higher level policy makers did not wish to be charged with "failure to act", or "failure to connect the dots" etc. etc. etc.
3. The confusion comes from Carl Levin himself trying to twist facts with his loaded question: "Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?", when in fact Sen. Levin clearly means "Did the CIA agree with the conclusions of the Feith document?". Nobs 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Subordinate? Feith making conclusions from raw data is like a high-school biology major interpreting a cat scan. It's not reason or expertise enough to operate. That's why his conclusions were described as inaccurate, and the data as 'raw intelligence'. As Cheney himself described it, "the analysts analyze, the policymakers decide." Feith did neither. His memo (like this article) cherry-picked the intelligence useful to suggest the opinion he already held or the opinion his superiors (like Rumsfeld) held.

Absolutely correct. Feith analyzed. Cheney decided. Nobs 04:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In his official role as policymaker (not analyst) "Undersecretary for Policy" at the Pentagon Feith discarded the preponderance of valid analyzed intelligence, parroted unconfirmed/'unanalyzed' data, and reported it upwards, to the Senate, and perhaps to Hayes and the Weekly Standard and media sources. He did not analyze, nor did he decide. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

1. That quote refers to the intelligence gathered to support the WMD claim, not the terrorism claim.
2. I don't think that reinterpretation of Feith's question is required. Why do you think his question was in error? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the question was deliberately worded to give the false impression that CIA disagreed with the contents; Tenet did not disagree with the contents, i.e. raw data. He stated that the CIA either did not support Feith analysis of the raw data or that CIA had not yet made a finding to support a similiar analsis. As a note of claritity, what specifically is the rawq data in question? Is it the Czech intellence agency's report of Muhammad Ata's activities in Prague? Nobs 04:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The data is contained in the memo, in the form of references to fifty or so different documents selected by Feith. This article comprises some of them as well. To respond to your specific allegation, Atta has already been proven by extensive review by other intelligence services than just the Czechs NOT to have visited Prague as alleged... but that point is no longer een strongly alleged in the article. And Tenet did indeed dispute the accuracy of the raw data - not because it was proven false or true - but because it was not yet proven! Because it was raw, and in widely varying states of corroboration and truth, and therefore not reason enough to bring a democracy into war. Much of these points, though described by Cheney as "the best source of information" on the link, had at the time and have remained debunked by the vast preponderance of contrary evidence. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I would not characterize "waiting for coroboration" with "disputing" Nobs 04:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"Waiting for corroboration" is a completely invalid approach to intelligence, for it presupposes a foregone conclusion. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Note on method: the discussion centers around a bureaucracy's unwillingness to take risks and make judgements for fear of anyone being wrong. The consensus view does not pass judgement on the raw data, yah or nay; it rather can be characterized as "do nothing and wait" because there is not enough evidence for a valid judgement to be made. So in other words, a judgement could not be made because they didn't know all the facts. Not being in possession of all the facts then I see in the above posting a similiar process: "therefore not reason enough to bring a democracy into war", i.e. making a premature judgement not based on all the evidence. This is permissible, provided one is willing to accept the consequences of being wrong. Nobs 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Your characterization of the discussion around bureaucratic intransigence is, to say the least, to miss the point I'm making here. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lack of corroboration does not disprove a theory; it only remains uncorroborated. Nobs 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That borders on doublespeak. It doesn't justify the misinformative content and conclusion included in Feith's memo. And the leak puts these allegations in the public domain, where allegations without substance by their very nature cannot always be disproven - you cannot always prove something definitively did not happen, especially those allegations based on incorrect information by sometimes quite dubious sources. In government, to do anything less than one's best to determine and represent the truth to one's colleagues is to endanger the security of the nation and the world in exchange for selective policy goals. The very thing such 'memos' represent - communication between the executive and the legislative. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not certain where the term allegation comes from, which you use four times in the above posting.
• An uncorroborated premise remains uncorroborated until it is either corroborated (established as fact) or disproven. This was the case of the "raw data" under discussion in the KR article, which was the subject of the Levin-Tenet discussion. Sen. Levin was asking if Tenet & the CIA agreed with Feith judgement's and conclusions that Feith wrote based on the "raw data", a job analysts throughout the government were tasked with. No consensus view emerged whether the data was valid or invalid, only that it was inconclusive. Feith dissented from that consensus view. Cheney adopted the arguement. Nobs 05:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

All of which was and is as yet unproven. Desired policy determines the requisite intelligence. Staggering. You'll notice the dissenting CIA has since begun a purge at the hands of the new Bush-appointed Porter Goss.

