Talk:Henry Rowan
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Recent edits to lead and relating to warhead claim
editI became aware of this article through OTRS — Wikimedia received an email about this article which was then forwarded to the OTRS system. I made an independent assessment resulting in the recent edit.
Two issues were addressed:
- a descriptive word in the lead
- a sentence in the third paragraph alleging sale of equipment that “…improved the accuracy of nuclear warheads…”
I’ll address the second item first.
The sentence was supported by three references:[1][2][3]
References
The first discusses a sale of equipment to the Soviet Union that did occur. However, as is clearly noted in the article, while an investigation was undertaken by U.S. Customs and the FBI, no charges were brought. The equipment provided produces material that has both nonmilitary and possible military uses. However, it is only a supposition in the article that the material could be used for warheads. It is not a supported claim, and the government investigation resulting in no charges means we cannot reach a different conclusion.
The second reference is a discussion of a sale that did not occur. Enough said.
The third reference is a discussion of the same sale and some additional information — the sale did not occur either to Iraq or to China.
Thus, we have three references, two of which talk about sales that did not occur in one of which talks about a sale that did occur but no conclusion that supports the original sentence in the article.
Returning to the first item, there was no reference attached to the term “war profiteer”. This is not strictly required if the term is adequately supported in the remainder of the article. However, noting that the term is a loaded term, it requires extraordinary support (ideally, an exact use of the term in a reference). Even if the sentence recently removed were valid it would still be a stretch to use the term, but given that the recently remove sentence isn’t even supportable there is no validity for the term so I have removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)