Last, your summary about Feith/Cheney alone necessitates a proper description of the context here on Wikipedia for these allegations (and when I say allegation think 'unproven report or assertion'). Remember that many of these cherry-picked allegations/reports have been roundly disproven, by contradictory information that was not included, not leaked, and is thus still secret. Enough to cause the CIA to dissent. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"allegation" is a journalistic disclaimer, i.e. a phrase domestic newspapers use to disclaim liability from slander when reporting news about suspects and crimes, and only serves to clutter up this discussion with the discoloration of "wrongdoing"; wikipedia is not a news outlet in need of legal protection by disclaiming "alleged wrongdoing" either on Saddam Hussein's part or policymakers. Nobs 05:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"allegation" is an accurate characterization of a statement made. See This is not a pipe. If, indeed, that which was alleged was witnessed and verifiable by the general public, then the allegation would be extraneuous and wikipedia would simply state "the sky is blue". In contrast, if an event that cannot, by nature, be witnessed, such as a purported past event, is alleged by someone to have happen, the only fact we have, and therefore the only thing there is to present, is the allegation itself. We simply do not have access to the referant, and to refer to the referent from a first-person or third-person omniscent perspective would be to decieve the reader as to our relation to it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:58, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

proposition for new format

Kevin Baas's proposal

1. What has been alleged - statements made by the adminstration, such as "[Saddam Hussein] has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before: al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations...", "He's had contacts with Al Qaida.", and "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
2. what the known facts are, from intelligence reports and the like - in proportion.
3. how the allegations stand up under the facts.
4. (this is usually analysis, but analysis doesn't belong on wikipedia) public perception on this issue.

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:00, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

3 seems dangerously close to original research, unless all we are doing is citing, but who would we cite in this case? --kizzle 22:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say 2 before 1 (facts as we know them are more important than official statements), scratch 3 since frankly there is no neutral source for that, and very brief 4. ObsidianOrder 23:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I like having 1 in the beginning, remember what context we're talking about in discussing this link, as it was cited as a main reason for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam. It is important to preface the article with that information and how this discussion of linkage began in the first place. --kizzle 23:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regards 3: I didn't word it very well, more or less I meant matching the allegations with the known facts, in retropsect, if 1 and 2 are organized in the same way, this section would be extraneous. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:36, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I am considering moving the "statements" section up to directly after the "background" section, in pursuance of the proposed format. What are people's views on this matter? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:57, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

The "statements" in this case are like Quotes, which usually go at the bottom. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My reasoning is that the statements (at least those made by the administration) are the charges, which provide the context of this article, and context should come first. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I disagree. Since the charges in this case are all demonstrably false, it would be a bad idea, since putting them at the top will make them seem like they are true, especially for a reader who doesn't read all the way through. From the beginning this article should be clear that all these charges are disputed. --csloat 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I second csloat. The allegations, some of which have absolutely no corroboration other than the leaked, now-disavowed Feith memo, are misleading and as I mentioned above, constitute actual misinformation. As with other controversial articles, I feel we should lose the allegations other than those specifically corroborated (and a number of them are indeed corroborated). Note that such corroboration does not include reports that quote the source, but rather includes other reports from other sources as to the same allegations. For instances like allegations now disavowed by the purported participants themselves (some of whom are now-captive, proven Al Qaeda operatives), I believe a presentation of both sides of the issue is warranted, if the point is relevant enough to be included in this article. Obsidian Order's website that contains the original text of this article is already out on the web, and duplicating those bullet points here, especially when uncorroborated, does not serve to inform the reader.

All of this presupposes, however, that these specific allegations are required for this article. I lean to the belief that such a listing is indeed useful - being illustrative of the controversy within the administration, intelligence community and public opinion - but only where such a listing accurately represents the scope of 'known knowns', to quote Donald Rumsfeld. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

proposition 2

I think this is what ryanfresling meant in some brief discussin i had with him before he took a wikivacation:

This page is about saddam hussein and al qaeda, so lets talk about saddam hussein and al qaeda. you knowk like, "saddam hussein is a person", "al qaeda is a terrorist organization", "they have nothing in common". and them at the end of the article we can put any recent events that are related to the two, like "after much discussion about how he could get the public to support an invasion of iraqt , george bush had the intelligence agency look for links between the two (see data mining/confirmation bias), and the cia came back and told him that they couldn't find any, so he put a vagure refrence to links in his speeches (quote, cite some such speeches).... the intelligence report found "no collaborative relationship...".

I.e. first just tell it like it is: "the grass is green." then talk about people's views: "some people think it's red", along with balancing views "most scientists say that those people think that because they are red-green colorblind."

what are people's views on this? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:28, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the article was moved to a new title, and now you're saying the contents no longer match the title, so we should change the contents to match. I think it makes more sense to move it back to the old title. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It was established that the old title was POV. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to, in keeping with the same organization as other topics, such as AIDS, as well as the consensus on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory to move this article to or have a new article titled "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory", esp. since the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been established by consensus to be a NPOV phrase. We can have a page under the current title for the facts, and a page under the new title for the conspiracy theory - the contents would thus match the NPOV title. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:02, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

No such thing was established, or has been established. If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV. Moreover, the conclusion on this page was to keep the article where it was, since most "consensus" votes require at least a 2/3rds majority. Please stop trying to misrepresent your POV as "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, what I have stated is not my POV. It is your POV (as evidenced by the vote), and it is contrary to my POV. As you clearly stated directly above, speaking in opposition to your POV (which you erroneosly called my POV), "If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV." My POV that "conspiracy theory" is POV, is distinct from your POV which you call "the strong consensus". (and I agree that it is.) Given my position, I am personally against making an article with the title "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". However, my POV is not the consensus, and I will not, nor have I ever, represented it as such. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:30, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

You see, when I said "the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been established by consensus to be a NPOV phrase.", I was saying that "If you look at the votes on this subject, the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV." I said that, since "the strong consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is not POV.", it would, according to the strong consensus, which includes your vote, not be POV to title this page "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". As you can see by my vote, I think it would be POV to title this page "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda conspiracy theory". However, unlike you, I am not representing my view as the consensus. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:44, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

More views?... Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm back. I'm not sure I follow this section's point enough to comment yet, but I don't think I disagree with Baas. I'll parse and think. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Kevin - "they have nothing in common" - indeed? and your evidence of that is? this is a lot more complicated of an issue than what you suggest. even the sources people commonly cite as proof of "no relationship" do not actually say (or suggest) anything of the kind, on a more careful reading. you typically mangled what the 9/11 report says: the full quote is "we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship". read that a few times and think about it. heck, the 9/11 report does not even say that atta definitely did not meet al-ani in prague ("cannot absolutely rule out"!) and that's one of the least well supported claims. the "tell it like it is" story is that we don't know. there are some links which are very suggestive of a relationship, even of collaboration on 9/11, but none of them are definitively proven. there are some things which pointing the other way too. everyone has to come to their own conclusions about this. ObsidianOrder 15:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is the burden of proof, as you suggest, on disproving an event rather than proving it existed in the first place? --kizzle 16:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, because this is not a court? We want to present what is known about the subject (including the degree of reliability of various information), not pass a sentence. ObsidianOrder 16:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, ok, my bad. Next time I'll pull something completely out of my ass, and when you can't find anything to disprove it, we can just simply conclude we don't know either way. --kizzle 16:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Look, in case you didn't know, bush didn't say that there were links because there were links - that whole iraq-al qaeda bit had nothing to do with american intelligence. it had everything to do with manipulating public opinion. they have about as much in common as any random country has with any random terrorist organization - i say this because iraq was not picked on the basis of having any ties to al qaeda, nor was al qaeda picked on the basis of having any ties to iraq - iraq was picked because bush wanted to invade it, and al qaeda was picked because of 9-11. the reason this article - the reason any of this discussion is here in the first place - has nothing at all to do with links between saddamm hussein and al-qaeda. the cia was asked to data mine for links, and no surpirse they found some, there's going to be a little bit for every country, but incidental. really, we'd be much more just in writting an article linking saddam hussein and donald rumsfield: they actually met, twice, and that's evidence we don't have to search the entire cia data repository to find. they met so that donald, and former emissary George W. Bush, could give him weapons to sue agianst his neighbors - that's proof of a collaborative relationship right there, something the 9/11 commission report said hussein and al qaeda didn't have. being that there is no article on the collaborative relationship between hussein and rumsfield, and noone is seriously suggesting that there should be - being that, supposedly "donald rumsfield and saddam hussein have nothing in common", supposedly the secular saddam hussein and the religious fundamentalist group al qaeda, sworn enemies of each other, supposedly do? For one reason and one reason only: the bush administration wanted people to associate 9/11 with iraq, to turn the surge in support from 9/11 into consent for the war. it had nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of any actual "links" between the two. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:13, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

"didn't have" - no, it does not say that. read that full quote again. you are dragging the war and political decisions into this. sorry, but it is not relevant: whether (and how much) iraq supported al-qaeda is a question that has an independent existance and an answer regardless of what anyone may or may not want to use that answer for. our purpose is only to try to find that out or at least lay out what is known about it, the rest belongs in Influence of perceived links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on the decision to go to war with Saddam which is a different article. ObsidianOrder 16:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dragging the war and political decisions into this, I am trying to take them out of this. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

The whole existence of this article is b.s., and it would not be here did bush et. al. not have the audacity to desecrate the victims of 9/11 by using people's grief for them as a political tool. This article shouldn't be here. It endorses such desecration of the victims of 9/11 and represents an otherwise random and arbitrary juxtaposition of two otherwise independant things. but this article is here, and the best we can do is not start with that insignificant b.s. about "links" between hussein and al-qaeda that are weaker than the links between hussein and George W. Bush, the trumpeter himself. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:32, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I love that we have an article who's main point, Links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, cannot even be shown to be likely through evidence. I swear, when I get bored sometime in the future, I am creating a Links between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden page just to spite this page. --kizzle 17:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually there would be far more evidence for such an article than there is for this one, at least if you call speculations about possible meetings "evidence," as is implied in this article. I agree; this article is bogus, but if it's going to be here, every potential "link" should be refuted clearly. A George Bush/OBL connection article is actually a good idea, because the links are stronger and go back further (for example, OBL's brother supposedly was involved in "October Surprise" 1980, according to Paul Thompson). The overall effect would be the same - speculation about meetings combined with innuendo, painting a picture of a conspiratorial relationship between Saddam (or George) and al Qaeda. --csloat 20:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm...I love misleading through blind speculation and innuendo. --kizzle 23:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

atta/prague

csloat, your version is innacurate:

Evidence suggests this was a case of mistaken identity by Czech authorities [2]. The meeting is similarly disputed by U.S. intelligence organizations, who after extensive investigation have determined it never took place. Even the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting ([3])

1. the "mistaken identity" article only suggests there were two entry attempts into the Czech Republic by people who gave very similar names but had different passports (one Pakistani, one Egyptian). It does not suggest anything about whether one or both of them were or were not the hijacker Atta. Additionally, this refers to the May/June 2000 visits, not the April 2001 visit.
2. "have determined it never took place" is a way more definitive statement than what anyone has claimed. I gave an exact quote by Mueller, I think it best to leave it at that. And it is best to cite the FBI, not some anonymous "U.S. intelligence organizations".
3. "the Czech government later admitted they did not believe Atta was at the meeting" is not what the article that you cite says, and that does not even quote the Czechs aside from a tiny out of context quote ("he may be different") by an unidentified source.

All in all this is a very inaccurate characterization of the positions and statements of the various people involved. (1) should be paraphrased, (2) should be left as the exact Mueller quote, and for (3), if you can find a better source for any Czech retraction, give an exact quote from that as well. I think that's fair. ObsidianOrder 22:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Czech retraction was widely reported and you could easily find a source for it if you were motivated to. I'll dig up my sources when I've got the time to revise what is now an inaccurate assessment of this highly controversial allegation. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, the Czech retraction was a figment of the NY Times imagination. I was just reading about this so I do not have the source at hand but the Czech government actually contacted the U.S. and assured them the meeting DID take place. RonCram

That's simply untrue, in both allegations. It was no figment (it occurred), and the meeting very likely DID NOT take place, in the estimation of actual intelligence professionals. And you are now the second person to regurgitate that untruth without sources. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with switching to exact quotes, though the Mueller quote is not the only relevant statement. Intelligence analysts have been pretty clear that they have concluded Atta was in Florida in April 2001. There seems to be nothing substantial backing this up, and in fact the source does show the Czech officials backing off the claim and agreeing the CIA was probably correct. --csloat 02:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

911 Coimmision Section

I vote we delete this entire section. These long unanalyzed quotes add nothing to the discussion. We can put them on the discussion page so we can easily quote from them when necessary but they do not belong on the main article at all. Any objections to removing them completely?

I also question the value of the "Statements" section. Again, we should use the important ones in the article itself; there is no need for a list of all this stuff. --csloat 02:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the 9/11 commission section should stay, it is almost impossible to summarize without changing its meaning. I've already trimmed it to just the relevant paragraphs+footnotes. Perhaps it can be trimmed more (esp the footnotes) but I am generally opposed to replacing it with an original summary or analysis. The statements section is also useful, it should contain the ones that do not pertain to any specific bit of evidence or specific occurence. ObsidianOrder 15:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In what way is any of this information useful? Nobody is going to read through these long quotes from the 911 Commission report. It's useful to researchers to have them all in one place, perhaps, but then you make a web page for that and link to it from Wikipedia rather than putting it here. Can you show me a printed encyclopedia anywhere that has an entry with long unexplained quotations filled with details like this? As for the statements section, I think whatever is useful there could be integrated into the introduction. Perhaps there should be an "Analysis" section after the intro that includes some of these quotes and, most importantly, emphasizes that all serious analyses of the so-called "links" have turned up nothing meaningful.--csloat 16:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response from OO and nobody else is stepping in to defend this section. I am going to delete the 911 Commission section and put the quotes on a separate page in case anyone wants to refer to it.csloat 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have listed this article, which no longer informs but now represents an act of active disinformation of the sort originally employed to 'leak and pervade' these now-disproven allegations, on RFC. This is a step on the way to it's eventual removal or drastic rewriting, especially since the list of allegations remains in multiple locations on the web, as posted by the original author. Wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda, it is an encyclopedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I simply don't understand why this is such a problem. The criticisms of and problems with some of the things the article talks about are well documented. I think the article has gone a long way towards being more informative, more complete and more neutral since my original version, and you contributed to that. "now-disproven"? Is that true of everything in there? That is one hell of a POV. Surely, if slim evidence is not enough to "prove" one of these, neither is equally slim evidence enough to "disprove"? I consider most of the items in there to be indeterminate, not proven or disproven, and I would put their likelyhood at anywhere between 20 and 80% depending on which one we're talking about. They are not presented as facts (except for the few which are essentially not disputed by anyone). There is no "propaganda" here, just laying out all the evidence, and every single thing is extensively sourced. "disinformation"? What, exactly? ObsidianOrder 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider most of the items in there to be indeterminate, not proven or disproven...

Just thought I'd help in finding some words to characterize the items in this article. --kizzle 19:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

ru·mor Pronunciation Key (rmr) n. - A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth. [4]

hear·say Pronunciation Key (hîrs) n. - Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor [5]

base·less Pronunciation Key (bsls) adj. - Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded. Synonyms: baseless, groundless, idle, unfounded, unwarranted [6]

The word you're hunting for is simply unverified (or perhaps incompletely verified) ObsidianOrder 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

They are not presented as facts...

Then what the fuck are we doing? --kizzle 19:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

We are presenting the available evidence. You may want to look up how that compares with fact in the dictionary. ObsidianOrder 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

fact n :

1. a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3. an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

The word you're hunting for is simply unverified...

See definition #2. --kizzle 23:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You know well that I do not claim everything in this article is disproven. I claim that the collection of these allegations, intended to establish a collusion between Iraq and Al-Qaeda regardless of the overwhelming preponderance to the contrary, is disinformation. For many of the bullet points in your list, there is no other source that reported the alleged event, and there are some instances where those who originally reported it (informers, intelligence services, etc.) accompanied or clarified the leaked allegations with disclaimers, which were omitted and will remain so unless others 'clean up your work'. It's disingenuous, for example, to claim the Czechs maintain Atta met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. It's disingenuous to maintain that the connections listed herein are in any way indicative of a pattern of involvement by Iraq in Al-Qaeda's war against America. And it's extremely disingenuous (and disinformative) to revert what are completely accurate, widely-known facts (that you yourself are aware of) because sources haven't been cited to counter uncorroborated, now-discredited Feith memo/Weekly Standard propaganda. And most of all, it is patently disinformation to repeat a claim by an unidentified source when that claim has been disavowed.

It is patently disingenuous to rate the likelihood of an allegation as anything % when there is an unknown, uncorroborated source, without anything but a disavowal by the intelligence and defense services that collected it.

Wikipedia requires a far more critical filter than that. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"there is no other source that reported the alleged event" - true, in some cases. that is the nature of intelligence work, you do not always get a nice independent confirmation. "overwhelming preponderance to the contrary" - you're welcome to add that to this article, of course. the problem is that the absence of any information that X is true is not preponderance that not-X is true, even if you have really spent a lot of effort looked for information about X. "those who originally reported it accompanied or clarified the leaked allegations with disclaimers" - which ones? add them. "to claim the Czechs maintain Atta met in April 2001" - I have indeed looked for an official Czech denial or withdrawal of that claim, but I have not found one. This is the closest [7], and it is merely "doubt", not denial. Do you have an actual withdrawal or denial? "indicative of a pattern of involvement" - have I said that? "revert what are completely accurate, widely-known facts" - such as? "now-discredited Feith memo" - that's your opinion, I tend to think rather that the DIA and the CIA have a significant disagreement. "claim has been disavowed" - which one? ObsidianOrder 17:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't need niceties. An intelligence report can contain an item saying 'a secret informant reports that ObsidianOrder is a paid operative of the Erode Wikipedia Cabal run by Bozo the Clown and the now-bodysnatched Colonel Sanders', but such a data point does not constitute intelligence. It's a report. The experts cull such reports to those that can be proven, and actively search for such proof, to shore up their conclusions before they are made. The unique nature of this situation is that those attempting to make the case for war against Iraq used such uncorroborated reports, bypassing corroboration - and in the words of the director of Britain's MI6, "fixed the intelligence around the policy". By leaking all the datapoints, corroborated and not, one performs an act of disinformation. Re: the Czech retraction - it has been cited in the article's sources already, and it is not at all personal opinion that they have stated that their original conclusion was in all likelihood, incorrect. That is fact and I cannot believe you have been unable to find independent corroboration. And The CIA (Tenet) and the DIA (Pentagon) both publically addressed the Feith memo, in Congressional testimony and in a press release, calling it in both cases 'inaccurate', and stating that they did not support the conclusions made therein. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dang, you've blown my cover ;) The "experts" aren't all they're cranked up to be. Sorry, I prefer to figure things out for myself, and I think most readers would agree. "leaking all the datapoints" - that would be ideal, as it is we only have some, but all would certainly be preferable. "those that can be proven" - very rarely can anything be proven when it matters. "those attempting to make the case for war" - maybe, or maybe they just didn't have a lot of confidence in the intelligence evaluations coming from certain agencies. "I cannot believe you have been unable to find independent corroboration" - well, believe it, I could not find one from the Czech. Denials from US sources, certainly. Can you find one? ObsidianOrder 19:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in a simple search of my records, I found six different reports, from the NYTimes, Guardian, UPI, Associated Press, Newsweek and the Washington Post, describing the Czech retractions. And again, placing this 'challenge' here to provide known information to counter sketchy information is directly counter to the idea of Wikipedia. You should have done your own homework.

In addition, I don't even think you appreciate how appalling your statement "very rarely can anything be proven when it matters." is. A fundamental respect for fact (which cannot be balanced by allegations in the interests of balance) is core to Wikipedia, and is the first thing jettisoned in the creation and dissemination of disinformation. Based on your perception of the role of fact, and on your seeming inability/disinclination to remove spurious rumor and provide facts that might counter your premise, this article is propaganda. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so perhaps you can grace us with a reference to one of the six? Mind you, what I'm talking about is an official statement by a Czech source preferably of the same caliber as the ones which made the original announcement. "appalling statement" - no, I just have a higher standard for considering something "proven"; most of this does not meet it. "remove spurious rumor and provide facts" - again, that is entirely subjective - a neutral statement would be "remove claims (which RyanF considers wrong) and provide claims (which RyanF considers accurate)". Rumors are information from an unknown source (which this article does not contain, all sources are stated) and facts are verified information about something which has really happened (which this article contains few of, since insufficient information is available about many aspects of it to consider them facts). What fact is not provided? What "spurious rumor" is not removed? ObsidianOrder 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So, information that contradicts your premise must be 'official', but the allegations you brought here from your website can be from unnamed sources in leaked memos? And statements supporting linkage between Al-Qaeda and Iraq can be from unnamed sources, in leaked memos disavowed by the Directors of those intelligence and defense services, but statements that do not support your premise must all be of an 'equal' stature to prior claims? Just so I understand what you consider accurate and 'useful' information. Moreover, your personalization of this around my beliefs is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and does not bear on the objective establishment of fact. Fact is fact, and your 'higher standard' is the personal POV, not my request for corroboration. For references, I ask you to expend approximately 30 seconds on the web and come up with them yourself, to demonstrate that you are in fact interested in objective research that might contradict your premise. I have them, and can provide them, if you demonstrate you are in fact able to learn from them. The article is based largely on spurious rumors, often anonymous and discredited by the 'experts' whose professional opinions you selectively ignore in favor of your own, uninformed 'opinions', and I have already identified a number of them for you, so I will not go circular with this. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

csloat edits

I reverted some of your latest edits, here's the reasoning for each one...

1. "Some sources allege that several meetings between top Iraqi operatives and bin Laden took place, but these claims have been disputed" - the 1994 meetings are not disputed by anyone I know of. neither is the 1998 visit of an Al Qaeda envoy to Baghdad. the 1998 Zawahiri-Ramadan and Hijazi-bin Laden meetings are disputed, in particular Hijazi denies the latter. however, you can't say they're all disputed without citing a source. Daniel Benjamin, hardly the greatest supporter of an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection, says "the fact that meetings occurred has never been the issue - at least not among serious critics" [8].

   The edits I made did not say they were *all* disputed. The point is that many of the meetings are disputed and of the ones that are not, the general conclusion is that any meetings that did occur were inconclusive at best. Benjamin -- who is a far greater expert on these matters than Stephen Hayes or Doug Feith, who are the sources of many of these claims -- continues in the article you quote: "(There were more meetings with Iranian authorities, as well as more terrorists living in or transiting Iran, but that seems to interest neither Feith nor Hayes.) What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere." I think the Wikipedia entry should be clear in the introduction that claims of real Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation are bogus. If you'd prefer that was stated another way, fine, but what you've been doing is turning it around so it seems much more likely that there was cooperation.--csloat 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   "claims of real Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation are bogus" - um, that is about as POV as saying there is conclusive proof of cooperation ;) the status is indeterminate. you may think they're bogus, but the fact is that most "good" sources (incl. 9/11 commission, Benjamin, etc etc) are very careful not to make a definitive statement. Iran - yes, I think that is pretty well established, especially help with passports, and if I have a lot of time I might start such an article. ObsidianOrder 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   The status of these claims is not "indeterminate." The claims are bogus, as every expert who has looked at the evidence concluded. Whatever meetings there were, the issue of cooperation has been conclusively settled -- as conclusively as one can affirm a negative -- by the 911 Commission as well as by just about every intelligence agency on earth. The conclusions of these sources are clear, despite your claim that they avoid "definitive statements." You're twisting the burden of proof around, as Ryan and others have pointed out here. csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

2. "The defectors were inconsistent about a number of details, and most journalists and investigators have questioned their credibility. The camp has been discovered by U.S. Marines, but intelligence analysts do not believe it was used by Al-Qaeda." - what details? who has questioned the credibility of which specific defector? (out of the five, and just to nitpick one of them is a prisoner not defector). "intelligence analysts do not believe" - really, none of them do? umm, Duelfer? which intelligence analyst has said anything about this after the camp was captured? cite sources.

   Duelfer is not an intelligence analyst. The credibility of defectors came under question when they reported different things about the training and the plane. They were even inconsistent about what kind of plane it was, whether it was Russian or American. One of the defectors (Alami I think) was claiming to have worked there different amounts of time to different sources. When Seymour Hersh asked a former CIA official about whether the plane was used to train terrorists, the official was dismissive: "That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff. They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing."[9]

   We should add the Hersh quote. I personally think it's BS and just shows the CIA in a bad light, but hey. If you have a source for the Alami inconsistency I would love to add that as well. Re: the kind of plane, I'm not sure who started that confusion, it may have been Zeinab, but it any case that does not seem like a major inconsistency. Has anyone questioned their veracity based on that? (p.s. actually yes they have [10] I think Khodada got it right but I will check) ObsidianOrder 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   The Alami thing was in the Knight-Rider article I believe - I am too tired to check now but it is linked in the article. An American plane being mistaken for a Russian plane (by someone claiming to have trained there) is certainly enough of an inconsistency to call attention to the person making the claim. Iraqi defectors have not had a very good track record for honesty in general. I can't remember which article pointed out the plane inconsistency but it is one of the ones I linked to the original article so you can easily find it.csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

3. "speculation about meetings that may have taken place" - did take place, see #1
4. "concluded that such a meeting was improbable" (re the 1995-96 Iraqi explosives expert in Sudan story) - ok, but only about the second of these. also it's unclear about whether this was just an error about the time, or whether there was any part of the bin Laden operation in Sudan for a few months after he left.

   Read the full quote from the commission; it says the evidence of both meetings is "third hand." Such a meeting is quite improbable, frankly, and again, the point should be emphasized throughout this article that none of this amounted to a hill of beans. You keep trying to phrase things so it seems like partial evidence of a single meeting is all that is necessary to prove cooperation.--csloat 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   ok, so it was a third hand report. the 9/11 report does not particularly cast doubt on the 1995 meeting with salim, unless I'm reading it wrong. ObsidianOrder

   A third hand report is basically useless in this context. The 911 Report seems to me to dismiss both meetings. And again, the Commission was pretty clear about its conclusions.csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

5. "Inconsistencies in the stories of the defectors" - again, what inconsistencies? Khodada drew a map of the camp in 1998, at a minimum that proves he was there, regardless of whether you believe any of the rest of his story. I hope you're not gonna bring Sy Hersh's "anonymous sources" who blithely speculate that a plane wouldn't be useful for this type of training.

   See above re inconsistencies. Hersh's anonymous sources are credible; what is your rationale for doubting them. But if you don't like Hersh read the Benjamin article you linked to above. Just because one defector could draw a map does not mean everything else he said was accurate. We can change this to inconsistencies in the stories of some of the defectors if you like.--csloat 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   Rationale - well, it is Hersh, and he did say it is ok to lie in reporting ;) actually the reason to doubt them is that they are anonymous and sound like total idiots ;) ok, some of the defectors. ObsidianOrder

   I don't know what you're referring to but I imagine it is out of context - I find it hard to believe Hersh ever said it was ok to lie. The fact that the source is unnamed does not render them less credible, especially when they are saying things at odds with the administration's line. The "sound like total idiots" part is your judgement, and it is a poor one at that. What sounds idiotic here?csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

6. "One senior U.S. official said that they had found "nothing to substantiate"" - who? source for this?

   That quote is from this Knight-Rider piece. The official is unnamed. --csloat 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   ok, let's link that. this quote appears only in the Knight-Ridder piece, so it probably dates from around the same time, March 2004, which would put it at about a year after the capture of the camp. I'm guessing it's Ritter ;) ObsidianOrder 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

   I doubt that it's Ritter since Ritter is not really a "senior U.S. official." And, of course Ritter is at least as good a source on this issue as your buddy Duelfer, regardless of your baseless assumption that Ritter was bribed.csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

These need to be (at a minimum) better sourced and made less sweeping and more specific. ObsidianOrder 15:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

All of this could be better sourced - feel free to add the sources, or to call attention to where they are missing, rather than simply deleting everything that isn't linked to an article. As for "less sweeping" - I disagree. I think if anything the article should be more forceful about pointing out that it is the overwhelming conclusion of every serious analysis of the issue -- and by serious I mean Doug Feith and Stephen Hayes do not count -- that there were no meaningful links between Iraq and al Qaeda. As others have pointed out, there were far more meaningful links between Iran and al Qaeda, between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda, and even between the US and al Qaeda. (Ashcroft and Perle's direct support of MEK, for example, is evidence of far greater cooperation than anything in this timeline).--csloat 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, perhaps I should have looked for the sources instead of deleting. My apologies. By all means, there should be an Iran-Al-Qaeda article, who gets to do the honors? I think Feith is ok, I'm just getting the sense that CIA/FBI and DIA really don't agree on many things (and in my opinion DIA is the more reliable of the two). YMMV. ObsidianOrder 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Feith is a hack. The whole Team B OSP was a scam, as Karen Kwiatkowski pointed out, and every piece of information coming out of that office is highly suspect. These are untrained ideologues pretending to do "intelligence" work on raw data they have no experience with. This isn't DIA v. CIA. It's CIA v. OSP. And only one of them has a track record in intelligence analysis. The other is filled with people with a track record in distortion of intelligence. (Take a look some time at the Team B effort surrounding Ronald Reagan that tried to prove that the Soviets were behind Islamic terrorism. I believe Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz all were involved. Same kind of attempt to make an end run around intel experts to prove something with raw data that they didn't understand. They just had a gut feeling it was true, it was consistent with their ideology, so they tried to bend the facts to their ideology. They even wound up waving around charges against Soviets that CIA analysts knew were bogus because they were stories that they themselves had planted!)csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

How about an Afghanistan Al-Qaeda article for Christ's sake! Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:13, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Sure. It's not as obvious as you might think, for example the Taliban was Deobandi while bin Laden's followers tend to be Hanbali. How authority was divided is not very clear either. ObsidianOrder 18:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

How about we delete this article entirely and place it in Al-Qaeda under a subheading of "relationships with countries" ... cause why the hell do we really need Iran and Al-Qaeda, Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Your Mom and Al-Qaeda?--kizzle 18:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Although undoubtedly the right move, I would be shocked if the original poster did not fight that with every fibre of his being. I fear the only way to that would be thru a VfD. And how did you know about my Mom and Al Kayda? -- RyanFreisling @ 19:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Did your mom ever talk about Hachmed? That was me... ;) --kizzle 20:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

kizzle - the Al-Qaeda article is large enough. It should have a section about "relationships with countries" as you suggests which links to here. Since people have expressed considerable interest in this, I have decided I will start "Iran and Al-Qaeda" and "Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda". Stay tuned. ObsidianOrder 20:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely my point, I *don't* want these articles to be created when clearly there's a common link and a better way of organization. At the very least, it can be a daughter article to Al-Qaeda like Al-Qaeda known presence in foreign countries. --kizzle 20:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The comments you make above still do not justify any of the reverts you attempted. And your tactic now puts others in a position to provide corroboration that an allegation without corroboration did not occur. That is flawed logic, and as others have noted here, a form of disinformation. There are a number of officials who have gone on the record with exactly that comment, from Tenet to former cabinetmember Scowcroft, and others, and each of the cherrypicked points from your website have either been uncorroborated, disclaimed with counterevidence or disproven, by the officials who gathered and analyzed them. Those making the claims (like Cheney and Feith) should justify them better (and have never done so), that is not the responsibility of those describing them as unsubstantiated. That's the nature of logical proof. Your discounting of 'Hersh's anonymous sources' for the very same rationale that I am expressing here is quite ironic in this light.

This article needs exactly what you describe - to be better sourced and made less sweeping and more specific - not the disclaimers. Your logic is completely upside down. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Al Qaeda and Yer Mom

I support the idea of moving this info to an article on "al Qaeda and relations with other countries." For me the big issue is the "state sponsorship" school of thinking about al Qaeda, which has been thoroughly discredited by virtually all the experts on the topic. (No, Laurie Mylroie does not count as an "expert"). A big reason al Qaeda and the Islamist groups they inspire such as the Monotheism group are so dangerous is precisely because they operate outside of state apparatuses. They are a threat to states such as Iraq prior to 2003, which is why they are generally kept at bay by such states. That is not to say they don't take advantage of some people in some governments -- but claiming Saddam was somehow behind al Qaeda because someone in Mukhabarat had a meeting with someone once makes even less sense than claiming Bush was behind al Qaeda because Ashcroft and Perle gave money to and openly supported MEK -- we're talking open support here, not shadowy meetings between people who shun each other by light of day. Al Qaeda related groups function as networks, they don't need state sponsorship, and states (other than failed states, like Afghanistan pre-2001 and like what Iraq is fast becoming) tend to do what they can to disrupt and destroy such networks, or at least keep them at bay. Counterterrorism experts such as Benjamin and Gunaratna as well as the CIA's Michael Scheuer and of course Richard Clarke have all taken a very hard look at the "state sponsorship" theory and concluded that it is bogus. Benjamin even participated in an exercise that was meant to prove the opposite (that al Qaeda was supported by Iraq) and they couldn't do it. Perhaps all this belongs on yet another page, about the "state sponsorship" theory, but I think it would be useful to have these Iraq claims listed next to similar timelines with US connections to al Qaeda as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, and even Israel!

cheap shot: the only reason OO wants to work on an Iran-alQ article is because he's hoping Iran will be the location of America's next "cakewalk."  ;^) csloat 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, for America's next "cakewalk" I heard they were going to get representatives from all the middle-eastern countries, make them sing a song each week and America votes for the winner, whose country then promptly gets invaded. --kizzle 16:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed title

An editor created a new temple Template:TitleDisputed and added it to this article without comment on May 19. Since there has been no discussion on the title matter on this page in a week, the dispute seems to have settled down. There does not seem to be a consensus on this page for a title change. -Willmcw 21:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear concensus to me. --kizzle 22:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

That is a completely separate issue from noting that there is still a dispute. It one person disputes neutrality the NPOV template is appropriate and must remain, if 10+ people dispute a title the TitleDisputed template should be appropriate in the same way. zen master T 22:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Accept consensus; that's the Wiki way. You can't deface articles forever, and these kinds of templates are meant to be temporary. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

However, the template removed is the 'totallydisputed' one, not the title one. I have fixed this to reflect the issue: "Whether the title dispute is over" -- RyanFreisling @ 22:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, do you dispute the current title?

Jayjg, the wiki way is not about sweeping the existence of controversy under the rug. The title of this article is still very much disputed. The fact that pro status quo title folks refused to debate for 2 weeks is not evidence there is no dispute. zen master T 22:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The large majority who support this title hasn't refused to debate, we've just recognized that you have no new arguments. Please stop wasting even more time on a vote you lost. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is not about winning and losing, it should be about working towards true consensus. If your side chooses not to debate then the only thing we can do is warn third parties about the existence of controversy or a possible straying from neutrality. zen master T 22:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

True concensus doesn't mean every single individual is going to be happy. If that was true, every single page in Wikipedia would be disputed. --kizzle 22:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

But the point is to keep working towards consensus, not sweep the existence of controversy under the rug. There is a legitimate complaint about the neutrality of this article's title. zen master T 22:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's sweeping, but the dispute fizzled out. There was no consensus for change. If you have any new arguments to make then please do so. But we've discussed all the old ones already. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

No consensus for change is very different from consensus to remove a disputed header. There is clearly not consensus to remove the TitleDisputed template. zen master T 23:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you know there's no concensus to remove the TitleDisputed? I personally am for removing it. And concensus does not mean every single person is going to agree. Neither should it be just a simple majority. But the amount of people who agreed with this title change is overwhelmingly more than those who oppose (namely, you) --kizzle 23:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that there was a vote on this page a month ago, and the result was 6-1-1 to keep the repsent title. On that basis, there is a consensus in favor of the existing title. -Willmcw 04:02, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)